Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: stevusmagnus on March 31, 2010, 06:01:39 PM
-
-
-
I think one of the single most compelling non-doctrinal proofs of a very deep and dark intellectual and spiritual perversion is the treatment of traditional catholics versus the treatment given to those who practice all sorts of false religions. The casual N.O. attendee will look with suspicion or even scorn at the traditional Catholic whereas they reserve nothing but gushing praise and admiration for the Buddhist who "prays" for world peace for example. The traditional Catholic is condescendingly pitied while the Muslim is thought to be a "man of God." I have even heard of "catholic" schools hiring non-catholics while firing traditional catholics.
Additionally, I would say that it is precisely this formal "worldliness" that has totally darkened and extinguished the Gifts of the Holy Ghost in the Bishops' minds. It is this rapproachment with the world that strangles the life out of the Church like no other force ever seen since it has the same effects of heresy and schism, but lacks propositional identity. If one is not careful, the mere tolerance of this world-naturalism, coupled with a sentimentality that degenerates even further, or through regular association, one will almost certainly become infected as well. This is no mere common worldiness, this is a kind of spirit that changes "St. John's Catholic Church" into "St. John's Catholic Church and Community Center" thereby reorienting religion itself without ever affirming even one heretical proposition.
-
I've often thought of writing a letter of warning to the local bishop, but since he's been infected by that poisonous worldly spirit that so blinds the mind it would be a futile act. Since he was just recently installed here, he did a local news interview. It was nothing but smiles and glee. During the interview he stated that the diocese was in "great shape." This was a display of a profound, impenetrable blindness to true spiritual good. I would liken this blindness to that which befell the Jєωs at the first coming of Jesus Christ. One cannot even begin to comprehend the irrationality of such blindness. If I were to write a letter to such a man, it would simply be unintelligible.
-
I should also add that anyone of us could just as easily be blinded like this as well. If we are not faithful to God Himself we too will lose our way. The spirit of the world is one of the greatest enemies of faith.
-
Caminus said:
"... This is a kind of spirit that changes "St. John's Catholic Church" into "St. John's Catholic Church and Community Center" thereby reorienting religion itself without ever affirming even one heretical proposition.
What you're describing is actually the Church under Benedict XV-Pius XI-Pius XII, assuming NFP is not a heresy. That is when a sort of "socialistic" Catholicism began to take root, with a distinct anti-reactionary, pro-democratic tenor. In some places, namely America, the Church was already even ecuмenical ( but it has almost always been that way here, as the American Church was the precursor to Vatican II ).
Vatican II expanded on that and taught heresies: that other religions are the means of salvation, that the Church only subsists in the Catholic Church, that humans have the natural right to religious freedom. More heresies were taught later.
-
I think one of the single most compelling non-doctrinal proofs of a very deep and dark intellectual and spiritual perversion is the treatment of traditional catholics versus the treatment given to those who practice all sorts of false religions.
Liberty for all except for the enemies of liberty.
I posted a list of neo-Catholic paradoxes some time ago:
You're schismatic if you think it's wrong to join in prayer with schismatics.
I've run into maybe two or three "sincere" religious libertarians during my entire life, those who felt it was OK to be a Traditional Catholic based on the principles of religious liberty. But the rest are all hypocrites.
-
Vatican II expanded on that and taught heresies: that other religions are the means of salvation, that the Church only subsists in the Catholic Church, that humans have the natural right to religious freedom. More heresies were taught later.
Vatican II was a lot more subtle on the first point; it said that elements of the (Catholic) Church exist in other religions, elements that can be salvific. So, for instance, it's actually true that false religions can have valid baptism, which can be salvific (e.g., in the case of a child of Protestants who's baptized and dies before reaching the age of reason). According to V2, these "elements" properly belong to the Church. That "elements" terminology sounds very gnostic and was lifted from the writings of Yves Congar.
As for the subsistence ecclesiology and religious liberty, those are the natural consequences of EENS-denial. EENS-denial is THE FUNDAMENTAL V2 heresy--something to which Traditional Catholics have become completely "blinded".
-
I should also add that anyone of us could just as easily be blinded like this as well.
Tu dixisti -- (cf. EENS).
-
:rolleyes:
-
That's pretty bold of you, even using the sacred words of our Lord Jesus Christ. I wonder why then you fear to address my complaints and objections to your opinions? You and Mike wish to link this crisis to two separate, perfectly catholic doctrines, for some reason you've fixated on this alleged causal relation, a relation that exists only in your minds. I would strongly suggest you reflect further on true causes of this crisis that don't involve impugning centuries of dogmatic and moral teaching.
-
Caminus,
You are right on as usual. It is the frog in pot analogy. It's so overused because it is true. Things that are accepted today in NO Churches would have horrified these SAME people 50 years ago. Their Catholic sensibility was weakened bit by bit until female dancers carrying incense at the Mahony fest is either accepted or at the least disliked but accepted. This process of erosion only goes in one direction. It is sad.
