That's what YOU said. I get : : : : :sigh: : : : so tired of responding to it!
Desite all the head-butting, we don't seem to be making much impression on each others' obtuseness, so maybe we'd better just shake hooves and call it a day?
Posted on 07/14/2014 11:38:21 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
Fr. Dwight Longenecker, posting on his“Standing on my Head” blog (appropriately named given the frequency with which pontifications seem to flow so freely from his other end), recently suggested that traditionalists (aka Catholics) are “getting old.” Obviously, he’s never been to a “traditionalist” gathering to witness the overwhelming presence of young, often quite large, families.
“Not only are they dying out,” he wrote, “but their ideas are dying out.”
It isn’t immediately clear what “ideas” he has in mind, but presumably he is speaking of such notions as the Social Kingship of Christ as taught with such stunning clarity by Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas, the reality of Christian unity as taught by this same Roman Pontiff in Mortalium Animos, and last but not least, the Mass of all Ages, the devotees of which he has castigated as unstable for daring to drive considerable distances to assist at such a liturgy.
Fr. Longenecker went on to opine:
Fifty years after the revolution of the Second Vatican Council we are moving on from the tensions it created. Those tensions existed because Catholics kept comparing the pre-Vatican II church to the post-Vatican II church. The ones who did this most were the folks who went through the Vatican II revolution … Everything was viewed through that lens. Well, at least we agree on one thing; the Second Vatican Council was a revolution.
Where I and every other reasonably well-formed Catholic parts company with Fr. Longenecker is his preposterous assertion that those who cannot help but draw comparisons between Catholic life before Vatican II and the bitter realities of the present crisis are necessarily “the folks who went through the Vatican II revolution,” and they are the reason tensions exist over the Council.
Does Fr. Longenecker believe that to be Catholic, no matter one’s age or personal experience, is to view everything through the lens of all that preceded us?
Does he hold the firm conviction that ours is the Faith that comes to us from the Apostles; not just the faith of the most recent “pastoral exercise” or the currently reigning pope?
Does he fully embrace the reality that this faith is immutable; may never be believed to be different, and may never be understood in any other way?
Apparently not, which actually makes perfect sense if you stop to consider his background:
Brought up as an Evangelical. Dwight Longenecker graduated from fundamentalist Bob Jones University. While there he became an Anglican and after graduation went to Oxford to train as an Anglican priest. After serving for ten years as an Anglican priest he converted to the Catholic faith with his wife and family. Eventually he returned to the United States to be ordained as a Catholic priest under the special provision from Rome for married former Anglican clergy. (Amazon.com bio) Is it just me or does there seem to be something missing from this curriculum vitae; namely, any kind of training in Catholic theology and protestant deprogramming?
In any case, I suspect, and Fr. Longenecker himself may very well admit, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in Hell he would have swum the Tiber if awaiting him on the other shore was the “pre-Vatican II church” circa all the way back to 1958.
This raises yet another question: Did Fr. Longenecker convert to the Catholic faith whole and entire, or did he convert to some protestantized (read: distorted) conception of the same?
Clearly, it is the latter. Remember what he said:
Fifty years after the revolution of the Second Vatican Council we are moving on from the tensions it created. You see, only the protestant mind can conceive of a “revolution” in the Church in such terms; as if the revolution isn’t a problem in and of itself, but only the tensions created by the recalcitrant few who just can’t seem to let go.
Indeed, it may well be that the vast majority of converts over the last fifty years, priest or otherwise, more properly converted to a protestantized conception of “Church” and not necessarily to the Faith in its fullness.
It’s not necessarily their fault.
Think about it: One who embraces with gusto every word that has come forth from the mouths of the last five popes would have at least one foot in Protestantism. Obviously, Fr. Longenecker does, and this even as he stands on his head.
| "Sedevacantists believe that there is at present a vacancy of the Holy See that began with John XXIII (1958–63) or at latest with Paul VI (1963–78), who, they say, espoused the heresy of Modernism and otherwise denied solemnly defined Catholic dogmas and so became heretics. ... "Sedevacantism" as a term in English appears to date from the 1980s, though the movement itself is older. Sedevacantism owes its origins to the rejection of the theological and disciplinary changes implemented following the Second Vatican Council (1962–65). Sedevacantists reject this Council, on the basis of its documents on ecumenism and religious liberty, among others, which they see as contradicting the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church and as denying the unique mission of Catholicism as the one true religion, outside of which there is no salvation. They also say that new disciplinary norms, such as the Mass of Paul VI, promulgated on April 3, 1969, undermine or conflict with the historical Catholic faith and are deemed heresies. They conclude, on the basis of their rejection of the revised Mass rite and of postconciliar Church teaching as false, that the popes involved are false also. This is a minority position among traditionalist Catholics and a highly divisive one, so that many who hold it prefer to say nothing of their view." |
You previous comments on this thread shows that you agree with most or all of this. Where do you differ?
