 |
| Cardinals George Pell and Raymond Burke |
Cardinal Pell and Cardinal Burke joined forces last year with three other cardinals when they wrote a book defending against Cardinal Walter Kasper's call for communion to the divorced and remarried.
Dr. Rao is a prime example of why it is so easy to get sucked into the message of radical traditionalism. Dr. Rao is no kook. He is a highly educated and highly intelligent individual. He speaks to the real issues of our time. And he seems to give real answers to the problems.
Except that he doesn't.
In his article, Dr. Rao explains his position regarding the post-conciliar Church. He had just finished a pilgrimage with the Remnant Newspaper in France. Notice how he describes what he sees as the current state of the Catholic Church:
 |
| Dr. John Rao Credit: |
Dr. Rao published these letters from Cardinal Pell and Cardinal Burke in an article he wrote for The Remnant Newspaper [HERE], a far right publication which denounces Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass, and is highly critical of Pope Francis. The editor of the Remnant Newspaper, Michael Matt, has called Pope Francis, "the worst Pope ever."
In his article, Dr. Rao explains his position regarding the post-conciliar Church. He had just finished a pilgrimage with the Remnant Newspaper in France. Notice how he describes what he sees as the current state of the Catholic Church:
The direct road to a more complete connection to God that is confirmed so clearly every year along the path to Chartres stands in sharp contrast to that twisted highway into a Twilight Zone of ever more murky confusion regarding things divine down which the “mainstream” Church has guided the average pilgrim soul for the last half century. Believers who have taken this second path are now at a truly mystifying dead end where everything their Faith once taught them seems to be thrown into doubt. Their connection with Catholic Truth and what it is that this Truth demands of them as individuals and social beings has become about as clear and firm as that of blind men hanging from a precipice by the tips of their fingers.He feels that the post-conciliar Catholic Church has led the average believer to doubt everything they had once believed, and we are now like " blind men hanging from a precipice by the tips of their fingers."
Dr. Rao claims that he and other "real" Catholics who have not succumbed to the evil of the post-conciliar Church, must rescue the rest of us from our almost sure descent into hell caused by the false teachings of the post-conciliar Church:
Charity and prudence require that those of us who through God’s mercy have regularly benefited from the confirmation of the straight and narrow path offered by experiences like that of the Chartres Pilgrimage stop pussy footing around regarding what they should or should not say to their fellow Catholics to prevent them from losing their last tenuous grip on the Truth and slipping irrevocably into the abyss. In short, the time for grabbing our brethren who are dangling off their highway to nowhere by the tips of their fingers and pulling them back onto the direct route to knowledge, love, and service of God has arrived.
And just what are those false teachings which have destroyed the faith of so many Catholics:
For one thing, this means proclaiming over and over again that the straight and narrow path finding assistance provided by events like the Chartres Pilgrimage can never be gained from the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo.Dr. Rao feels the root of all evil in the contemporary Catholic Church can be traced to the Second Vatican Council and the Ordinary Form of the Mass, which he calls the "Novus Ordo." Dr. Rao will never use the term "Ordinary Form of the Mass" because he does not consider it to be a true Mass. As far as he is concerned, there is only one Mass, and that, of course, is the Latin Mass.
Dr. Rao actually concedes that there was a good reason to call the Second Vatican Council, and that there were good "bits" in the Council. However, the evil that came from this Council outweighs everything else and, therefore, the entire Second Vatican Council must be rejected:
In 2004, Dr. Rao wrote an article about then Pope John Paul II:
Right now many in the Catholic blogosphere are in an uproar regarding the Pope's encyclical about the environment, and are basically accusing His Holiness of abandoning the Catholic faith. But the real fireworks will come in October during the Synod on the Family. Many have already drawn up their "battle plans".
Moses told the Israelites to "stand still and see the salvation of the Lord." I suggest we all do the same thing. Don't start taking sides. Don't start demonizing. Don't start making your own battle plans. Just keep walking with Christ. And remember that walking with Christ means walking with His Vicar here on earth.
