Restore the Church
blog*spot

Saturday, September 20, 2003

Response to Apolonio's Clarification 

Apolonio has given a "clarification" of his views in regard to the issue of global governance. In all honesty, I'm a little perplexed by them, so I will ask a few questions here. It is no secret that despite our disagreements, me and Apolonio still have a fairly respectful working relationship, which I of course thank him for, and in all honesty, some of his views, I have begun to see him correct on(not on areas of my views on traditionalism though, something I am reluctant to make public but perhaps he gets the idea.)

He mentions the issue of a "subsidiatry." The problem is, I don't believe the UN fulfills such a role. Everyone knows my position, that the cause of globalism had always been inside the UN. As far as global governance, I believe one that would support the Catholic religion(in theory) should be looked more into. The current globalist theory builds off of some Catholic principles, but then puts their wordly spin on the issue. I believe that perhaps there was some insight into what the Holy Father said, when perhaps us Catholics should look at a way to incorporate Catholic ideas into the globalization movement. This is an entirely new area of course, so we cannot be dogmatic. It is my hope the upcoming dialogue with Shawn McElhinney will delve into this area. Most grevious erros have a little bit of truth in them. That is what I believe the globalist movement is about. I believe there are certain elements of truth, that, if carefully, Catholics could indeed use to promote the truth of the Gospel in them. (this has been an idea for a book I've wanted to write, but I will admit, writing in lengthy book form is not something I specialize in.)

Sorry about the sidetracking, just thought I'd share a little more of my hand on this issue. I believe that there should be a certain interdependence of nations, it is just I believe the United Nations fails drastically in how things should be given it's strong communist backgrounds.

So hopefully I have given a little bit of clarification to my good colleauge Mr. Latar. If he has any further questions, I would be more than happy to discuss them more in-depth.

Friday, September 19, 2003

Round 3, Fight! Kevin Tierney versus Greg Mockeridge 

I didn't realize Greg had issued a third response to me in regards to the issue of the United Nations. Again, some issues I won't be commenting on, as I wish that to be handled strictly in the dialogue between myself and Mr. McElhinney on the United Nations, and the prudence of the Body of Christ working with the organization.(Myself and Shawn are currently in the prelim stage, hammering out our positions and agreeing on an acceptable debate area.) Let us give an examination of Greg's posting, and see if his words have any merit.

"First of all, the main purpose of posting this particular question from a private e-mail I had sent to him was to refute Kevin’s claim that I never consulted him as to what his views were. Since it is beyond dispute that Kevin’s claim that I didn’t inquire him is false, the only honorable thing for him to do is to publicly retract his accusation."

Merely asking the question, being told that you will get an answer, and then going ahead and publishing something that was clearly false(as the evidence I provided before shows) is hardly called "consultation." As I said before, it is perhaps good apologetics is not journalism 101, since he would've flunked the first day with such methods of research, not to mention be liable for libel(say that 7 times fast!)

"Secondly, I asked what nations have willingly given up control to the U.N. Kevin doesn’t answer, although he asserted in his last response that some have. If he is going to make such a claim, the onus is on him to provide proof. "

And notice I said there are certain areas I am choosing to withold my response until the dialogue happens with Shawn. Eventually me and him will reach that point, and the evidence will be there for Greg to see, but surely not to his satisfaction.

"I also pointed out that Pacem in Terris, in #138, warns against the usurpation of individual sovereignty, regardless of whether or not force is used. Again, no interaction on Kevin’s part, although he repeats the claim, albeit tacitly, that the pope restricts his warnings to the use of force."

I specifically pointed out the issue in # 138 was that of a forceful usurpation. Where Greg proved "force or no force" remains to be seen. Perhaps he could point it out. Surely John XXIII wanted a new way of the global community working together.

"In essence, Pope Benedict’s position regarding the League is no different than that of Pope John XXIII in Pacem in Terris toward the U.N. Kevin admits that Bl. John XXIII doesn’t endorse the U.N. in toto when he takes umbrage with the “unqualified” remark in my original paper."

And notice that my position is that even without a full qualified support, such support can indeed be a very deadly game one need not play. Greg knows quite well Versailles and the UNHDR are worlds apart, since it was agreed upon the UN needed more power than the League of Nations. So I don't really see the point in Greg posting this, other than to seem like he scored points where there isn't a dispute.

