Wednesday, April 5, 2017

WHEN PROGRESSIVE CATHOLICS BECOME DOGMATIC WITH NON INFALLIBLE PASTORAL INITIATIVES


As we all know and experience in politics, liberals are some of the most dogmatic ideologues around and will hold an inquisition if one doesn't buy into their liberal agenda.

The same is true of progressives in the Catholic Church. They strive to implement not only the documents of Vatican II, but also its false "spirit" in the most pre-Vatican II dogmatic way. They elevate to dogma that which is only pastoral. It is the same spirit but at the opposite spectrum that leads traditional Catholics to turn limbo (a pastoral solution to a difficult subject about where unbaptized babies go when they die--limbo which is a nice place compared to hell, since the unbaptized can't go to heaven) into a rigid doctrine or worse yet, dogma. It is a pastoral theology.

I read a piece from Crux this morning highlighting the unshocking news that in the ranks of those in the SSPX are those who have sexually abused children and an apparent cover-up by the SSPX. You can read the horrible stuff here at Crux. But Crux presents this as though the SSPX are the only ones who have this issue because they are so dogmatically traditional, when we know that the full communion of the Catholic Church has an abysmal track record on the same subject and with quite liberal bishops who exacerbated the problem from which there seems to be no relief from the damage done.

But what got my attention in that Crux article about the SSPX was this:

Since its inception in 1970, the SSPX has been a lightning rod in the life of the Catholic Church. It’s seen in a favorable light by some Catholics who harbor reservations about the liberalizing reforms unleashed by Vatican II (1962-65), but as retrograde and dangerous by others who object to its hard-line positions on matters such as ecumenism, inter-faith dialogue, religious freedom, and liturgical reform.
Some have also accused the SSPX of turning a blind eye to prejudices the Church has made strenuous efforts in recent decades to combat, including anti-Semitism.

I would think that there are just as many if not more anti-Semites in the full communion of the Catholic Church as there are in the SSPX and in the south a goodly number of racists, not to mention those who are adulterers who avail themselves to Holy Communion each and every time they attend Mass  even if that attendance is only two or three times a year. But what the heck, the God of mercy sees Holy Communion as a charm that will heal the sin-sick soul in a magical, miraculous way. Our Lord is not a prize for the virtuous but medicine for the anti-Semite, the racists and pedophiles to include those despicable priests who commit these crimes and the bishops who turn a blind eye. What is important is that they would like to change but circumstances prevent it. 

But even worse for the progressives  is that the SSPX or even rank and file full communion Catholics don't buy that Vatican II's pastoral initiatives with ecumenism, inter-faith dialogue, religious freedom and liturgical reform are set in stone, or even doctrine much less than dogma. In fact these pastoral initiatives have a shorter lifespan in the tradition of the Church than that other pastoral theology: Limbo for which one can actually make a good case!

And then we have this wit and wisdom from an infamous and very disappointing liturgical blog that is as narrow-minded as anything I've seen from the SSPX and in fact its liberality is put forth in the most pre-Vatican II dogmatic and authoritarian way possible: 

 The rest of the Church accepts Vatican II and accepts what Pope Paul VI said repeatedly and very strongly: the reformed Mass of 1969 is faithful to Vatican II. You’re free to hold your idiosyncratic opinion, but it’s not persuasive to most other people.

The Mass of Paul VI is not set in stone and of course it’s reformable. But future reforms would deepen what happened in 1969 and carry its trajectory further. I suppose some things could be scaled back and some ‘traditional’ elements giver greater emphasis in a future reform – but within the liturgical understanding of V2 and 1969, not in opposition to it. All this is distinct from your desire to undo much of 1969, interpret V2 very selectively (and strangely), and in fact undo much of that the Council fathers called for. You cite a few cherry-picked phrases of V2 to argue against 1969, but it’s obvious that you don’t really accept V2 and your starting point is preconciliar.

Good [luck] with your minority agenda. But in my judgment: Not. Going. To. Happen.
Enough on this topic! It’s all been said here many, many times... Please don’t bring up this agenda over and over at Pray Tell...

In my humble opinion, let's discuss limbo, it has more going for it than the wit and wisdom of progressives with their infallibly presented authoritarian dogmatic ideologies.  

8 comments:

rcg said...