No, I’m just trying to figure out which you are. I would not, I hope, abuse you for your abandonment of popery.
I'm still interested in hearing a sedevacantist theory on how to "unvacate" the Holy See.
I do want to ask this question about the section you selected: do you think the existence of division and separation, and the mixtures of truth and error found both in individuals and in ecclesial communities, falls outside of God's plan of salvation? That it takes Him by surprise Who wills that no one be lost, but that all people be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth?
Do you think that truth, in whoever's mouth and wherever found, has any source except the Holy Spirit? Do you think that exploring "if and in what way the historical figures and positive elements of these religions may fall within the divine plan of salvation" is futile because God has no use for these "positive elements" -- like faith and prayer and moral law and Baptism and Scripture -- found outside the bounds of the visible Catholic Church? ? Or do you think God can achieve His end wherever His truth may reach?
To think that God has no plan --- no clue --- seems like despair to me.
Hey, I used to be a Protestant too. Looks like he and I have something in common.
My "hatred" (as you chose to describe it) is entirely because, in order to "prove" he's a "real Catholic," he has accepted higher criticism and evolutionism. That the world's "oldest," "truest," and "most un-changing" church insists on rejecting Genesis while accepting every other miracle that comes down the pike is not logical or rational. It can come only from a profound sociological prejudice against the community most closely associated with that belief--rural white Americans (primarily from the Southeast).
You seem to have made the same journey. I'm afraid that your need to accept evolution and higher criticism in order to prove you're a "real Catholic" is just more evidence of that sickening prejudice. You can wave Jefferson Davis around all you want, but your rejection of Genesis 1-11 as actual history illustrates that all Catholics are expected to do so as well. But then, I found that out the hard way myself. The only difference in my case was, I didn't sell out.
"To think that God has no plan --- no clue --- seems like despair to me."
More than despair, a flat denial of :
Romans 8:28 We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.
Those who are called will find Him even if all they're exposed to is the watered down Truth found in modern day Protestantism.
a profound sociological prejudice against the community most closely associated with that belief--rural white Americans (primarily from the Southeast)."
The 1st century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria wrote that it would be erroneous to insist that creation happened in six days or in any determinate amount of time.
Augustine of Hippo (300's AD) held that everything in the universe was created by God in the same instant, and not in six literal 24-hour days. He said that the Genesis six-day structure of creation represents a logical and narrative framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way.
That can only come from their profound sociological prejudice against southern white Americans?
#87
Sedevacantism is apostasy.
...ah yes, apostasy...that which can be anything anyone particular person wishes it to be...the sedevacantist believes the Seat of Peter to be empty; I believe many of its occupants to be empty headed...the sedes think the post conciliar Church to be in error and bereft of the Holy Spirit’s guidance; I believe the post conciliar Church to be foolish and idiotic for falling victim to the glitz and glamour of the secular world...who is the apostate, and who is not...
...many in my parish, upon hearing that I consider the Church capable of idiocy, would think me an apostate (they’ve already heard my observations that our building looks like a public library, and that our music seems aimed at a kindegarten class), yet I simply state what I wholeheartedly believe, in full knowledge of what I am saying...do not the sedes believe what they believe just as fully...?
...paraphrasing someone we all know ‘Who am I (or you, or anyone else) to judge?...
I’m still interested in hearing a sedevacantist theory on how to “unvacate” the Holy See.
...I would think it rather obvious that they would require that the Holy See reject the Second Vatican Council, and abrogate its teachings...but of course how likely is that...?
...actually, VatII is nothing more than a slow moving target, something concrete upon which to attach blame...as I said before, the real fault lies with the Church itself, and its utter vapidity in its headstrong decision to jettison its Deposit of Tradition overnight, and replace it with pablum designed to make its laity fat, dumb and happy (and perpetually generous with its diocesan donations...
Causing Apoplectic shock in others does not an apostate make.
I have to be careful since I'm still very new to Catholicism so I know the above due to having asked my confessor whether someone was right when they called me apostate while we were discussing Pope Francis.
Let's say that happened, who then would be pope?
There are very few priests around that were ordained prior to VCII, I don't believe there are any bishops alive who were consecrated prior to VCII and certainly no cardinals.
How would the sedevacantists propose to rebuild the Church? A schism retains at least semi-valid hierarchy; sedevacantism is not schismatic, it is a dangerous apostasy.
