Restore the Church

Thursday, September 25, 2003

Kasper Strikes Again 

Kasper states Vatican has no position regarding "The Passion"

Many Traditionalists(and a good many Neo-Catholics) wonder just how Cardinal Kasper got the title of prince of the Church. The man was a known dissenter in Germany, he questioned the inerrancy of Scripture(it seems noone is willing to ask if he continues to hold that view) he favored having priests sign certificiates for women to get abortions, against the wishes of John Paul II himself! For all this, he was rewarded the red hat.

The controversey has not died down. He has come out and said Jews need not convert since their covenant is still salvific for them, the ecumenism of return, where dissidents become Catholics is "Gone with the Second Vatican Council" he spoke to Anglicans in a speech that all but denied Apostolic Succession(!), he battled Ratzinger over Dominus Iesus, trying to put his liberal spin on every area of the document, and came out against John Paul II in Ecclesia De Eucharistica, saying that the Pope's ban on intercommunion needs to be reviewed under "pastoral circumstances." It would almost seem obvious that anything that is good for the Church, Kasper opposes.

We now look at America, where quite a controversey has been started over Mel Gibson's film "The Passion." Gibson received praise from two top cardinals, including Cardinal Hoyos, who said all Christians should see the film. It is highly obvious that Hoyos wasn't speaking in any Vatican authority. (Though to Neo-Catholics he resides in Rome, therefore, he carries the authority of the Pope with every statement he makes about even movies!)

Kasper furthermore did this in writing to the chief critics of Gibson, the undoubtedly Anti-Catholic Jewish Anti-Defamation League. Kasper wished it would've remained an American issue, but because of the "furor over the remarks of Hoyos and Foley", he just had to say something. Why? Because when a Catholic makes a Catholic movie about the death of Jesus Christ, and states the obvious that some Jews were involved, this enrages the Anti-Catholic Jews. And no, we can't have their feelings hurt by the truth, lest ecumenism be replaced by a policy of strong evangelization, apologetics, and conversion, and that's the last thing I believe the German Cardinal wants, since such is "done away with at Vatican II."

Wednesday, September 24, 2003

Apolonio To Host Inter-faith Prayer Service at His House? 

The most recent postings at the Lidless Eye Inquisition on September 24th are indeed amazing. One charge is that Neo-Catholics would not do the things that prelates do which we object to. Very few would have pagans pray to their false Gods in front of their children, hold "Catholic" rallies with pro-abortion politicians, and the like. It seems Apolonio sees the inherent contradiction in this position, so he has decided that Assisi 3 should be held at his house. This is a truly dangerous position, and I believe Apolonio doesn't even realize it. Though he does not read me since I cause "grave harm to the Church" and he feels personally responsible for getting me into apologetics(when in reality it was his colleague Phil Porvaznik, who still doesn't view me a radical traditionalist), I must write this, and yes, in public, hoping that if Apolonio does not see his folly, others will avoid the same errors in the future.

First he gives reasons to where such could be a possibility. One is to "lessen prejudice between the religions." I of course think this is a horrible example of evidence, as if anything, since the Assisi gatherings, religious tensions have flared out of control. And as far as prejudice, I will say something very politically incorrect. Yes, I am prejudiced towards false religions, just as I am prejudiced to smoking Marlboro Lights over Reds. I am prejudiced in the fact I will stand up for my faith, and when everyone else says "Every religion has much good" I say "So What, one drop of bleach in a bucket of filth doesn't make the bucket entirely white!

Now if he's talking about violence, yes violent tensions should be lessened. But would he like to prove such interfaith gatherings, ON THE WHOLE, decrease tensions amongst religions? Otherwise, Apolonio is engaging in a foolish act, with the potential to worsen relations.

He then quotes Pope Garrigou-Lagrange (of course I'm being sarcastic, but you'd think the man's writing is infallible based on how often Apolonio quotes him) about lessening prejudice. And on this manner, the Thomist is right. Certain actions should be taken to lessen prejudice. Yet there is a difference between lessening prejudice, and telling them it's ok to pray to their false Gods, when in reality, you should be that light to them, bringing them out of their false religion. I have Muslim friends I am in constant debate with. After every debate, I know they pray to Allah. Yet I don't condone it! Yet our relations are far better than with those Catholics, who tell them their faith is salvific for them.

Furthermore, he states he wants the dialogue to be "Perfectly Orthodox." Yet an inter-religious prayer meeting, where we tell pagans to pray to their idols itself is hetrodox I would argue! While not denying the sufficiency of Christ in fact, I think in practice, it does. I don't believe the Holy Father is a universalist for example, but I do believe, as many of his closest aides said, Assisi II sure gave that impression. As a leader one simply isn't to avoid sin, but avoid the fact of it looking like a sin. That's why a priest doesn't walk into a bar wearing his priestly garb.

