Thursday, April 30, 2015

Rome as others see her: Called to Communion? to be Catholic? to Denial?

It's always helpful, in my opinion, to get a second opinion; in this case, to get a sympathetic outsider's take on Rome's performance. It goes without saying, of course, that any outsider (even a sympathetic one) is going to lack a faithful insider's commitment and the perspective that offers. Yet even an outsider can help us to see what message we're communicating and how it's being perceived and received.

In "Which Call?" (Old Life, April 29, 2015), D. G. Hart comments on a conference on polarization in the Roman Catholic Church in the United States hosted by The University of Notre Dame’s Center for the Study of Religion and Society. (See the plenary session round table here.)

Hart notes that while the folks at Notre Dame recognize diversity in the Church, conservative Catholics tend to see unity as the "real" condition of their communion, ignoring the large groups of problem children within the Church.

From here, Hart compares and contrasts the "Called to Communion" paradigm of such Catholics with an older liberal "Called to be Catholic" proposal revisited recently by Commonweal here. He closes by bringing up a third possibility after remarking as follows on the Commmonweal discussion:
Not much there about motives of credibility, papal audacity, Thomas Aquinas, or John Henry Newman.

So which is it? Is it Called to Communion or Called to be Catholic? You can only chalk up such questions to Protestant perversity for so long before you finally admit a problem. Or you change your theme to Called to Denial.
The problem isn't Sacred Tradition, as such, but the lack of clarity about the professed relation of contemporary Catholicism to that Tradition. As one reader recently wrote:
"Rome: please share.... just what IS the authentic faith? Helping people? Seeing the goodness of all, and simply basking in God's redemptive action as an accomplished fact? Or declaring sin, salvation, and the peril of the present moment?

"Because based on the words I read online, I have no idea where Church leaders' hearts are. And I know I am not alone. How about some real, man-to-man and man-to-woman frankness, as opposed to common man posing? Just what is it that you believe? From Rome, I would argue the message right now is anyone's guess. 'God has spoken.' OK, can we hear what he had to say, clearly and reliably and without coy set reporter spin?"
[Hat tip to JM]


Raider Fan


The magisterium is populated by men who do not hold that the catholic church is a perfect society with a clearly defined set of parameters within which are taught doctrines which are aught but the formalised truths of Divine Revelation and ALL ELSE is outside the Ark of Salvation; men of false faiths embracing as their spiritual anchor alien ideologies which are dragging them down into hell.


In just a sec, I will post what Popes said about Mahometanism prior to the V2 revolutionary rocket being exploded in the souls of the flummoxed faithful who had their spiritual ground undermined and who were left dazed and confused by the ceaseless BS produced by Ecumenism - the universal solvent of Tradition.

Raider Fan


The celerity of chaotic change is as persistent as it is pernicious but, yet, we are told we must obey.

OK, reconcile away as you may but I say, no way:

“I vow to… exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet (Islam) in the east.” – Pope Callixtus III

“… there is hope that very many from the abominable sect of Mahomet will be converted to the Catholic Faith.” – Pope Eugene IV

“Turn the anger of the Almighty against the godless Turks and Barbarians who despise Christ the Lord” – Pope Pius II

“In the royal city of the east, they have slain the successor of Constantine and his people, desecrated the temples of the Lord, defiled the noble church of Justinian with their Mohometan abominations. Each success, will only be a stepping stone until he has mastered all the Western Monarchs, overthrow the Christian Faith, and imposed the law of his false prophet on the whole world” – Pope Pius II

“They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mohomet …” – Pope Clement V

“… the Turks and other infidels … They treat the way of true light and salvation with complete contempt and totally unyielding blindess …” – Pope Leo X

After V2 we have Popes saying this:

“My visit to Turkey afforded me the opportunity to show also publicly my respect for the Islamic religion, a respect, moreover, which the Second Vatican Council (Nostra Aetate) pointed out …” – Pope Benedict XVI

“… Nostra Aetate, which as ushered in a new season of dialogue and spirtual solidarity between Jews and Christians, as well as esteem for the other great religious traditions. Islam occupies a special place among them.” – Pope Benedict XVI

“… my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion.” – Pope Benedixt XVI

“May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan …” – Pope John Paul II

When we have an Ecumenical Council and V2 Popes completely contradicting 1962 consecutive years of Catholic Doctrine and Catholic Orthopraxis, do you really think it is wise to reject everything prior to V2 and call for obedience or do the modern Popes have an obligation to explain and defend their novelties and tell us how these novelties are not a rupture with Tradition ?

Sed Contra


I would love to be proved wrong but it seems to me:

We are all Protestants now, and we need a new ecclesiology because the error correction algorithm in the Church is broken.

And if the Synod asks to choose between Francis and Christ, well then, it will be undeniable.