"Greg M.:
Whew!! I will sleep better at night knowing that. BTW, how does Kevin KNOW his governor kicks in 106 MPH? Has he actually road tested it? :-"

Yes I have, was late for work one night. :-)

"Greg M.:
That’s right I was not, at the time (I am now) listed as a member. So, the Welborn Protocol did not apply to me. But it applied to APOLONIO, who was listed at the time. It was APOLONIO who was the first one to post that publicly, not me. So, Kevin, knowing that whatever he e-mailed to Apolonio was fair game for blogging, unless he requests otherwise, is still without any excuses here. "

Actually, Apolonio did not post my clarification e-mail. He made vague references to it in the correspondence with Shawn. So Greg's appeal is still baseless. I also know Apolonio at least would have the intergrity to interact with all of what I actually wrote, rather than one statement taken out of context, and not bothering to actually wait for the persons actual views on the manner.

"Greg M.:
How was I indecent or uncharitable? Kevin demonstrates from his responses that his quote well describes his position and my comments on it are accurate. "

Of course, which is why you had to retract 3 statements in your second reply. Yeah, very accurate.

"Greg M.:
There’s a difference between an institution, invested with some power, set up to facilitate international relations and the implementation of international law and global government. I think we should read what the encyclical actually says about the issue. When we do, we find that John XXIII in no way states or implies that the UN is the ideal organization. He simply states that it was set up to achieve the end of facilitating international relations. And, given what was realistically attainable, that the positive elements of it should be supported. "

Of course, we see no actual "reading" which proves Greg's thesis. There is no doubt that despite the objections John XXIII notes have been made regarding the UN, he still had a very high respect for this organization, and believed it was a strong working ground off of the principles he describes about the modern day state. Being I've already dealt with this in previous exchanges, and will be going into this further with Shawn, I see no need to go into it further with Greg. (See Shawn, I'm showing my hand as well! :-) )

"Greg M.:
Publicly suspecting the pope of pacifism without any evidence is not exactly what an obedient son of the Church does. As I pointed out before, if a Catholic is having difficulty reconciling statements made by a Church document of a later age with that of an earlier age, he should instinctively believe that since they both come from the same Church, they are indeed congruent. One must also try to understand the context in which statements are made. As far as I can tell, Kevin fails on both grounds. "

And I had given Greg evidence. I'm sure he still has those e-mails. Post it to the Lidless Eye, and refute every single one of them, rather than just rashly saying "You have no clue what you're talking about" and leave it at that. Of course, the understanding of the context as to how my reading is erroneous of course isn't cited. Greg just claims it, as if it supports him.

"He is just saying that given the dangers of the time, satisfaction of those conditions were unlikely in his opinion. In any event, the Church has always taught, as the new Catechism repeats, that it is left to the competence of the states involved. So, the pope’s statement is, as I originally asserted, one of prudence and practicality, not morality per se. "

So John XXIII would hold an opinion that is contrary to the moral view on it? Is it prudent yet immoral? How is something prudent yet immoral? As I said before, Greg is making a distinction without a differnce here, a distinction he must prove.

"Greg M.:
Pius XII’s position during WWII was essentially no different than that of John Paul II concerning the wars that have taken place during his pontificate. Yes, Pius XII did offer his assistance to the Allies as they reached Italy. John Paul II offered similar assistance during the Cold War. Any reputable Cold War expert will unequivocally say that the two most influential figures in ending the Cold War were Ronald Reagan and POPE JOHN PAUL II."

Actually false. Most scholarls would place the Gipper first, Thatcher, then the Pope, then close aides against communism, such as Dr. Richard Pipes, who's thinking was very influential.

"Greg M.:
And the world does not mock John Paul II? Where has Kevin been?"

Did I say they don't. Yet is he the object of the ridicule that others had gone through, with truly tougher odds? I don't think so. Nowadays the world doesn't really fear the Church, because the Church no longer fears the world, and hence, as Paul VI said, the Church was invaded by worldly thinking.

As far as the second part of that quotation at the Lidless Eye Inquisition, I shall be dealing with such in my dialogue with Shawn, so stay tuned.