He furthermore states that his house would not be defiled, since "Millions of rosaries have been prayed there." Apolonio is to be saluted for such fervent prayer(though I doubt it's "Millions"!) yet lets use an example. You live a life of holiness, then one day, committ murder, premeditated and all, and refuse to repent from that. You really think "Well sure God I killed the guy, but cmon, look how Holy I've been all my life!" will actually cut it?

Now as far as evangelists in works of charity, I agree, evangelization isn't always apologetics and explaining the faith. Sometimes, it is living that faith. Yet believing that Christ is the only way to truth, then telling a friend he should pray to false Gods, not just allowing, but ENCOURAGING him to do so, is not living your faith. Aquinas, Leo XIII, they all believed that yes, at times, false religions should be tolerated, but never promoted. I'd like someone to explain to me how telling them to pray to the Great Thumb and incense Buddha is not "promoting their false religion"?

He then talks about kissing the Koran. Readers of this blog throughout the past will know this argument has been completely demolished by myself, Mike, and Ian, so I do not feel the need to comment on it any further.

He further makes some distinctions that a kiss isn't always endorsing, so therefore, if he is presented a Koran, he will kiss it. Imagine if there's a seminar showing the errors of Mormonism, and the keynote speaker gets up and kisses the book fo Mormon, because it "gets some things right." What he says is certainly true, but that doesn't justify the act. Furthermore, it gives the "appearance" that one indeed endorses them. As an apologist, Apolonio must worry about what his readers read and hear from him, and if this were to happen, see from him. Not everyone understands the distinctions Apolonio makes, or agrees with them. He could very well give the impression that in reality, he is endorsing a false religion, especially one as violent as Islam. That's original sin for you, our intellect is clouded by that, and when we give the faith to others, we must be sure to live that faith.

He then obviously read Michael Brendan's "Kissing Pornography" an act of respect. He says "well muslims believe in one God, playboy doesn't promote that." This of course is Captain Obvious at his best. The point is, pornography is a perversion of true sex, whereas Islam is a perversion of the true religion. They both have some true points to them, but the errors pervert them. That's what Apolonio doesn't seem to realize.

I ask traditionalists to pray for our adversary Apolonio Latar, and for those who trust him to present the Catholic faith, as their trust would be seriously compromised if this event were to happen, and already is compromised because he approves of such.

Further Battles Over New Vatican Document 

Anger at Vatican Plan to Bar Altar Girls

I can't shake the dark side of my humor on this one. I believe Neo-Catholicism, like politics, is a spectator sport. While I obviously hope he follows through on the altar girls restriction(which we should all pray he does), that sinister side of Kevin's mind wants to see him do it for a small secondary reason: Watch the Neo-Catholics further embarass themselves.

All too long, they have called us stupid, schismatics, and having no logical grounds for argumentation. They condemned altar girls in early 80's, then lauded them as an enrichment to the liturgy. Now, they just may have to switch positions again, only because the Holy Father says so. Peter is great, but Peter isn't that powerful.

Another question I wonder about is, what will happen to Cardinal Kasper if this document goes through? It compares concelebration with Protestant Ministers and Orthodox Schismatics as essentially the same as a Black Mass! Yet this is something that is always happening with Kasper, as he frolicks with the Anglicans!

One Vatican insider claims these resolutions are idiocies. yet when you look at them friends, these are the kind of things that were expected of Catholics in the Pre-Vatican II era. Most of what will be states sounds like Catholic common sense regarding the Blessed Sacrament. Yet in the renewal of Vatican II, and the "great liturigcal reform" of the Novus Ordo(another question, if the liturgical reform was do darned good, why the need to go after these serious abuses, since these are occuring enough to be warranted.)

Us Traditionalists are of course glad, we never had to deal with any of this garbage. We always had a strong liturgy, not a "fabrication" as Ratzinger referred to the Novus Ordo as.

Perhaps my colleague Ian Palko was right. Maybe the Novus Ordo will just keep getting more and more absurd, until it finally becomes obvious their revolution and the Neo-Catholic position was disastarous.

Tuesday, September 23, 2003

Possible controversy over new document about Eucharist 

New Document Delayed by Vatican Debates

This could prove very interesting if this is indeed the case. The first thing the article notes is that the draft was rejected because it is "too conservative." This is of course quite amazing. I didn't realize the Church could be "too conservative" being IT'S VERY NATURE IS TO CONSERVE THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH!