It shows that the SSPX , probably to their own chagrin, made the same mental mistakes addressing sexual deviancy as the did the Vatican at the same time. The actions are in inadequate and inappropriate but aparently motivated by shame. The "splinter group" under Williamson seems to be collecting the sorts of people on the Crux objectionable list so the SSPX is ridding itself of many of the problems only perhaps too slowly for some and inefficiently.

Am I the only one to think the timing of this release is perhaps more than coincidental? It would be a shame if the progressives sat on this information only to use the tortured children as props in their war.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

RCG, I thought the exact same thing as progressives in the Church do not want a group like the SSPX which has a pre-Vatican II theology to be given a rightful place in the Church as it calls into question their ideology of Vatican II refashioning an entirely new Church rid of its past accretions. So the timing is interesting. But if true it confirms that the Church has become politicized in the same manner as secular politics especially here in the USA--that is a very sad development.

Christopher said...

Umm "Limbo" is in the Creed!"...He descended into hell..." It's not a theory, it's dogma -we just use different words for the same thing. I suppose we should just go back to saying that the unbaptized go to hell.

Gene said...

Limbo and Hell are not the same thing. You need to brush up on your Catholic theology. Limbo is not in the Creed, nor is it true Dogma.

Marc said...

Limbo of the Fathers is implied in the Creed since that is the hell to which Christ descended prior to the Resurrection. One cannot deny the existence of the Limbo of the Fathers. This is indeed not the same hell as that occupied by Satan, the demons, and the damned. Both the existence of hell and the existence of the Limbo of the Fathers are dogmas.

Limbo of the Infants is a doctrine of the Church, the denial of which is proximate to heresy since, were one to deny it, one would necessarily deny the Church's teaching on the effects of Original Sin and the necessity of baptism.

As for the discussion of abuse and coverup in the SSPX, as I understand it, the priests in question are sheltered by Bp. Williamson, who has been expelled from the Society. They are, as it were, priests of "The Resistance."

I see the charge of anti-Semitism bandied about rather frequently with regard to the Society. I don't see any evidence of it, though. To believe as the Church has always taught is not akin to anti-Semitism. To pray for the conversion of the ethnic Jews to the True Faith is not anti-Semitism. On the contrary, to confirm them in their error is the abhorrent mentality since it does nothing to move them closer to the Eternal Beatitude offered by Christ through His Church. Yet, that is the position of New Rome, which explicitly denies the need to proselytize the Jews since it believes, erroneously, (1) that they are part of the Old Covenant, and (2) that the Old Covenant has not been revoked.

Marc said...

I should clarify that one could deny the Limbo of the Infants if one held instead that the souls of the unbaptized infants go to hell properly speaking instead of this limbo, which is a part of hell where natural happiness obtains.

To assert, though, that those souls go to heaven or obtain salvation otherwise, would be proximate to heresy. The common opinion of the theologians, though, proposes the Limbo of the Infants as a way to explain how God's justice is tempered by his mercy. Our hope for such souls, then, is the limbus infantum instead of the torments of hell.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"Limbo of the Infants is a doctrine of the Church, the denial of which is proximate to heresy since, were one to deny it, one would necessarily deny the Church's teaching on the effects of Original Sin and the necessity of baptism." Also, "To assert, though, that those souls go to heaven or obtain salvation otherwise, would be proximate to heresy."

This is not correct. It may be "correct" in SSPS circles, and some FSSP circles, but in the Catholic Church it is not correct.

Understanding the Limbo was a commonly accepted theological opinion, and that it is now no longer so, does not require or demand a denial of Original Sin. This is a simplistic response to a much more complex question.

If Original Sin is a reality, and it is, is it necessary that a Limbus Puerorum exists? The answer is "No."

"ethnic Jews" is a curious phrase, since Jews come from all ethnicities. Jews descended from the 12 Tribes of Israel is also non-ethnic, since Jews today, regardless of their ethnicity, are so descended.

Christopher said...

Forgive my mingling of the "Limbo of the Fathers" and the "Limbo of Infants". I understand that the "Limbo of the Infants" is implied based on the "Limbo of the Fathers" and that the Curch has never formally defined the "Limbo of the Infants (Formal definition = Dogma and so doctrine would have been a better word choice). Regardless, Baptism (water, blood, desire) is required for entry into Heaven, also Our Blessed Lord is Mercy Himself and would not punish an innocent baby (innocent of personal sin) so it seems to make sense that "next door" to the "Limbo of the Fathers" is the "Limbo of the Infants." Am I right or am I still misunderstanding?