"Greg M.:
Where do I deny this? What I said was that Russia, along with China, supported NORTH KOREA. He again chops off a very important part of my statement. The purpose of my statement was to show the absurdity of his claim that the early UN was in the hip pocket of the Communists. If they were, they wouldn’t have given the green light to engage military action against North Korea, despite Russia’s abstention in protest. "

And if he's done any historical reading, one would realize numerous scholars more than recognize the fact that Stalin wanted to committ the US to such a battle, a battle which would take up too much resources, and give the USSR time to expand it's power. This they did brilliantly. Yet I'm sure this will probably be touched upon when me and Shawn clash.

"Greg M.:
Do you have any evidence that the UN working directly against the social teaching of the Church when Pacem in Terris was promulgated? Furthermore, Kevin’s idea of “just opposing the world” is both simplistic and fatalistic. It is simplistic on the grounds that the Church’s relation with the world has never been to just simply oppose the world per se, but to oppose error and acknowledge the truth and build on it no matter where it exists. As Kevin himself is wont to say, “It’s more complex than that.” Nowadays, if it had not been for the Vatican, those who now hold the levers of power at the UN would have made homosexual “marriages” and abortion international “right.” If that’s not fatalistic, nothing is."

Now of course, the first point he makes is indeed the focus of my discussion with Shawn. Now as far as abortion, that already is an essential right, as it has been ruled that even Catholic hospitals must consent to abortions in numerous areas in Europe, per a UN mandate. As far as homosexual marriages, there is still considerable opposition to them from the country who while on bad terms with the UN, wields the strongest axe there, that if they withdrew, the organization would collapse. That is America. Although if we conservatives don't pay attention, our stance on this could soon change as well.

"Greg M.:
It bears repeating if it wasn’t for the Vatican throwing sand in the gears of the pro-homosexual and pro-abortion advocates at the UN homosexual “marriage” and abortion would be international “rights.” So, yes we do have to deal(the Church does not “align” herself) with the UN."

Paul VI said the UN was the greatest hope for mankind, and he himself admitted he was submitting himself to them, stating he had no temporal authority. If that isn't allying yourself with the UN, I don't know what is.

I must say good day to Greg after 3 rounds and his tactics. Perhaps other colleagues at Restore the Church would like to deal with him, but as for me, given not only our discussions in private, but this public exchange, I must bid him farewell.

Thursday, September 18, 2003

On Rebuking Prelates 

Shawn McElhinney of the Lidless Eye Inquisition has posted a commentary on 2 passages Traditionalists use when it comes to the justifiable resistance of authorities abusing their power, that of St. Robert Bellarmine and the Angelic Doctor.

It was all together a nice written peice, and provided some interesting insight. There are a few questions lingering in my mind. He quotes a commentary on Bellarmine's passage:

"Nor does this quote support those traditional Catholics who would recognize John Paul II as pope but reject his Mass and ignore his laws.

First, the passage justifies resistance by kings and councils. It does not say that individual bishops, priests and laymen on their own possess this right to resist the pope and ignore his commands—still less that they can set up places of worship in opposition to diocesan bishops a pope has lawfully appointed.

Second, note the precise causes for resistance in the case Bellarmine is discussing: disturbing the state or giving bad example. These, obviously, are not the same thing as papal liturgical legislation, disciplinary laws or doctrinal pronouncements which an individual might somehow deem harmful. Bellarmine would hardly approve of disregarding, carte blanche, for 30 years the directives of men one claims to recognize as legitimate occupants of the papal office and the vicars of Christ on earth."

The first is the idea that the Pope can't be resisted by these people. He mentions a Bishop is unable of doing this, seemingly. My question would then be, then how could St. Paul resist Peter, since as Shawn righty notes at the bottom, he is also a competent authority, being a Bishop, as was Peter a Bishop. I guess perhaps Shawn should also condemn the likes of Dietrich Von Hiltebrand, who didn't have the kindest things to say about the new liturgy, or even Catholic World Report, who in a recent article, claimed that while the Post-Concilliar Pontiffs are indeed valid, we haven't had a Pope who actually ruled since Pius XII! Don't these idiots realize they have no qualification to make such a statement?

Furthermore, it states the passage doesn't lend support to "resisting the commands." First, I don't remember John Paul II commanding anything which Traditionalists object to, so this is a classic case of begging the question, stating that indeed these are commands, while never making an attempt to prove such.