Yes, there were real long-term problems in the Church that justified calling a Council, and some of this Council’s pronouncements are actually of permanent value. Nevertheless, the “Spirit of Vatican Two” poisoned the whole enterprise, ruining the effectiveness even of the good bits in the overall project of Catholic enlightenment. It turned the Council and its aftermath into a “happening” so bizarre in character that one might hope that future scholars will consider it a legendary event invented by grotesque enemies of Catholicism for the purpose of discrediting the Faith.Dr. Rao informs us that the "Novus Ordo" (notice that he will not use the word "Mass") was purposely designed to destroy our faith:
And as far as the Novus Ordo is concerned, even some of its original supporters have by now joined the chorus of Traditionalists in identifying the detour signs its cartographers placed along the direct road to deeper knowledge, love, and service of God.In fact, Dr. Rao feels that the entire post-conciliar Church is all about destroying our faith:
Still, total clarity regarding why and how modern Catholics—and modern man in general—have been so effectively led down a twisted highway into a spiritual Twilight Zone, and away from that straight and narrow path to deeper connection with God regularly confirmed en route to Chartres requires more than raking the obvious over the coals.Dr. Rao declares that Vatican II and the "Novus Ordo" were specifically designed as "obfuscation" and "roadblocks to divine wisdom":
Quite frankly, Catholics on their own steam were not inventive enough to come up with the modern roadblocks to divine wisdom and its consequences constructed by the “Spirit of Vatican Two” and the architects of the Novus Ordo. They needed help from outside experts in truly effective obfuscation. Catholics had to undergo a “basic training” in learning how to shut their eyes to the path to the fullness of the Truth and, even better still, a basic training in learning how to abandon all desire to find that path entirely. This unfortunate basic training they received in superabundance: through long-term exposure to and eventually unreflective acceptance of a mentality that had already begun to turn our whole intellectual, political, and social environment into a Kingdom of the Blind centuries before Second Vatican Council.
As you can see, although Dr. Rao may still be in official union with the Church, in his heart and mind he has rejected everything the Church has taught since the Second Vatican Council. He shows his contempt for Pope Frances in these two articles:
- The End of History and the Reign of Francis. Can believers escape their country club existence? (The Remnant, March 15, 2015).
- "If You Try to Understand Francis, You Will Lose Your Reason." The word from Argentina. (The Remnant Weblog, November 20. 2014.)
- The Worst Pontificate in History (The Remnant, August 31, 2004). 3035 words.
To his credit, Dr. Rao does not even pretend to be in communion with the Catholic Church. His defense to this is that the "mainstream" Catholic Church is basically not Catholic, and he and those who believe as he does are the "real" Catholics and the rest of us are, at best, deceived, and at worst, evil.
My question is, how can Cardinal George Pell and Cardinal Raymond Burke publicly support Dr. Rao and his organization? The answer to that has to be one of the following: neither of the Cardinals knows just how radical Dr. Rao is and support him because he is a highly educated Catholic who has done a lot of writing and speaking, or they do know Dr. Rao's radical beliefs and are in total agreement.
Neither of these answers brings any comfort. If the Cardinals are not aware of the extent of Dr. Rao's radical beliefs and yet still choose to publicly support him, then they have shown gross irresponsibility and put many of the laity at risk by pointing them to a man who would lead them away from the Church. And if the second scenario is true - that they are fully aware of Dr. Rao's belief and still choose to support him - well, I don't even want to go there.
I do not wish to get into bashing Catholic authority. That is not the purpose of this post. I just wish to point out that we need to be very careful concerning whom we choose to listen to and follow. We need to always question where people are coming from. One danger sign that can never be ignored is when someone starts to talk against the Pope and the "establishment" Church. When someone is into pope and church bashing, it is time to run like hell, whether the person doing the bashing is part of the laity, a priest, a bishop or even a cardinal.
I consider the Synod to be a true "Red Sea" moment. Cardinal Burke and Cardinal Pell represent those who do not see how the teaching on divorce and remarriage and on homosexuality can be changed. Sin is sin, and it cannot suddenly not be sin, even by edict of the Pope.