I find it interesting the magazine Jesus is carrying the rough draft. Perhaps it's floating a trial balloon, see how bad the reaction is, or how positive the reaction is, so they know where everyone stands. Be that as it may be, that's still interesting in itself. Some may see this as a sign of playing politics with a matter as important as liturgical abuses, that if in the rough draft the document is condemned, they will "soften" their stance against these abuses. I'm not sure exactly where to stand on that. On one hand, it's good to know where the people stand, on the other hand, it's very tempting to use that knowledge to try and please everyone, which is impossible. We Traditionalists must watch this part closely, because it seems that whenever tradition battles novelty lately, eventually, novelty wins out.

Now what is so bad about this "conservative" document. Well, it outlines 37 Eucharist errors currently going on in the Novus Ordo today, that happen so frequently, they deserve attention. I would just merely ask how many of these errors happened with such frequency during the days of the Traditional Mass and it's more strict Eucharistic precautions?(granted, mistakes are mistakes, but there need not be 200 paragraph texts against rampant liturgical abuses.)

There is one thing that I am concerned about, but I believe we should wait and see. The command to go to the Bishops to report these problems. I agree this should be done, but with the likes of Cardinal Mahoney, does anyone really expect anything to do be done? What about Bishop Fiorenza, who showed his true colors of deception against Father Zigrang?

The upcoming document will also frown on liturgical dance. So what many Neo-Catholics have called a charism of the Spirit in Charismatic "Masses", are in fact now being frowned upon by the Roman Curia and implicitly(at the time) The Holy Father. Same with applause. The bombshell is that these things being condemned, happen even in the Pontiff's own Masses. Something is amiss over in the Vatican right now, and of course I think we aren't getting the full story.

Reuters likewise reports that the document seems to speak against altar girls, reminding the prelates they need not seek them(tell that to the Bishops please, as many times they force their hand to allow altar girls) and furthermore reminds them one should not seek altar girls "unless of a just pastoral cause." Here is where I hope that isn't the actual text of the document. That's extremely ambiguous. Speaking under the guise of reaching out to women, and bringing them to the liturgy, could be viewed as a just pastoral cause for altar girls. Hopefully if we have to suffer altar girls(which I hope one day we won't anymore), let's at least have those "just pastoral causes" strictly defined. The liturgy is not the play toy of the Bishop or priest, as Ratzinger himself even declared in a recent interview on EWTN which I commented on yesterday.

We further see the exhorting of receiving communion under one species, as the communion under both species I would argue has in one way or another caused decline in Eucharistic faith.

This could be a very interesting story, especially considering the Pope's age and Ratzinger's possible retirement, which always comes up. These 2, while being liberals in many areas, I argue are too "traditional" for many in the Novus Ordo nowadays. How this battle behind the scenes plays out, could very well determine the path of the Church, as the liturgy is intimately connected to the Church.

Monday, September 22, 2003

Some Thoughts on Ratzinger's Interview with EWTN 

Interview with Cardinal Ratzinger

I've given this text a read a few times, and I believe that while certain points within it are absolutely amazing as far as novelty goes, he also gives traditionalists some strong ammunition, and we should take comfort in having such things being said.

First discussed is the "reform of the reform", in which I believe is troubling, because it seems as if the Pope said the Novus Ordo was the correct implementation of Vatican II. (Though I would argue noone really knows what the Novus Ordo is anymore.) Realizing the slow return to the Traditional Mass will take time, I believe an acceptable option is more adherence to the rubrics, clarifying the ambigious passages of Vatican II on the liturgy, and more strength against those who go away from the rubrics. When talking about the rubics, Ratzinger talks about how the priest is essentially able to create his own Mass. Get that schismatic! Oh wait, Ratzinger is the number two man in the Church! That's the same argument traditionalists have made, and Neo-Catholics dismiss it as "a stupid argument, the priest really doesn't have that much leeway!" Now His Eminence states it, and I wonder what they will say.

Same with facing the altar or facing the people during Mass. Ratzinger first says facing the altar is apostolic in root (vindicating the Traditionalist claim that Mass was not said with the focus of the people, but of God) and that this should return. This is a welcome statement I believe. Though I wonder how this can be accomodated, since in the name of Vatican II, and the Novus Ordo, the altars were destroyed, and given the design of the Churches, with many altars "in the round" such would have to be redesigned for even this! I would say this is an implicit admission the liturgical "renewal" was nothing of the sort. What will the Neo-Catholics do now?

He further states the obvious, Paul VI did not legally surpress the Traditional Mass, merely promoted a new rite, and this rite became the ordinary rite of the Catholic Church. Therefore, for those "expert canonists" I was told who favor the idea the rite was abrogated and supressed, I wonder what they will say. Will they say Ratzinger is mistaken? (If he lived in America, yes. Since he resides in the Vatican, no.)

He furthermore states that the problem of the past 40-50 years(essentially the time since Vatican II) the problem has been a weakness of faith. This is now obvious, and a restatement of the argument that since Vatican II, be it the implementation or the Council itself, the faith underwent a severe crisis. To say the Council had nothing to do with this is really to close one's mind to actual arguments against your opinion. We see his Eminence readily and honestly admitting problems Neo-Catholics will refuse to admit.