He then moves onto Aquinas. Other than the fact a private audience with proper authorities can be tough at times to acquire, I believe that if one has a problem with a Bishop, one should indeed goto that Bishop. Just as the Neo-Catholics should stop calling us schismatics until they start the canonical process to write us off as schismatics, we should make more use of the Bishop, if anything, for that evidence to be used against bad prelates in the end.

Shawn then provides context that proves that we do in fact sin if there is a public rebuke. Knowing quite well this thesis would be shot to shreds by citing examples such as St. Catherine of Sienna, a good example of the layity reproving the Pope when the Pope was in error, Shawn comes up with quite an abritrary system. The person must be a symbol of holiness, and it must be obvious. Yet of course, traditionalists can't be this, since according to Shawn, the traditionalists are spiritually immature! What a convienent way to protect your argument, make up an imaginary clause(that Aquinas doesn't even talk about) and then say that the people you disagree with don't fill that clause, therefore they can't appeal to Aquinas! Last time I checked, he was writing on how the traditionalist appeal to Aquinas' passage on rebuking wayward prelates cannot be, since we don't understand the context. It appears as if Shawn, being the intelligent Neo-Catholic he is, has discovered something the text doesn't even talk about!

Aquinas then rightly notes that one is not really in a position to rebuke when he himself is guilty of the same thing. Shawn takes this true statement, then puts quite a spin on it:

"Need I remind the self-styled "traditionalists" among you that charity cannot exist in the heart of a schismatic??? If you defend or promote the SSPX of which the Supreme Authority passed judgment on their objective status -and refuse to be corrected of this error- you are thus are a partaker in their schism. And as schism is one of the most grievious of sins; ergo you are disqualified by the Angelic Doctor from being able to legitimately rebuke a wrongdoer - even if the pope was doing wrong"

Here comes the oft-repeated charge of schism again. Now while he might not be addressing all traditionalists, I still would argue if he is going to use the schismatic epithet, he better be petitiong for canonical proceedings, since schism is such a serious sin, as he rightly notes, one should not use it lightly. Indeed, if it turns out they aren't schismatics, Shawn is guilty of a very grevious slander, one in which he will have to answer to God for. So my advice to him would be to excercise caution when proclaiming someone a schismatic. To not do such is surely a case of "spiritual immaturity", according to Shawn, the same thing we suffer from. (Wouldn't that make Shawn a hypocrite by his own standards?)

Now about the Society of St. Pius X. What is defending or promoting the Society? Is it participating in their Masses? While I do not do this personally for numerous other reasons, attending their Masses cannot be "Promoting them" since it has been ruled upon that attending their masses in and of itself is not a schismatic act. Is saying that consecrating Bishops without a papal mandate not schismatic "Promoting" them? Obviously not, since several well qualified authorities, including one of the Vatican's top canon lawyers at one time stated that, and one would hardly accuse him of adhering to the schism. Is saying they are Catholics "defending or promoting them?" Obviously not, since in reality, the Ecclesia Dei member Msgr. Perle had said in regards to the society "everyone knows they are Catholics." Those who promote "Christian unity" claim the SSPX is an "internal problem", and hence not their issue. Are they "promoting and defending." What excactly is "promoting and defending" the schism. Again, I take a little bit of a different view of the French Archbishop than most Traditionalists, but I find the definition employed by the Inquisitor gravely deficient, and contradicting the "Competent Church authorities" he himself claims he is "defending."

"render religious submission to the pope and united episcopate while at the same time resisting them. Submission and resistance are antonymous of one another much as day and night are. "

Is Shawn willing to take this to the logical conclusion, that the Pontiff, under any circumstances, cannot be resisted? It seems that his position would be one is unable to disagree with the Pope on anything. Furthermore, he mentions "United Episcopate." I sure hope he and all his Neo-Catholic buddies will stop criticizing the American Episcopate, as John Paul II has done nothing against them.

"So much for the common self-styled "traditionalist" misquotes of Bellarmine and Aquinas citations as these Doctors in no way whatsoever defend the novelties of the so-called "traditionalist" position. "

So Much for Shawn thinking he's actually scored a victory here, as again we see the same arbitrary positions and question begging at work that is typical of the Neo-Catholic attack.

"And since Vatican I redefined the parameters of papal authority{3} and jurisdiction, attempting to have recourse to the opinions of doctors of the Church (however venerable) over and against the august Magisterium of the Church is the hallmark of historical heretics and schismatics."