Augustine of Hippo (300's AD) held that everything in the universe was created by God in the same instant, and not in six literal 24-hour days. He said that the Genesis six-day structure of creation represents a logical and narrative framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way.
That can only come from their profound sociological prejudice against southern white Americans?
::Sigh:: I am so tired of this.
Despite my ethnicity as a white rural Southerner making me congenitally retarded, I am quite familiar with Philo (a Hellenist outside the Jewish mainstream) and Augustine (at least you had the decency not to claim that he was an evolutionist).
What I am talking about is the here and now. And in the here and now the Catholic Church has all but declared both evolution and higher Biblical criticism "dogmas of the faith." They are certainly stressed much more than actual dogmas are.
The fact is that the contemporary Catholic Church has been at war with the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 for as long as the past hundred years. All Catholic media promote evolution and attack creationism and creationists. Statements by American bishops do the same. Furthermore, look at the number of Fundamentalist converts to Catholicism who have adopted evolution because they get the message.
Sorry, but evolution is as Catholic as Mary and rosary beads. Catholic children are taught evolution and higher criticism in Catholic schools and in catechisms. And if a creationist converts to Catholicism he is subjected to terrific pressure to cave in (because creationism is a sign of Protestantism don'tya know, and goodness knows despite Vatican II there are still some Protestant things simply will not put up with).
I was a Fundamentalist creationist who converted to Catholicism. I had to make a decision. Rather than sell out, I got. And aren't you glad I did? I'm no longer an embarrassment to good Catholics like yourself with my silly, ignorant "anti-science." Of course now I have to go to hell (wait a minute . . . shouldn't Catholics reject hell because those Bible-thumping snake-handlers believe in it so much?). It's so strange . . . believe in evolution or be damned. Sounds almost like a paradox to one from my disadvantaged background.
I wonder what "good Catholics" would have to say about "science" if any scientist anywhere ever had the 'ovnayim to tell them what science says about their precious resurrection, virgin birth, or transubstantiation???
most excellent post!
It's all to do with whether the Magisterium of the Church requires a "Hermeneutic of Continuity" applied to the actual documents of Vatican II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Encyclicals, Apostolic Letters, and APostolic Exhortations of Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis; whether the Novus Ordo Mass is valid, whether the Sacraments are valid, and whether you can still be a Catholic in the Catholic Church.
Sedevacantism denies all of the above.
I'm looking for a definition, and a clarification of "OK, is this your position, or not?"
It seems unexpectedly difficult to get a declarative sentence which amounts to "Yes" or "No."
What did you say that made somebody call you an apostate?
That's what YOU said. I get : : : : :sigh: : : : so tired of responding to it!
Desite all the head-butting, we don't seem to be making much impression on each others' obtuseness, so maybe we'd better just shake hooves and call it a day?
The Catholic Church does not reject Genesis.
The Catholic Church does say we have no way of knowing how long ago Genesis happened....
Fundamentalists often make it a test of Christian orthodoxy to believe that the world was created in six 24-hour days and that no other interpretations of Genesis 1 are possible. They claim that until recently this view of Genesis was the only acceptable one—indeed, the only one there was.
The writings of the Fathers, who were much closer than we are in time and culture to the original audience of Genesis, show that this was not the case. There was wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days; others argued for a much longer, indefinite period. Those who took the latter view appealed to the fact “that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet. 3:8; cf. Ps. 90:4), that light was created on the first day, but the sun was not created till the fourth day (Gen. 1:3, 16), and that Adam was told he would die the same “day” as he ate of the tree, yet he lived to be 930 years old (Gen. 2:17, 5:5).
Catholics are at liberty to believe that creation took a few days or a much longer period, according to how they see the evidence, and subject to any future judgment of the Church (Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis 36–37). They need not be hostile to modern cosmology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “[M]any scientific studies . . . have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life forms, and the appearance of man. These studies invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator” (CCC 283). Still, science has its limits (CCC 284, 2293–4). The following quotations from the Fathers show how widely divergent early Christian views were.
Justin Martyr
“For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years [Gen. 5:5]. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression ‘The day of the Lord is a thousand years’ [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 81 [A.D. 155]).
Theophilus of Antioch
“On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth come from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it” (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).
“All the years from the creation of the world [to Theophilus’ day] amount to a total of 5,698 years and the odd months and days. . . . [I]f even a chronological error has been committed by us, for example, of 50 or 100 or even 200 years, yet [there have] not [been] the thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written. And perhaps our knowledge of the whole number of the years is not quite accurate, because the odd months and days are not set down in the sacred books” (ibid., 3:28–29).
Irenaeus
“And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since ‘a day of the Lord is a thousand years,’ he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin” (Against Heresies 5:23:2 [A.D. 189]).