Then there is the Cardinal Kasper camp, who says we can't change the teaching, but we have to somehow overlook the sin and bring people in "irregular" situations back into the fold.
Then there is the Cardinal Kasper camp, who says we can't change the teaching, but we have to somehow overlook the sin and bring people in "irregular" situations back into the fold.
The Burke/Pell camp represent those who want to return to Egypt back into slavery. They want to hang onto the judgmental and condemning attitude that many have displayed in the Church down through the ages. They want people to continue to wear the "Scarlet Letter." That seems untenable to me because it will not bring people to repentance and God's forgiveness, but only push them further away.
The Cardinal Kasper camp represents those who feel we should just dive right into the "Red Sea" of acceptance and tolerance and basically ignore sin. This won't work either because by ignoring sin, we will all end up perishing.
What is the answer? I haven't got the faintest idea. I do know that if I had been an Israelite having to choose between being slaughtered by Pharaoh's army or drowning in the Red Sea, I never would have thought for a moment that salvation would come from the parting of the Red Sea.
 |
| Credit: |
I don't know where Cardinal Pell and Cardinal Burke are coming from in their support for Dr. John Rao and his radical group of traditionalists. That is for them to answer. "But as for me and my house, we will follow the Lord."
"Don't start demonizing."
ReplyDeleteHow much do you charge for live stand-up, or is satire your only gig?
You may now proceed with lecturing me about how I did not address your carefully researched blah blah blah, but I just wanted to thank you for a good Father's Day gift: laughter.
Elliott, do you think it is a good thing that Cardinals Pell and Burke have endorsed Dr. Rao? And don't you think it's odd that they have both endorsed Dr. Rao?
DeleteA famous philosopher, Edward of Greenwich Village, once said, "If you agree with me on nine out of twelve issues, then vote for me. If you agree with me twelve out of twelve issues, then see a shrink."
ReplyDeleteYes, the Church is not a democracy but neither is it a lock step cult.
Then there is a pithy quote attributed to Augustine: "In essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; but in all things, charity."
Those who reject the Second Vatican Council and OF are outside of the Church.
DeleteAnd you are quite entitled to hold that ecclesiologically deficient opinion.
DeleteIt is "ecclesiologically deficient" to say that Catholics who reject the Second Vatican Council and the Ordinary Form of the Mass and actually label such as evil, are not in communion with the Church? If that is the case, then why is the SSPX - who reject Vatican II and the OF - not in communion with the Church?
DeleteUmm... the SSPX is in communion with the Church. They're suspended, but not excommunicated.
DeleteYes, you are technically correct that they are "suspended", and that means that while their Masses are valid, SSPX priests cannot administer the sacraments. Why is that? Do you think it might have something to do with their attitude towards Vatican and the Ordinary Form of the Mass?
DeleteBelow is an excerpt of a letter that then Cardinal Ratzinger shared with EWTN in 1995: (You can find it: https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX.HTM)
"While it is true that the participation in the Mass and sacraments at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a mentality which separates itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. Father Peter R. Scott, District Superior of the Society in the United States, has publicly stated that he deplores the "liberalism" of "those who refuse to condemn the New Mass as absolutely offensive to God, or the religious liberty and ecumenism of the postconcilliar church." With such an attitude the society of St. Pius X is effectively tending to establish its own canons of orthodoxy and hence to separate itself from the magisterium of the Supreme Pontiff. According to canon 751 such "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or the communion of the members of the Church subject to him" constitute schism. Hence we cannot encourage your participation in the Masses, the sacraments or other services conducted under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X."
First off, you are assuming that I am saying that anyone who supports the Church's teaching against Cardinal Kasper is automatically a follower of Burke/Pell. I am talking specifically about those who do pick either the Kasper or Burke/Pell camp. If the shoe doesn't fit, then I am not talking about you. You are being very defensive when you don't have to be. But the truth is most people have chosen one of these two sides because they think there is no other choice.
DeleteThe point I am trying to make is that we shouldn't choose either side. As Moses said, "Stand still and see the salvation of the Lord." Pope Francis has put this matter into the hands of the Holy Spirit. He is calling the bishops together, and through them, the Holy Spirit will lead the way.