I've seen older Catholics who grew up Pre-VCII and who are socially and morally conservative slowly accept ridiculous multiculturalism such as members of some Indian tribe leading the way of the cross with the lead Indian ( sporting pony tail) putting his twist on the way of the cross. Their reaction? Well, I don't have anything wrong with Indians do you? I suppose it is ok if they say it.
They have been trained by fear to not question anything if a minority group is involved. It has been treated as a sacrilege and equated to burning crosses in our culture for 40 years and counting. Thus these scoundrels introduce all sorts of ridiculous novelty preying on the good nature and charity of Catholics to give them cover.
Today's Catholic has lost a critical thinking. WHY exactly are Indian tribes being asked to say the way of the cross? Why not the priest? Why not the traditional readings? Why do they need to be altered to reflect the "experiences" of different cultures?
These liberals are demonic in their subtle brainwash. After all, they will exclaim, how dare you question these oppressed peoples? You are a racist and un-Catholic. All the while they damn well know that the underhanded goal of it all is to reinforce white guilt, push the idea of novelty as progressive and good, imply the traditional way of the cross is flawed and intolerant, and inject the idea that race has a place everywhere and we should see through a racial prism.
And this isn't even getting to the horrendous Masses, group penance services, lib conferences, etc.
-
Today's Catholic has lost a critical thinking. WHY exactly are Indian tribes being asked to say the way of the cross? Why not the priest? Why not the traditional readings? Why do they need to be altered to reflect the "experiences" of different cultures?
Indeed, it is a loss of spiritual discernment, the ability, based upon scripture and tradition to discern right from wrong, truth from error.
-
Getting back to the original article, it is much needed in our day and age.
The most critical flaw in the Pre-VCII Church was the near idolization of the Pope and clergy. At the time it seemed benign and was even mistaken for merely a strong reverential respect and loyalty that was admirable. The error was diguised because the Popes and a vast majority of the clergy of the time were orthodox and at times heroic.
Then came the liberal/ modernist infestation of the clergy. This misguided idolization of them was then used against the faithful to SILENCE them as all sorts of error and sacrilege took place.
So today we have Bishop and Cardinal and Priest wolves in sheeps' clothing and we have a lot of Neo-Caths quietly and privately disapproving, but scrupulously believing it would be a sin to call out the actions of these clergy for what they are. A perfect trick of the devil.
We have priests and Bishops desecrating their offices yet the only sin is if a Catholic actually speaks out against them. It is then the lay Catholic who is supposedly "descrating" the office by pointing out the Emporer has no clothes!
Obviously we are not talking about rash judgment of interior disposition as the article points out. But some would go so far as to ban any legitimate and just criticism of the most heinous sacrilege and poison because the purveyor of poison is wearing a collar.
Silence in this case is not a sign of a healthy respect for the clergy but of cowardice and neglect of duty.
In the military, do you honor the rank of a general if you keep silent as he abuses his authority? The proposition is ridiculous when used in any other context. These snakes use " respect for priests " in order to do their dirty work and silence us out of fear in the process. It really is dispicable. One wonders how concerned they are for the dignity of the priesthood as they daily work to destroy the very same priesthood by their actions.
-
I don't recall the pope being idolized in the pre-VII days. The average in the pew Catholic never read an encyclical. We rarely saw a picture of him. Nor did we idolize our priests and religious. We put them on a pedestal and held them to a high standard, and rightly so, but idolize them? Like the CAF crowd does today? No.
The Church is in big trouble with this JPII generation. They are a dangerous bunch. They stick their heads in the sand. Facts mean nothing to them. The pope is the pope is the pope and no matter what he says, writes or does, is 100% orthodox because he is the pope! And if you dare to criticize, you're less than catholic. They are also strangely pharisaical - a real letter of the law group. And the saddest and worst of it is their animosity for the pre-VII Church and Faith. Not all, but too many.
-
Alexandria,
Good distinction. Perhaps the Neo-Caths took the pedestal and turned it into a rock stage ( ala JPII) etc.
My point was more that a decent amount of Pre-VCII Catholics after VCI ,out of very well meaning motives, had a sense of obedience to the clergy that was almost absolute. And before VCII that obedience served them well and the clergy deserved it.
But the obedience "error by excess" proved to be their undoing when they excessively obeyed orders that destroyed faith because they came from clerics. Only the devil could be so ingenious.
Fr. LeFloc (ABL's seminary professor) warned that an overzealous interpretation of VCI (everything the Pope says we follow) would lead to problems. He was right.
-
Quite right, Stevus. And obviously very few have learned from our mistake.
-
Yeah, there is something off about the timing of the dogma of papal infallibility. I don't disagree with it, don't tar me with that brush, but it was dangerous to make it a dogma that the Pope was infallible at a time when he was in a very precarious position. I mean, Pius IX was a true prisoner in the Vatican -- all his lands had been removed from him by the government and he was holed up in the Vatican, literally, never leaving it! Defining the dogma of infallibility must have been a spiritual power grab by the Pope who really was having his temporal power, at least, stripped from him.