I understand what he's saying, but "redefined" I would argue is quite a bad choice for words, as the Church may not "redefine" dogma of the Deposit of Faith, which the primacy of Peter has always been. Yet he fails to cite Vatican I's definitions to prove excactly how us traditionalists must be silenced. Just throw Vatican I out there, and hopefully us trads will realize how stupid we are, and accept the Neo-Catholic position a prelate may never be resisted, and furthermore, the prelate can really do no wrong.

US Theologian summoned before Ratzinger, mixed reactions 

Ratzinger seeks further explanation from US Theologian

I've been sitting on this story for a few days, not sure excactly what to say about it. On the one hand, it's good this theologian is finally getting taken to task for his I believe heretical views that the human nature of Christ has implications for pluarlist theology.

On the other hand, the liberal makes the point that many of his views were once condemned, then accepted at Vatican II. Now I of course don't believe Vatican II taught explicit error, though I do believe by it's ambiguities, the liberals had a field day with it.

I'm happy something is being done, don't get me wrong, but I just have some mixed feelings about this article, perhaps I"ll elaborate later.

Wednesday, September 17, 2003

Amazing Even After the Fact 

Bishop O Brien Did Obstruct Justice

Certainly it causes great joy for Catholics to know that one of the most preverse and corrupt(and now possibly murderous) bishops has resigned. While it's sad he did what he did as Bishop, more filfth gone. Yet here we see O Brien employing the Neo-Catholic notion of obedience, obedience even when one knows it's wrong.

We see here stonewalling was ordered, and a priest was yelled at for suggesting the proper legal authorities be notified of the mollestation. Mollestation is a crime, and when it's committed, and one knows about it, one is obliged to report it, or counsel someone to report it. We obviously see how stupid this notion of obedience is, and obviously it's false obedience.

Yet isn't this what Neo-Catholics counsel us to do in the face of scandal, not to speak out about it, just be silent, and criticizing the action is in fact spiritual immaturity and disobedience?

Why should anyone care that an Anglican "bishop" was consecrated in a Catholic Church? 

Question to the "Experts"

Though this occured a month ago, I didn't realize it was there until very recently. The answer is truly stunning. The person seems to think there really isn't a problem having an Anglican "bishop" being "consecrated" in a Catholic Church. Answers like these are why I honestly no longer recomend EWTN for Apologetics. It has an occasional good thing from time to time, yet Neo-Catholic novelties like these are truly dangerous to those not well read in their faith, especially those seeking an answer to serious questions. These "experts" are to be there to help nurture these men's souls.

First we must discuss what the "consecration" is actually doing. In reality, the only thing getting consecrated in Anglican services is the man's clothes to his body, since he certainly isn't a "Bishop" standing in line of apostolic succession. Second, even if they were Catholics, there would be scandal given the fact Anglicans support womens ordination, abortion, and some even homosexual "unions." What is the average faithful to think? Is he to think their ordination was true, since, afterall, my Church hosted the event?

Another bombshell in the answer is in regard to whether or not something like this could happen in an Eastern Catholic Rite. The person realizes it couldn't happen since Anglicans couldn't utilize a Church with icons and an altar facing the East. You know, the way every Church before the 1960's was constructed! For heaven's sakes, if the Anglicans did it there, they might realize that the Church is authentically Catholic, rather than a Church if it didnt' have the "Roman Catholic Church" on the letterhead, you could mistake the liturgy for an Anglican one.

More Fruits of "ecumenism"

Tuesday, September 16, 2003

Some Updates and Bio's 

Hey Everyone, just thought I'd give you a few updates

The Flagship of Restore the Church, the Defenders Apologetics Ministry, has finished it's upgrading process. Special thanks goes to Jacob Michael who was behind the design. (therefore, if you are annoyed by it, it's his fault. If you love it, I take the credit! Just kidding)

Jake has been a member at the Restore the Church team for some time now, but there was a problem with his login. Well, that's now been fixed. So here is who is on the team now:

Kevin Tierney
Organization(s): Defenders Apologetics Ministry, Iceman's Random Thoughts, Restore the Church
Iceman's Description: Yes this is me, your humble journalist. That site is my pet project, as is this and Iceman's Random Thoughts. Someday I might merge all three.