Further, I don't doubt that any of these men feel they love God and His Church - Burke, Pell, Rao, Kasper, and any who follow them. I have personally met Dr. Rao, and I can assure you that he believes he loves Christ and His church above all else. However, the problem with people like Dr. Rao - and sadly, Cardinals Burke and Pell if they truly support Dr. Rao's radicalism - is that instead of trusting in the Holy Spirit to guide the church, they are putting their trust in their own judgments. Dr. Rao has decided he doesn't like the direction the Church is going, and therefore, the church is no longer Catholic and he doesn't have to submit to Church authority. And I will add, Cardinal Kasper is the liberal version of Dr. Rao, walking a very dangerous path because he too wants to decide the direction of the Church instead of following the lead of the Holy Spirit.
As I wrote in a previous post, being a follower of Christ is not about being "right", it is about giving your life to Jesus Christ and submitting your will to His. We have 2000 years of Church history as proof that the Holy Spirit will never desert us. Remember, Martin Luther felt he loved God and His Church as well, and he had some very legitimate grievances, but that didn't justify his rebellion against the Church.
I assume the above is in response to my comment further below.
DeleteYou say: "First off, you are assuming that I am saying that anyone who supports the Church's teaching against Cardinal Kasper is automatically a follower of Burke/Pell."
Actually, I am not assuming that at all, I haven't said that anywhere, nor have I thought it!
You continue: "I am talking specifically about those who do pick either the Kasper or Burke/Pell camp. If the shoe doesn't fit, then I am not talking about you. You are being very defensive when you don't have to be."
You are making the two distinctions of camps. Not at the exclusion of others maybe, but I have only addressed the 'camps' you have named, and yes, I identify more with Pell/Burke's more than with Kasper. If by that criteria alone someone puts me in that box, then so be it. No defensiveness required.
You continue: "But the truth is most people have chosen one of these two sides because they think there is no other choice."
Maybe, but not necessarily. They are perhaps the two sides howling the loudest at this point, but I'd imagine there'd be many like me who don't believe they are the only two options. There has to be a legitimate way to bring people back. I've always said that. And perhaps Pell, Burke and the other campers hold to that too, although you've not considered that possibility.
Continued below.....
You continue: "The point I am trying to make is that we shouldn't choose either side. As Moses said, "Stand still and see the salvation of the Lord." Pope Francis has put this matter into the hands of the Holy Spirit. He is calling the bishops together, and through them, the Holy Spirit will lead the way."
DeleteI agree with you here! I don't have a problem with that. I DO have a problem though, with you assuming the Pell/Burke camp people want to keep others in oppression and in 'slavery'.
You have actually never addressed this. This is the main point I was making throughout my comments. You said that's what Pell/Burke camp represents: Those who want to keep people shamed, 'wearing the scarlet letter'. Saying that is unfair and a sweeping generalisation. You said it. Do you stand by it?
You continue: "Further, I don't doubt that any of these men feel they love God and His Church - Burke, Pell, Rao, Kasper, and any who follow them. I have personally met Dr. Rao, and I can assure you that he believes he loves Christ and His church above all else.
Good! I believe the same can be said for you, and (hopefully) for me.
You say: "However, the problem with people like Dr. Rao - and sadly, Cardinals Burke and Pell if they truly support Dr. Rao's radicalism - is that instead of trusting in the Holy Spirit to guide the church, they are putting their trust in their own judgments."
Again. How can you be sure? How do you know the measure of their trust in God? Through the internet?
You say: "Dr. Rao has decided he doesn't like the direction the Church is going, and therefore, the church is no longer Catholic and he doesn't have to submit to Church authority. And I will add, Cardinal Kasper is the liberal version of Dr. Rao, walking a very dangerous path because he too wants to decide the direction of the Church instead of following the lead of the Holy Spirit."
Well said. I agree, that both types of thinking are very slippery slopes indeed.
You continue "As I wrote in a previous post, being a follower of Christ is not about being "right", it is about giving your life to Jesus Christ and submitting your will to His. We have 2000 years of Church history as proof that the Holy Spirit will never desert us. Remember, Martin Luther felt he loved God and His Church as well, and he had some very legitimate grievances, but that didn't justify his rebellion against the Church."