Furthermore, he readily concedes that which was released as the Third Secret need not apply to the current pontificate, and could apply to a future Pope. In other words, our position that the Third Secret of Fatima might still be operative, we can't assign everything to the past, and I would argue, indeed the consecration of Russia hasn't been done, is still an opinion which cannot be dismissed. Perhaps Father Gruhner will receive a little more kindness now. (Perhaps not.) Though this seems to contradict what was originally said by Ratzinger, Sodano and company back when the "secret" was released, it's a welcome admission I believe. He further states that the vision was for "the next generation." Well, the next generation for Sr. Lucia, is not John Paul II's assasination. The Third Secret dealt with, if we're talking timewise and generations, possibly 50 years or so, right around the time of Vatican II, when it was decreed the Third Secret shouldn't be released. Ratzinger probably doesn't agree with traditionalists on this, sure, but while choosing his words very carefully, I think he lends support for us "rad-trads" to at least exsist, which of course our Neo-Catholic brethren won't do.

So I think there were a few bombshells in the text. Anyone else got any ideas?

The Silliness of Ecumenism 

"Archbishop" too liberal for Anglicans, yet welcomed by Vatican

I don't know what really to say about this one, other than Mr. Ferrara receives the Captain Obvious award. No doubt he is denounced as schismatic for pointing out the blatantly obvious right here. Rowan Williams is too liberal for his own people, yet he is a great thing for the Vatican. The Vatican wishes to pursue the path to unity with Williams. How can this be, when Williams doesn't even have unity in his own household, including churches right next to his parish bar him from celebrating there?

Meanwhile, you have more morally conservative Anglicans, who are shunned by the Vatican. Me and my friend Mike talked about this awhile back, that he believes the dialogues in and of themself could prove useful, now that the Anglicans are becoming more and more of a joke under Williams. I believe the mere support for Williams turns those who would be open to us off. What about dialoguing with conservative Anglicans? I believe ecumenical dialogue with them would show just how absurd the entire ecumenical project is: We would be forced to look at the real differences between us, and realize there is no communion until one side gives up it's errors and joins the other. Then again, that's Classic Evangelization, which is something different than ecumensim, as we are told by it's chief proponents.

At times, I hate to say it, but Protestants uphold more of Church teaching than Catholics do.

Interesting Insight at Tradition In Action 

Bird's Eye View of The News for September 19th

I've always been a fan of this series, for it's clarity, and honesty. This section was no exception. No doubt as we draw closer to the Supreme Pontiff's 25th anniversary, we will see several articles lauding in Neo-Catholic periodicals just how great he is, how he's the greatest Pope ever, the one who restored the Church, and many other things. Traditionalists generally believe these praises are not grounded in reality, that while the Pope has done some good, there are many things that also must be looked at, the apostasy, the further destruction of the liturgy(something His Holiness himself admits he has failed to correct), the scandalous interfaith prayer meetings, which even his own grassroots claimed promoted the idea "one religion was as good as another", the pointless ecumenical dialogues(which evidence now clearly shows ecumenism has gotten us absolutely nowhere), not to mention his failure to even discpline one wayward bishop during the entire sex scandal. Soddomites were not punished, and the only one who was, is someone who wanted to keep the Church from it's radical change. Whether or not one agrees with Archbishop from France and his Society of St. Pius X, his claims are vindicated, the changes he battled against have been disastarous.

One particular criticism of traditionalists is that the Pope is too busy traveling and appearing on TV, when he should be more concerned with running his office. It seems that us "schismatic" rad-trad organizations aren't the only ones making this claim. People from his own ranks, as we saw before with the report on Islam I documented here, have serious criticisms of the Pontiff, and they are starting to become a lot more vocal. While I may disagree with some of the other views of these men(of course there will be disagreements) they are obviously honest enough to admit there are some serious questions, and they should be asked. Unfortunately, our adversaries in Neo-Catholicville are the exact opposite.

I was told by Apolonio Latar that what I write is damaging to the Church. He of course cited nothing, because nothing of substantial evidence is there. Claiming that the Church should respect priests more, that we should have a stronger episcopate, and an evangelization program strictly dedicated to conversion is not something that is bad for the Church. No, what is bad for the Church, is traditionalists(and even honest liberals) don't blind themself to reality as my overzealous colleague does across the way. Apolonio doesn't want people to learn the evidence, because that will show that everything he has worked for, all the clever arguments, were dead wrong. Like the rest of Neo-Catholicdom, they know the times are beginning to change. I just pray my adversaries aim their guns at the right people, not at their loyal fellow soldiers in the war against evil.

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