Christianity Is Not About Being Right: It Is About Dying

Credit:  www. spreadshirt.com

I use to be a political junkie. I listened constantly to talk radio and watched political talk shows every night. The aim of all this political talk was and still is to show how right one side is and how wrong and even evil the other side is. No one is looking for enlightenment or understanding. Both sides are convinced of their own rightness and nothing can make them budge from their positions. I finally came to see that arguing and demonizing those with whom you disagree never brings people together but serves only to foster hatred and division between people.

I have come to the same conclusion about the vast majority of the Catholic blogosphere. One would hope that the purpose of Catholic blogging is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to bring people to the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, to gain eternal salvation. Instead, most people use their blogs to "expose sin and corruption" in the Church and the world. Most Catholic blogs are nothing more than a mixture of yellow journalism and biased editorials. People write their blogs with the sure conviction that they have the answers to all of the problems of the Church and the world. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is a sinner headed to hell. Like talk radio, they demonize anyone - be it laity, priest, bishop or even the Pope - who does not agree with them. They look at a world living in opposition to Christianity and instead of reaching out with compassion and mercy as Our Lord showed us, they criticize and condemn.

Credit:  factsandotherfairytales.com

A sad illustration of the divisive nature of the Catholic blogosphere is my recent interaction with Father John Zuhlsdorf, one of the heroes of the Catholic blogosphere, which I wrote about HERE. I had commented on his blog that a statement he made was in direct conflict with the teaching of the Church. I did not give my opinion, but quoted from Pope Benedict XVI. His response was to ban me so that not only can I not comment anymore, but I can't even view his blog on my IP address. Is this how an ordained priest spreads the saving message of the Gospel?

Meditation on the First Sorrowful Mystery: Not My Will But Thine Be Done

Today, July 5, is the First Saturday of the Month. The First Saturday Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary was first mentioned by Our Lady of Fatima on July 13, 1917. After showing the three children a vision of hell she said, "You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace... I shall come to ask for... the Communion of reparation on the first Saturdays..." The First Saturday devotion is as follows:

It consists in going to Confession, receiving Communion, reciting five decades of the Rosary and meditating for a quarter of an hour on the mysteries of the Rosary on the first Saturday of five consecutive months. The Confession may be made during the eight days preceding or following the first Saturday of each month, provided that Holy Communion be received in the state of grace. Should one forget to form the intention of making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, it may be formed at the next Confession, occasion to go to confession being taken at the first opportunity.

June 30, 1988

From left to right: Bishops de Galarreta, 

Tissier de Mallerais, 

de Castro Mayer, Archbishop Lefebvre, 

and Bishops Williamson and Fellay

The Society of St. Pius X is a traditional Catholic organization founded by Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre in 1970. They were separated from Rome in 1988 when Archbishop LeFebvre disobeyed Blessed John Paul II and ordained four bishops, at which time Archbishop LeFebvre and the four bishops were excommunicated and the Society became schismatic. Archbishop LeFebvre died in this state in 1991, but Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of the four bishops in 2009. However, the Society remained schismatic. The Society announced at the end of June of this year that, in effect, they wish to remain separate from Rome because they will not accept the teachings of Vatican II and, in fact, consider the Vatican II documents to be in grave error. From the SSPX website:

Following Archbishop Lefebvre, we affirm that the cause of the grave errors which are in the process of demolishing the Church does not reside in a bad interpretation of the conciliar texts – a “hermeneutic of rupture” which would be opposed to a “hermeneutic of reform in continuity” – but truly in the texts themselves, by virtue of the unheard of choice made by Vatican II.

This statement from the SSPX, in its entirety, is a total repudiation of the Magesterium of the Catholic Church, as can be seen in the following excerpt:

The weakening of faith in Our Lord’s divinity favours a dissolution of the unity of authority in the Church, by introducing a collegial, egalitarian and democratic spirit, (see Lumen Gentium). Christ is no longer the head from which everything flows, in particular the exercise of authority. The Sovereign Pontiff who no longer exercises effectively the fullness of his authority, and the bishops who – contrary to the teaching of Vatican I – esteem that they can collegially and habitually share the fullness of the supreme power, commit themselves thereby, with the priests, to listen to and to follow ‘the people of God,’ the new sovereign. This represents the destruction of authority and in consequence the ruin of Christian institutions: families, seminaries, religious institutes.