Absolutely. I totally agree with that. My issue is ONLY that you have speculated about the interior dispositions of of others, where you should and cannot. Similarly a slippery slope. That is all! Blessings to you.
I have judged Dr. Rao's words. Dr. Rao has completely rejected the post conciliar Church. There is no question about that. My concern is that Cardinals Burke and Pell have endorsed this man. That is a legitimate concern. It has nothing to do with judging interior dispositions or judging anyone's heart.
DeleteI'm not saying that is not a legitimate concern.
DeleteBut you are still avoiding my point, which I will bring up yet again: You say: "The Burke/Pell camp represent those who want to return to Egypt back into slavery. They want to hang onto the judgmental and condemning attitude that many have displayed in the Church down through the ages."
You can keep sidestepping those words as much as you like. But you wrote them and they ARE a judgement on people's interior dispositions, or at the very least, an unjustified and unfair generalisation.
How is listening to what people are saying a judgment? I am judging their words, which is that they do not want any change in the Church. I "judged" that Dr. Rao is against the post conciliar church because that is what he said. I "judged" that there is a real concern that Cardinals Burke and Pell have endorsed him because that is what they have done.
DeleteI also "judge" that Cardinals Burke and Pell and those who support him do not want any change in church policy concerning the attitude towards divorce/remarried because that is what they have said.
My analogy is that this is very much like the Israelites at the Red Sea, whose only two choices appeared to be to either be slaughtered by Pharaoh's army or drown in the Red Sea. I am sure it never entered into anyone's mind that there was a third option - the parting of the Red Sea. My analogy is that Cardinal Kasper represents those who would drown in false mercy, and Cardinals Burke/Pell are those who feel we have to keep a hardline in regard to those trapped in sin.
How is that judging their hearts? I am judging their words, not their hearts.
"How is listening to what people are saying a judgment? I am judging their words, which is that they do not want any change in the Church"
DeleteBecause they are cruel and want to shame people and keep the awful
sinners away. Alrighty then.
Boo, I really don't know what more I can say to you. You seem to want to believe that my motives in writing this post are nefarious and meant to harm good people. I have tried every way I can think of to state my case, but you refuse to accept it. So all I can say to you is God bless you and watch over you.
DeleteLikewise. God bless.
Delete"The Burke/Pell camp represent those who want to return to Egypt back into slavery. They want to hang onto the judgmental and condemning attitude that many have displayed in the Church down through the ages. They want people to continue to wear the "Scarlet Letter.""want to hang onto the judgmental and condemning attitude that many have displayed in the Church down through the ages".
ReplyDeleteThat is most grossly unfair. Just because one believes in the teachings of the Church in these matters (myself included) certainly does not mean that we want people to remain oppressed and excluded. It IS possible to both believe the teachings of the Church and earnestly desire the bringing of these people back to the Church through legitimate means, to experience the Mercy of God and the beauty of Communion with the Church.
Your sweeping judgements are really quite disappointing.
You are missing my point. Of course the teachings of the Church are correct. Cardinal Kasper is wrong in saying we need to basically overlook sin and give communion to those who are divorced and remarried. However, it is also abundantly clear that the current approach of the Church - which is to label people as sinners and tell them they need to shape up or ship out, and which is advocated by the Pell/Burke crowd - doesn't work either. In our current permissive world, the Church comes off as hateful and bigoted, and people feel justified in just turning away.
DeleteI say the way can be found in the "parting of the Red Sea", or in a way that is not readily apparent right now. That is what Pope Francis is looking for, and I believe that guided by the Holy Spirit, he will find the solution and, therefore, the best advice to the Church right now is that given by Moses to the Israelites: "Stand still and see the salvation of the Lord."
I understood the point you were trying to make but that's not what you said. Semantics are important. And you still infer that the condemning mentality here is adopted by the 'Pell/Burke crowd'. Some perhaps do, but it is certainly not something you can generalise to all those who fit into the little box you have lumped us in!