Michael Brendan Dougherty
Organization(s): Defenders Apologetics Ministry, Cross and Crown, Restore the Church
Iceman's Description: Truly one of the most gifted traditionalist youths today. What a steal he was! Provides very interesting commentary on culture over at Cross and Crown.

Ian Palko
Organization(s): Restore the Church
Iceman's Description: One of the more surprise additions to the team. Continues to remind us Traditionalists about the all important basics of the Catholic faith.

Mario Derksen
Organization(s): Catholic Insight, Daily Catholic, Restore the Church
Iceman's Description: This avid polemicist is someone I've been working with for quite some time. Also provides a defense for the SSPX.

Jacob Michael
Organization(s): Lumen Gentleman Apologetics, Restore the Church
Iceman's Description: The true computer geek of the group, Jacob likes reading Traditional Catholic books, smoking cigarettes, and staring at a screen writing code for Kevin's website!

Corey Zelinksi
Organization(s): Restore the Church
Iceman's Description: Yet another find recruiting job in the youth pools of traditionalism by the Restore the Church Team, Corey brings his unique perspective and style to the group.

The Descriptions of these men are those of yours truly and how I see them. Everyone give them a big round of applause.

The Missing Mass... 

I get so tired of being told that I'm "rejecting Vatican 2" because I believe the Novus Ordo Mass is an inferior and harmful liturgy.

I refuse to attend the Novus Ordo - precisely because I accept Vatican 2.

So here it is, one more time... a quick refresher on the Mass that the Council called for. If anyone can direct me to a parish where the Mass celebrated corresponds to what is described in this document, I will begin attending there post-haste.

The Liturgical document stated that the Church "holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way." Find me a parish where the Tridentine Mass is held "to be of equal right and dignity," where it is "[preserved]... and [fostered]... in every way."

The Council stated that "In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else... and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work." Find me a parish where "active participation" in the Mass is understood to be achieved, not by allowing lay-folk to do everything but consecrate the chalice, but by an understanding of the Mass that is achieved primarily by "necessary instruction."

The Council also declared that "no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority." Show me a Mass that does not leave itself open, by means of several "options," to constant spontaneous change at the whim of the priest.

Of the revised and restored (note, not "created from scratch") Mass, "there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them." Are you prepared to say that every single rubric and prayer that was either altered or removed completely from the Tridentine Mass was required for "the good of the Church?"

In the restored Mass, "at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence." Have you ever actually tried to count up the number of minutes in the Novus Ordo where "reverent silence" is observed? It might actually total up to five minutes on a good Sunday.

The Council reminds us that "the visible signs used by the liturgy to signify invisible divine things have been chosen by Christ or the Church." Boring vestments, drab santuaries, felt banners, punch-bowl patens and kool-aid chalices, anyone?

Another characteristic of the Council's Mass: "the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." Please, direct me to this Mass.

"Especially on Sundays and feasts of obligation there is to be restored... "the prayer of the faithful."... intercession will be made for holy Church, for the civil authorities, for those oppressed by various needs, for all mankind, and for the salvation of the entire world." I don't believe I've ever heard prayers for the "salvation of the entire world" mentioned at the Novus Ordo. Prayers for peace, for the unemployed, for unity, for social justice... but never for salvation for the "world," i.e., for Jews, for Muslims, for Protestants, for Buddhists, for the Eastern Orthodox, etc.

"Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them." I've searched high and low for this Mass... still haven't found it, outside of the Tridentine Mass.

"...communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit... for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism." Again, find me a Mass where communion under both species is a rare privilege granted to the "newly ordained," the "newly professed," and "the newly baptized," rather than to everyone, all the time.

"The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services." In the Novus Ordo? Are you kidding?

"In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem." Cheap guitars being played by amateur musicians, I have seen. Overly-sappy piano music being accompanied by first-year flute students, I have seen. Children's bell choirs, I have seen. But the pipe organ? How rare is that???

"Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God... those works of artists which are repugnant to faith... and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense." Banners, quilts, flowing streamers, plastic stations, white-washed walls, hippie-Crucifixes, plain crosses sine corpus, and on and on it goes.

Honestly. And you think I've "rejected Vatican 2" by refusing to attend the Novus Ordo? Might want to double-check and see if that shoe doesn't fit someone else a little bit better - like, for example, someone who does attend the Novus Ordo...