The SSPX has declared themselves judge, juror and executioner of the Magesterium of the Catholic Church.  They have declared that they know better than the Pope, the divinely ordained Vicar of Christ. They stand in defiance of Christ's vicar and are saying, "Non Serviam."  I am sure that is not how they view it.  On the contrary, they see the Magesterium of the Church as saying "Non Serviam."  There is just one problem with that:  Our Lord promised us that it is not possible for the Magesterium to rebel against God.  Our Lord said to St. Peter and all of his successors (Matthew 16:18-19):

“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.  “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” 

Do I always understand everything that the Church does and says? Not by any means. But as St. Paul told us in II Corinthians 5:7 - "We walk by faith not by sight." I believe our Lord when he declared the Church to be His Mystical Body and said that we can never be misled by the teachings of His Mystical Body. As Christ said, so I say, "Thy will be done."

This takes us to my meditation on this First Saturday in July - the First Sorrowful Mystery:  the agony of our Lord in the Garden just prior to His arrest and crucifixion.  In the Garden, our Lord saw all of the sin of the entire world.  He saw the murders, the hatred, the destruction of humanity and the earth itself brought about by our rejection of God and His Law.  The thought of taking this upon Himself to be our Sacrifice before God was such a daunting prospect that He started to sweat blood and actually said to the Father:  "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me."  The human side of Jesus was completely overwhelmed by the task before Him.  His human side was actually looking for a way out.  But His humility and obedience won out and He ended this statement with, "nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will."  

As followers of Christ, we will all go through a similar scenario at some point in our lives, and maybe on numerous occasions, in which Our Lord will ask to do so something, or not do something, that goes against everything inside of us. A prime biblical example of this was when Our Lord asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac. What if Abraham had balked and said, no Lord, that doesn't make sense to me. There has to be a better way. Isaac is the son of promise, the one through whom you will fulfill your covenant. I can't kill him. Besides, it's wrong to kill another human being. You abhor human sacrifice. This can't be right, and I'm not going to do it.

But none of these words came out of Abraham's mouth.  He did not argue with God.  He took his son, Isaac, and went up the mountain to sacrifice him in obedience to God's command.  He was just about to plunge the knife into Isaac when the angel stopped him and said, "Do not lay a hand on the boy, do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."  Because of this act, Abraham is called the Father of the Faithful.  

Our Lord displayed this kind of faithfulness in the Garden of Gethsemane when He agreed to become the sin sacrifice for all mankind.  "Not my will but thine be done."  This was one of our Lord's greatest lessons to all of us, and one which should be a part of every action in our lives.  Whatever we say or do, we should always ask, am I doing God's will or am I doing my will?  

The greatest enemy within each one of us is our pride, with which we were all tainted when we inherited original sin.  Pride says I know what's best, I'm right and you're wrong.  When pride gets in the way, we become our own god, our own magesterium.  Giving into pride means trusting our own feelings and thoughts.  Proverb 14:12 says, "There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death."  

The SSPX is convinced that they are doing the right thing in rejecting the Magesterium of the Catholic Church.  But they could not be more wrong.  They can say they don't understand the documents of Vatican II and in their opinion, the documents do not seem to be in line with traditional Church teaching, but that is not what is important.  The only thing of any real importance is, do I believe the words of Jesus Christ and am I willing to say, "Not my will but thine be done."  

For a truly excellent article on why the SSPX and those who support them are wrong, please see this article entitled, "Schism, Obedience and the Society of St. Pius X," by John Beaumont and John Walsh, which you can find here.  As this article says, 

[M]any traditional Catholics look at the teaching of the pope and the bishops, at the Second Vatican Council and subsequently, judge it to be contrary to tradition and use this as a justification for disobeying it. However, this position is simply not supportable in the light of Catholic teaching and to adopt it is to undermine the very tradition one is attempting to defend because this approach is inconsistent with the whole notion of papal primacy and what flows from that.