DeleteI agree, there needs to be a new way to present the everlasting Truths that will effect a turning back to God. But any labelling is counterproductive.
If you have been following the news about the Synod, which I'm sure you have, you know that there are basically two camps: the Cardinal Kasper camp that wants to show "mercy" to sinners by ignoring their sin. Those opposing Cardinal Kasper, for the most part, feel that the Church should keep things exactly as they are and not even bother with this issue.
DeleteCardinal Pell and Cardinal Burke have emerged as two of the de facto leaders of those who want to keep the status quo. A major reason for this is that the two cardinals, along with three other cardinals, wrote a book last year in which they took a stand against Cardinal Kasper. Because of the Cardinals' positions and authority in the church, those who agree with them look to these cardinals as their leaders.
That is not "labeling" as such. That is just a way of explaining the two sides of this issue, both of which I personally feel are wrong. But that is neither here nor there.
It is interesting that you don't seem to get upset about anything I write about Cardinal Kasper, only about Cardinals Burke and Pell. Maybe you need to ask yourself why that is?
Ach Vey.
DeleteYes, I realise there are two main emerging 'camps', one siding more with Cardinal Kasper's views, and one siding more with Pell and Burke's views. There might even be others out there with some other 'middle' views - whatever they could be.
The labelling I refer to is not the labelling of the 'camps' as such with Kasper, Pell and Burke as respective 'de facto' leaders. That's fine. No problem.
The problem lies in the fact that you automatically equate those in the 'Pell/Burke' camp (the inference being all of them) as being those who in their hearts, uphold their views with the desire for wanting to keep things as they are to oppress and vilify others keeping them in the 'slavery of Egypt'.
This is what I object to, that you judge the hearts and minds of those in this group. Isn't it possible we also want the freedom of all under legitimate means through mercy AND truth? Not to enslave but to uphold God's teaching?
And if you'd like a comment about Kasper, well then here it is.
I disagree with his conclusions. But I CANNOT and WILL NOT judge the intentions of his heart either, nor those in his 'camp'. In my experience as a Catholic in knowing many people on the spectrum, I have found that (generally) those who believe what they believe, do so because they believe it.
Sounds obvious, but what does this mean? That it is possible to be genuinely pursuing a relationship with God even if you're getting it wrong effectively. Kasper might be totally convinced of his position not because he wants to usurp authority or 'be God' or want to destroy the Church but because he genuinely loves it and God and wants to see others be able to do so. (Shock Horror!)
Point being, we cannot attribute motives to others, God alone knows the motives we don't even see ourselves. Label the camp, not the intentions of the heart.
And for the record, I include Dr Rao in the above. Could it be, whether he is 'right' or 'wrong' that his motives are a love of the Church and God too?
Delete"I do not wish to get into bashing Catholic authority."
ReplyDeleteExcept in most of the post!
I have pointed out that Cardinal Pell and Cardinal Burke have endorsed a radical traditionalist who has rejected Vatican II and the Ordinary Form of the Mass as evil. I have plainly stated that I do not know their motives in endorsing Dr. Rao, however, it can only be one of two reasons: they don't know how radical Dr. Rao is and have irresponsibly endorsed him, or they do know how radical Dr. Rao is and agree with him.
DeleteHow is that bashing Church authority?
Because suggesting reasons for this which include that they know and agree with him is smearing. You haven't concluded it but you offering it as a possibility which is tecnichally 'safe' but it is a Voris tactic and creates mistrust in the reader towards them and propensity to rash judgement.
DeleteDo you know of any other reason why Cardinals Pell and Burke would endorse a radical traditionalist who rejects Vatican II and the OF? I would quite sincerely love to hear it. I honestly can't think of any other reason than one of the two I have stated.
DeleteYes, there is another possibility: Cardinal Pell and Cardinal Burke believe Dr Rao's presentations can contribute significantly to the discussion and understanding of the Synod's issues in light of Truth and God's revelation of it.
DeleteThey might agree wholeheartedly with some of his points but disagree with others. (Don't forget Pell has said the OF for years). That's what forums are for: discussion.