Bowing Before the Revolution 

A while back people had complained that I had "failed" to adaquetly respond to Shawn McElhinney's 7 part response to me. I had issued 3 parts of a response, and decided that the rest didn't actually warrant a response. I stand by that conclusion, as I won't have a dialogue with someone who believes that "Traditional obedience has nothing to do with being right or wrong." Oh you bet it has something to do with it! I personally am not going to follow a command which is clearly wrong in the name of obedience, the Church admits we cannot.

I gave it a re-read last night and came to the exact same conclusion, yet I'd like to comment on a particular statement he made, which is also typical of your average Neo-Catholic statement. When the issue of communion in the hand came up(after he admitted he was dead wrong on my views about it) he stated that the issue is merely one of catechesis and that he "wasn't one of those people who believes restoring communion on the tounge would solve everything." Now anyone who believes that it would automatically solve everything is of course a moron, and no traditionalist has seriously advanced this argument. Yet this seems to be a particular problem. Since what went on before wasn't flawless, we shouldn't go back to it.

Of course, one fails to realize that the current system as well isn't flawless. Both systems have their flaws. Traditionalists don't employ this "Camelot" Neo-Catholics accuse us of. As far as calling it a matter of "mere catechesis" Fr. John Hardon, S.J., a man which I'm sure the Neo-Catholics will admit was a great. He flatly stated that any effort we can do to get rid of communion in the hand will be rewarded by God in heaven. Proper Catechesis does away with such novelty and ultimately irreverance as communion in the hand. It is obvious which is the more reverent form. It is also no surprise that 99% of those properly catechized I would argue, viewed as Orthodox by Neo-Catholics, receive communion on the tounge, and some even kneeling(oh wait, can't do that no more, thanks to "peter", I mean the US College of Bishops, despite Vatican commands to the contrary).

So this "argument" when examined, is absolutely worthless. If anything, I would say it is an excuse and bows to the revolution of change for change sake. The same with Apolonio Latar and ecumenism. Since Pre-Vatican II ecumenism didn't work in unifying all those who take the name Christian and cause massive conversions from false religions, we must now kiss their Holy Books and not offend them, merely "dialoguing." The simple fact is this: The Neo-Catholics have no arguments left at their disposal. After 40 years of re-hashing the same tired arguments, their numbers are falling everyday rapidly, as we slowly gain more and more members to the fullness of Tradition. Let us continue to pray that the battle ends quickly, and then, united, we Catholics can take care of the true problem in our Church.

Monday, September 15, 2003

There You Have It, Today's Church is For Man, Not God! 

Bishop Clark Speaks Out

Here the Bishop Defends the ideas to renovate Sacred Heart Cathedral in Rochester. He is very careful in this paper, although unlucky for him, not careful enough. He makes a big mistake here, and essentially proves what Traditionalists have said all along. To quote the Bishop:

"At the same time, those seeking moments of quiet contemplation and personal moments with our Savior, will find them within the gem of reverence and devotion that will be the Eucharist Chapel."

Wait a minute there! I thought Church was supposed to be a time of quiet contemplation and personal moments with our Savior Jesus Christ? Quiet, since his house is a house of prayer, and personal, because we personally receive him, and we better be PERSONALLY disposed as to our own unworthiness and just how great God's grace is. Therefore, we had better be in prayer throughout that Mass that we receive the Blessed Sacrament worthily. No friends, these things aren't the purpose of today's Churches, they are to be relegated to a separate building.

Traditionally, the tabernacle was in the middle of the action as they say, with the altar. Indeed, Pius XII believed you could not separate the two.(Then again, Pius XII was before John XXIII, so to Neo-Catholics, he matters little, except when they are debating his role in WW2.) This proved the Real Presence, and caused one to be mindful of what they were entering, and what was about to happen. Nowadays, it also seems as if the Real Presence is removed implicitly as much as possible, since the Mass is no longer a time of quiet contemplation and time with our Savior, but seemingly a community social club. No doubt this is what the majority of "Catholics" perceive Mass as nowadays, even the Neo-Catholics are forced to admit this.

Further proof the Novus Ordo is going further down the spiral, as now the leaders of the revolution against Tradition don't even hide their true intentions anymore. The message of the story is this:

"Listen Novus Ordo Catholics. We don't want you in this Church to worship God, you wanna worship God, go to some side building."

Indeed, a time bomb statement many probably won't spend too much time on, but vitally important.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?