In Matthew 7:21-23, our Lord issued a very ominous warning:

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?  Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Unless we are allowing the Holy Spirit to guide us in every action in our lives, our Lord will reject us. Could it ever be our Lord's will that we reject the teachings of His Church and His Vicar on earth?  That is not possible.  We can appear to be righteous and holy and doing the work of the Lord, but unless we have submitted our will to His, He will tell us, "I never knew you.  Away from me, you evildoers!"  

Pray for those in the Society of St. Pius X and for all of those who refuse to humble themselves and submit to the Will of God.  This is not an easy thing to do.  St. Paul said in I Corinthians 9:27, "I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize."  Your understanding and your intelligence, your ability to pose a good argument, will not qualify you for heaven.  The only virtue that qualifies any of us for heaven is obedience:  

Not my will but thine be done.  

Will the Real Pope Francis Stand Up?

Pope Francis' Pontificate is not even two weeks old at the time of this posting, and he has already come under intense scrutiny as to how he will conduct himself as pope and whose interests he will serve.  Liberals are tending to claim him as one of their own, convinced he will loosen up the teachings of the Catholic Church to bring it more into line with the modern world.

From American Spectator:

“I was overwhelmed by joy,” said Hans Kung, the dissenting European theologian, in a radio interview after the elevation of Pope Francis. “There is hope in this man,” gushed Kung, who predicted that Pope Francis will conform to the progressive interpretation of Vatican II and not follow the “line of the two popes from Poland and Germany.”

Leonardo Boff, one of the fathers of liberation theology, was quoted in the German press as saying that Francis is “more liberal” than commonly supposed.

Cardinal Roger Mahony took to Twitter to proclaim that the Church would move from high church to “low” church under Francis: “So long Papal ermine and fancy lace!”

The National Catholic Reporter approvingly quoted an unnamed Vatican diplomat as saying that “the Traditional Latin Mass brigade is finished.”

Esteban Paulon, president of the Argentine Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transsexuals, told the Washington Post that Pope Francis is “known for being moderate” and when “he came out strongly against gay marriage, he did it under pressure from the conservatives.” According to Sergio Rubin, whom the Post calls his authorized biographer, Pope Francis initially “urged his bishops to lobby for gay civil unions” as an alternative to gay marriage.

Many Traditionalists are afraid Pope Francis will undo everything Pope Benedict XVI did and take away the Traditional Mass. 

From The American Conservative:

The Rorate Caeli blog, written by Traditionalist Catholics, is deeply apprehensive about Cardinal Bergoglio’s elevation to the papacy, in particular because they say he was hostile to the traditional Latin mass in his archdiocese. But that’s not the whole thing. Here’s an excerpt they posted sympathetically from an analysis by an Argentine Catholic journalist:

Of all the unthinkable candidates, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is perhaps the worst. Not because he openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals, but because, judging from his work as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, faith and moral seem to have been irrelevant to him.

A sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass, he has only allowed imitations of it in the hands of declared enemies of the ancient liturgy. He has persecuted every single priest who made an effort to wear a cassock, preach with firmness, or that was simply interested in Summorum Pontificum.

We reject all false optimism, and this is the spirit we will keep here, and it does not matter if many do not like it. In the web, it is quite easy to avoid things one does not like.

The article quotes from another traditional Catholic blog:

UPDATE: My trad Catholic TAC colleague Michael Brendan Dougherty is grim:

There are reasons to believe that Pope Francis is a transitional figure, unlikely to affect major reform at the top of the church. He is not known as a champion of any theological vision, traditional or modern. He is just two years younger than Pope Benedict was upon his election eight years ago. He has deep connections to Italy, but little experience with the workings of the Vatican offices. A contentious reading of Pope Francis’ rise is that Benedict’s enemies have triumphed completely.

It is unusual for a one-time rival in a previous election to triumph in a future one. And there is almost no path to Bergoglio’s election without support from curial Italians, combined with a Latin American bloc. Low-level conspiracy theories already flourish in Italy that Benedict’s resignation was the result of a curia determined to undermine his reforms. This election will only intensify that speculation. An older pope who does not know which curial offices and officers need the ax, will be even easier to ignore than Benedict.

Many seem to be viewing this pope in terms of what they want from him, as in the case of liberals, or in what Pope Francis might take away, as in the case of Traditionalists.  All, of course, are judging him on what they perceive to be his action and the rumors - true or false - that are flying around about what he has allegedly done in the past.