They obviously recognise Rao has something worth contributing. But nowhere in their letters does it state that they are in total and utter agreement with what he says in every topic/situation. Neither does it infer they know nothing of his opinions.
Such all or nothing reasons are misleading. And unrealistic.
I'm sorry, but rejecting a valid ecumenical council and the Mass can never be starting points for discussion. That is why the SSPX is in the position it is in. Dr. Rao is an extremely intelligent and knowledgeable person, but his views are in direct contradiction to the Magesterium of the Church. There is no basis for any discussion.
DeleteThere are even some extreme traditionalists who have written for THE REMNANT who find Dietrich Von Hildebrand very problematic: http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f024ht_Hildebrand_Engel.htm
ReplyDelete1) "Who am I to judge?" For someone who seems to be very fond of everything the Holy Father writes and says, you certainly feel you have a duty to judge more than he does, even Cardinals of the Holy Catholic Church!
ReplyDelete2) This whole issue had already been resolved several times before in different Synods. Kasper continues to bring this up in the hopes that there will be a Pope who will choose his side. This has to be, in some way, disobedience to previous magisterium in previous synods.
You seem to be open to "change, " even though this type of chance was deemed contrary to Church teaching before. You are on a slippery slope with this.
3) You get very upset with people who "judge" the words the Holy Father says -- and he says A LOT of things that are confusing or even contradictory --, yet you feel equipped to judge "the words" of Cardinals and lay people who express their opinion or beliefs just as openly as the Holy Father does. You are very biased!
4) Your analogy of the Red Sea, as brilliant as you may think it, is actually not appropriate in this case. The captivity in which the Israelites found themselves was due to their sins and God now was going to save them from that.
People who live in sin, can only be saved by NOT living in sin anymore, and not by officially being allowed to continue to live in sin. The Hebrews who were going to be saved were supposed TO LEAVE EGYPT (the land of captivity) PERMANENTLY and never to return to it. What you seem to want in this "parting of the see" seems to be what Kasper wants: a way to let some people remain in their way of life AND STILL BE allowed to receive Communion. How is that leaving captivity? You may soon find yourself in a worse situation than the SSPX.
5) Your "crusade" (or jihad if you prefer, in order to be more ecumenically inclusive) of battling "extreme" traditionalism (or traditionalism, in case there's no different in your mind between the two) lost all credibility from the very beginning. Your habit of changing sides so suddenly, so drastically, and so bitterly makes your views less serious.
About 3 or 4 years ago, you were condemning anything and everything New Order. Now you reject everything traditional to the point where you will not even go to a traditional Mass (thereby judging everyone who attends it). That is a very drastic change and your reasons for that change are probably the same reasons for the previous change and your previous views about the New Order. Will you go back to not liking the New Order in a year or two?
Ah Eddy, it is so good to hear from you again. I have sincerely missed you. I truly do appreciate your challenges to what I write. Those who challenge us always help us to grow. And I am not saying that sarcastically.
DeleteAs far as your attacks against me personally, I have no wish to answer back. I am a sinner, and if I am not deserving of your specific charges, I have done enough other wrongs in my life to deserve such reprimands.
You most definitely have one thing wrong, though. The Israelites were not slaves in Egypt because of their sins. They had first come to Egypt when Joseph, son of Jacob/Israel, had ruled second only to Pharaoh during the great famine. Joseph’s father, Israel, came to Egypt with a total of about 70 people. But as they grew, Pharaoh felt threatened by the Israelites and enslaved them. Thus, they became a nation of slaves freed by God. By the time they were freed from Egypt 450 years later, they numbered several million.
Always good to get your facts correct.
You are, of course, absolutely right that only a few years ago I was a radical traditionalist. I fully supported people like Dr. Rao. I believed, like Dr. Rao, that Vatican II was the root of all evil and the “Novus Ordo” was a banal creation of man. But then I started reading some of the writings of then Pope Benedict XVI and the beautiful things he had to say about the Council. I slowly and reluctantly had to admit that I was wrong. I decided I needed to stop fighting the Ordinary Form of the Mass and actually start praying at Mass as the Church told me to do. Trust me, it was not easy. I loved the TLM and felt it was the “true Mass.” But slowly, I began to realize that Jesus Christ was as present at the OF as He is at the EF. I have now been attending the OF on a daily basis for over a year now, and I have come to love it as much as I ever loved the EF.