I read in Tumultuous Times by the Radecki Bros. at CMRI that there was a volley of lightning and thunder when infallibility was approved. That always made me wonder -- "Does this mean God is an Old Catholic? Did he disapprove?" Now I realize that, if this was a sign, it was a sign that anticipated Vatican II and how people would use infallibility as a reason to trust the Pope in all things, even when he's a heretic.
I must say, everyone should read about the limits of infallibility. Sedes ( though I number myself among them ) are the WORST when it comes to overemphasizing the power of the Pope -- many of us believe everything the Pope says or does is infallible.
Stevusmagnus said:
And before VCII that obedience served them well and the clergy deserved it.
Not sure about that. It's not like the pre-VII clergy just magically was purged and up sprouted the post-VII clergy. It is more continuous than people like to believe.
For instance, Pius XI went out of his way to acclaim, elevate and praise the young Achille Lienart, making him a bishop and then cardinal at an extremely young age. As everyone knows, Lienart was later one of the most progressive prelates at Vatican II ( and also famous for having ordained and consecrated Abp. Lefebvre, how's that for paranoia? ) He even wrote him a famous personal letter. Lienart was showing his spots way back in the 30's, being friendly with a socialist politician and very active in that whole "Catholic social justice" and labor-union movement which most people speculate is what actually won him the favor of the ominously pro-democracy, anti-reactionary Pius XI. Remember, this was the strange time of the "worker priest." Lienart was also involved in a big strike against a factory owner who apparently was Catholic and treated his workers comparatively well!
I don't know the whole story there -- it's on my to-do list of things to research. All I know is that the outlines of all of this, along with the Cristero debacle, does not speak at all well of Pius XI. There is just an increasingly socialistic undertone starting from Leo XIII as the Church began its fateful blend with ʝʊdɛօ-Masonry, which was probably loaning it necessary funds to stay afloat. That is why I believe that the Church should have gone underground in the late 19th century, and that this was the time when he should have actually given up his secular power. I'm not saying that the Pope should have no secular power, as that would be heresy -- I'm saying he shouldn't try to have it when the Jєωs are paying him and thus control him. I think we all know the results of that.
It's hard to say if the secret societies already had the Pope at the time of Leo XIII, or at least his little finger. It makes you wonder when the Pope is talking about the state intervening for the rights of the worker and such. It's possible the Popes were just trying to make the best of a bad situation by trying to get the state to intervene when necessary, knowing that the workers were about to be crushed by monopolies. But the state is not the friend of the workers either, as these Popes should have known. It would have made more sense to prepare people for hard times, to tell them who owned the state, and who owned the monopolies, and to have explained to them that they should be very tight with their money and not trust the government.
Am I the only one who wonders why the Popes never really filled us in on the nature of who was running these democracies? Why did they not tell us where all of this was going? Pius X did talk about a One-World Government, but elsewhere, in Notre Charge Apostolique, he actually said "The advent of universal democracy is of no concern to the action of the Church in the world"! There is a comment that is surely not infallible! I know that it can be defended by saying that democracy in the abstract, as a political system, doesn't affect the action of the Church -- but we're not in the abstract, are we? This is reality, and the reality is that ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic democracy is very much a problem for the Church. This is what enrages me about all the Popes beginning from Benedict XV, how they always spoke of democracy in the abstract, as if we weren't in a specific kind of evil democracy that people needed to be warned about.
I believe the Church has been at least partially bought off since Pius IX, but that the bounds of infallibility weren't crossed until Pius XII. I am definitely not one of those who are nostalgic for some belle epoque that never was. I am nostalgic for the belle epoque yet to come when this pustule known as Vatican II finally bursts, even if it takes the Chastisement to do it.
-
Raoul,
Of course I'm speaking in generalities. What I mean is your average Joe priest in the US Pre-VCII was orthodox and so were almost all the Bishops. If you remember, the liberal Bishops were from northern Europe and some Bishops at the council were orthodox but relying heavily on liberal pareti.
Yes there was a 5th column of modernist clergy, but they were suppressed in the US and had to at least tow the orthodox line in the pulpit or be disciplined.
I've thought about VCI as well, but I just look at the fruits of the Old Catholics and you can see clearly that VCI was infallible.
I think if infallibility would not have been declared things would have went to Hell a lot sooner. The libs would have fractured the Church with a weakened Pope and ran wild. Infallibility delayed them till 1963.
Look at what libs go after. They went for no infallibility and then collegiality. A weakened Pope is what they need. Look at the Pope today. He is ignored and libs do what they want with impunity.
Satan has played his hand the best he could have. The Pope is weak but still has the keys and is prevented from binding the Church to heresy by God. The best the devil can do is to minimize this infallibility to where the Pope never uses it and has theoretical power that is never practically used.