Peter Denies Jesus

I thought of this today at Mass when the long Gospel of Matthew 26:3-75 and 27:1-60 was read.  Part of this Gospel involves the scandalous behavior of our first Pope -  St. Peter - and how he reacted at the Crucifixion of our Lord.  We are told that he actually denied Jesus Christ, saying he didn't even know the Man:

69 Now Peter was sitting out in the courtyard, and a servant girl came to him. “You also were with Jesus of Galilee,” she said.
70 But he denied it before them all. “I don’t know what you’re talking about,” he said.
71 Then he went out to the gateway, where another servant girl saw him and said to the people there, “This fellow was with Jesus of Nazareth.”
72 He denied it again, with an oath: “I don’t know the man!”
73 After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, “Surely you are one of them; your accent gives you away.”
74 Then he began to call down curses, and he swore to them, “I don’t know the man!”

Can you imagine how the media and others would treat the election of St. Peter to the Papacy: "And this man is going to lead the Church? He is weak and selfish, breaking down in the face of adversity. How can we ever trust him? Do you know that our Lord actually called him Satan at one point? He constantly puts his foot in his mouth, and you can't trust anything he says. He pledged his undying loyalty to the Lord, and only a few hours later he was denying he even knew him! We're all doomed."

Did you ever wonder why a Pope must take a new name when he is elected? It is because he no longer belongs to himself. One he accepts election to the Chair of Peter, he is Peter: "Tu es Petrus." The pope is no longer Karol Wojtyla, Joseph Ratzinger or Jorge Mario Bergoglio. All of those men, in effect, ceased to exist when they became pope. Everything a pope says and does in his official acts as Pope from the time of his election and acceptance is guided and controlled by the Holy Spirit.

I'm certainly not saying that a pope cannot sin and rebel in his personal life against God. We, unfortunately, have seen many examples of this in the 2000 year history of the Church. But not one of those sinful popes ever misled the church in faith or morals. "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." That was said to St. Peter and all of his successors. The Pope is the rock of the Church on earth.

All of those liberals who are salivating at the thought that major dogmas of the Catholic Church will be changed or those Traditionalists who fear that everything they love and believe in will be taken away are showing that they place no trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit or the promises of Jesus Christ.

The Pope is not just a political figure. He is not just some guy who happened to be at the right place at the right time (or wrong place and wrong time, depending on your point of view). And he is no longer the same person he was before he became pope. Of course he still has his own personality and style. But he is not free to take the church in any direction he chooses. He still has freedom of will in his personal life, but he does not have freedom of will as Pope. That is why no one is ever allowed to judge a pope's actions.

It is for this reason that no sane man would ever desire to be pope. Although it is the most powerful office in the world because the Pope is the divinely chosen head of the one true Church of Jesus Christ, in actual fact the Pope has no personal power at all. He is a puppet of the Holy Spirit.

Before resigning, Pope Benedict pledged his complete obedience and loyalty to his successor, even though he had no idea who that would be. How could he do that? Didn't he want to make sure first that his successor would be the kind of pope that he, Benedict, thought he should be? Pope Benedict XVI was telling us with this statement that it does not matter who, individually, occupies the Chair of Peter. The real One occupying the Chair of Peter is the real Head of the Church - Jesus Christ. When we pledge our obedience and loyalty to the Vicar of Christ, we are making this pledge to Jesus Christ Himself.

The secular media is going to do what it is going to do. They see the pope as just another political figure. But we, as Catholics, must realize that the Pope is unlike any other man on earth. There is no politician or head of state who can compare to him. He is going to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It may or may not be what we think is right, but like the Pope, we need to get our own pride and ego out of the way and realize that as smart as we are, the Holy Spirit knows better than we do.  

The Israelites were ready to throw Moses over when he led them out of the land of Egypt to the Red Sea. They were being pursued by Pharaoh's army with no escape. Moses' command to them was "Be still and see the salvation of the Lord." I think that is some of the best advice that has ever been given in the history of mankind.

In other words, when it comes to the Pope - SHUT UP!!!  Or as they say here in Brooklyn - "SHADDUP!"

Thank you.