I will continue to speak out against radical traditionalists because having once been a part of that, I realize the great dangers that come with such a viewpoint. It is not our job to decide the direction of the Church. The Holy Spirit guides us. To stand in opposition to the Magesterium of the Church is to stand in opposition to Jesus Christ Himself.
I know, Eddy, that you won’t accept any of this. But I’m still putting it out there anyway.
God bless you.
Eddy would be wise not to accept your correction on the interpretation of scripture at least, because he is right and you are wrong.
DeleteYou say, "You most definitely have one thing wrong, though. The Israelites were not slaves in Egypt because of their sins."
This contradicts the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says, quoting Origen's homilies on Exodus (CCC 2061):
"Since there was a passing from the paradise of freedom to the slavery of this world, in punishment for sin, the first phrase of the Decalogue, the first word of God's commandments, bears on freedom "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery."
The parallel of the crossing of the Red Sea and baptism is partly because of the sins that had exiled Israel to Egypt parallel the sins from which Baptism redeems us.
"I believed, like Dr. Rao, that Vatican II was the root of all evil..."
I expect that Dr. Rao, like the Church, believes that original sin is the root of all evil in the world, not Vatican II, which happened many years after the fall. When criticizing people, you have a duty not to exaggerate their views.
You are very literal, aren't you? After the times of the Kings, the nation of Israel was taken as slaves by various nations because of their sins. This was not the case in Egypt. They were not a nation but only a family when the Patriarch Israel moved to Egypt. If you will notice in my answer to Eddy, I said they were slaves in Egypt, but they were enslaved because of the fear of Pharaoh, not because of their sins. This first slavery was not a punishment from God. That is not an interpretation. That is the story in the Bible. Read it for yourself in Genesis and Exodus.
DeleteOf course the crossing of the Red Sea pictures our baptism and coming out of sin. Of course we are all spiritually enslaved by sin. But that has nothing to do with the FACTS of the story of God rescuing Israel from slavery in Egypt. Your quote from the CCC is completely misplaced.
As far as my quote from Dr. Rao - again you know as well as I do exactly what I meant. I was a traditionalist and I know that radical traditionalists believe the crisis in the Church can be traced directly to the Second Vatican Council. And you know it, too.
Samuel Howard, in case you're interested, here are the first verses of Exodus 1:
Delete"1 These are the names of the sons of Israel who went to Egypt with Jacob, each with his family: 2 Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah; 3 Issachar, Zebulun and Benjamin; 4 Dan and Naphtali; Gad and Asher. 5 The descendants of Jacob numbered seventy[a] in all; Joseph was already in Egypt.
6 Now Joseph and all his brothers and all that generation died, 7 but the Israelites were exceedingly fruitful; they multiplied greatly, increased in numbers and became so numerous that the land was filled with them.
8 Then a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, came to power in Egypt. 9 “Look,” he said to his people, “the Israelites have become far too numerous for us. 10 Come, we must deal shrewdly with them or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, will join our enemies, fight against us and leave the country.”
11 So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh. 12 But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread; so the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites 13 and worked them ruthlessly. 14 They made their lives bitter with harsh labor in brick and mortar and with all kinds of work in the fields; in all their harsh labor the Egyptians worked them ruthlessly."
THUMP!
DeleteI am wondering, looking back at the last few years, how all of your opinions stand up? +Vigano says throw the Council out completely, +Schneider says make it conform to Tradition. And actually, everything in the Church must conform to Tradition. There are no new teachings. Anything that contradicts the Traditional Magisterium must be thrown out. And that is just about everything since the Second Vatican Council.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the SSPX is not in schism, not suspended, not excommunicated, not in the least. It is the only healthy and flourishing branch of Holy Mother Church. And as +Vigano so aptly said, it is a pattern for the rest of the Church.