Clement of Alexandria
“And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son” (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).
Origen
“For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally” (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).
“The text said that ‘there was evening and there was morning’; it did not say ‘the first day,’ but said ‘one day.’ It is because there was not yet time before the world existed. But time begins to exist with the following days” (Homilies on Genesis [A.D. 234]).
“And since he [the pagan Celsus] makes the statements about the ‘days of creation’ ground of accusation—as if he understood them clearly and correctly, some of which elapsed before the creation of light and heaven, the sun and moon and stars, and some of them after the creation of these we shall only make this observation, that Moses must have forgotten that he had said a little before ‘that in six days the creation of the world had been finished’ and that in consequence of this act of forgetfulness he subjoins to these words the following: ‘This is the book of the creation of man in the day when God made the heaven and the earth [Gen. 2:4]’” (Against Celsus 6:51 [A.D. 248]).
“And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day . . . and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth . . . we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world” (ibid., 6:60).
“For he [the pagan Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God, which follows the completion of the world’s creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep the festival with God who have done all their work in their six days” (ibid., 6:61).
Cyprian
“The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years” (Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250]).
Victorinus
“God produced the entire mass for the adornment of his majesty in six days. On the seventh day, he consecrated it with a blessing” (On the Creation of the World [A.D. 280]).
Lactantius
“Therefore let the philosophers, who enumerate thousands of ages from the beginning of the world, know that the six-thousandth year is not yet complete. . . . Therefore, since all the works of God were completed in six days, the world must continue in its present state through six ages, that is, six thousand years. For the great day of God is limited by a circle of a thousand years, as the prophet shows, who says, ‘In thy sight, O Lord, a thousand years are as one day [Ps. 90:4]’” (Divine Institutes 7:14 [A.D. 307]).
Basil The Great
“‘And there was evening and morning, one day.’ Why did he say ‘one’ and not ‘first’? . . . He said ‘one’ because he was defining the measure of day and night . . . since twenty-four hours fill up the interval of one day” (The Six Days Work 1:1–2 [A.D. 370]).
Ambrose of Milan
“Scripture established a law that twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent. . . . The nights in this reckoning are considered to be component parts of the days that are counted. Therefore, just as there is a single revolution of time, so there is but one day. There are many who call even a week one day, because it returns to itself, just as one day does, and one might say seven times revolves back on itself” (Hexaemeron [A.D. 393]).
Augustine
“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).
“With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation” (ibid., 2:9).
“Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them” (ibid., 4:27).
“[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar” (ibid., 5:2).
“For in these days [of creation] the morning and evening are counted until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were is extremely difficult or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!” (The City of God 11:6 [A.D. 419]).
“We see that our ordinary days have no evening but by the setting [of the sun] and no morning but by the rising of the sun, but the first three days of all were passed without sun, since it is reported to have been made on the fourth day. And first of all, indeed, light was made by the word of God, and God, we read, separated it from the darkness and called the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’; but what kind of light that was, and by what periodic movement it made evening and morning, is beyond the reach of our senses; neither can we understand how it was and yet must unhesitatingly believe it” (ibid., 11:7).
“They [pagans] are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of [man as] many thousands of years, though reckoning by the sacred writings we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed” (ibid., 12:10).
I think VII has been deliberately misrepresented to serve as a useful decoy.
Read the documents. From what I've waded through it seems a few ambiguous things need clarified in keeping with Traditional Church Teaching rather than being interpreted by a small group of Bishops and Cardinals to suit themselves the way Protestants all "unerringly" interpret Scripture to suit their Self. Other than a few documents, though, everything is clearly a restatement of Traditional teaching with some clarifications and expansions on the original but no divergence.
I made a list of the few documents that seem to be deliberately vague and can't find it on disk at the moment but those few seem to be the nub of the problem IMHO. There's so much in the other documents that is a clear reaffirmation of Traditional Catholicism unless you're determined to read it otherwise that I was just dumbfounded over how the "Spirit of Vatican II" ever managed to get traction.
Now I realize how few people would bother with an inter-library loan when there was no Internet to get a copy and have been told the vast majority of folks in the sixties just accepted whatever their Parish Father and Bishop told them anyway without giving it any thought. When the trend became clear, a lot of people figured that if that's where things were headed, "why be the last one out the door". People who decide to give up can always come up with a good excuse for leaving without calling it giving up.
A good number of Bishops and a few Cardinals were intent on heading toward a separate American Church much more like Protestantism and they met precious little resistance from the majority who preferred to just keep their heads down is the way I see it. What we're living with now is the heresy of Americanism in full flower and not at all the "phantom" heresy I've heard it called.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.