In my thinking, a normal Catholicism would be one where the “People of God” submit to and obey the Church and her successors precisely BECAUSE they hold to unchanging, timeless truths. It’s a false dichotomy to say one either should hold to “tradition” OR be in union with the Church. It needs to be BOTH AND. And yet, far too often, far too common, this is precisely what we see.
This is PRECISELY the dilemma that many traditionalist Catholics find themselves in. Obey their conscious about doctrine, morals or tradition, or stay in union with a Church which has abandoned (if not repudiated) the “old paths.” Not that I think even most trads are fully aware of the breadth or depth of Catholic teaching prior to the Council of Trent, because there is much ignorance among both the clergy and laity. But that’s a topic for another day.
As a former trad, but current Catholic struggling with and for my faith in the Byzantine East, I’d like to think my position outlined above is one of common sense, but reading comments such as you posted from Lewis, or from some trads who ultimately have a very low view of the Church and what it means to be in it, I’ve deduced my position probably isn’t all that common sense to most people today.
The Catholic Church, painting with a broad brush, today feels more like a gay man wanting to come out of the closet but dancing around the truth of whom he is knowing he’ll alienate his family or friends. So he keeps hanging onto old appearances while dropping hints. The Church bears little resemblance to the one I read in the pages of the Holy Fathers.
I've watched Dr. Eduardo Echeverria on Dr. Larry Chapp's site. He is a decent and completely reasonable person. I have never heard him say anything that was untrue or even inordinately critical, his views were sober, measured, tempered. The irony of this is that he was punished for adhering to basic truths that don't change, by a prelate who apparently wants them to change.
Bravo, Steve! Bravissimo!! You are absolutely right. I left the Catholic Church for many reasons, one of which being its willingness to manipulate the catechism to reflect papal agendas rather than inspired truth. For me, this was obvious with JPII's unilateral, arbitrary theological revisionism concerning capital punishment for murder, which Francis took to its logical extent by declaring it "morally illicit" (Catholic-ese for fundamentally immoral, which the Church *never* previously taught.). I've written about this in the past so rather than bore your audience with the extensive arguments, I'll link the articles I wrote here:
Lewis is not alone in his sycophancy. Archbishop Charles Chaput exhibited it in response to Justice Antonin Scalia's concerns in First Things magazine about JPII's revisionist morality. Chaput criticized Scalia's "cafeteria Catholicism" by equating the late justice to Frances Kessling, the former nun who founded the pro-abortion "Catholics For a Free Choice."
Needless to say, Chaput probably was born with fewer brain cells than Scalia ever lost in his lifetime.
I've come to the regrettable conclusion that Catholicism is nothing more than a cult (in the most pejorative sense of that term). It doesn't matter if adherents are modernists or traditionalists. Adherents are "conditioned" (i.e., brainwashed) to give blind deference and obedience to a clerical class that manipulates the sacraments as agents of control, a class that doesn't give two micrograms of desiccated rat droppings about anything but its own power, wealth and prestige -- Christ be damned, let alone the laity.
If you don't believe that, read the following "dialogue" I had w/Msgr. Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. :
For a Church that in these days elevates “dialogue” to the level of a a sacrament, the good Monsignor sure didn’t seem to know how to engage in a civil one with you. While indeed true that the worth of a man’s words is made up more of the quality of the few than the quantity of the many, one should expect a fair hearing on what is written and not insults, pejoratives or empty rhetoric.
But what should I expect? I have found through the course of my life that true dialogue is a rare thing. Few have the desire to truly listen, consider, and gnaw on the details. And moreover, to lay aside one’s understandings when proven fallacious. Instead, one is either condemned or ostracized by silence. Those who speak the truth will always be the prophets for their times, but like the prophets in the stories of old, they are ignored, condemned, and murdered. But since murder is looked down upon in our time, we’ll have to thankfully settle for the first two.
In my thinking, a normal Catholicism would be one where the “People of God” submit to and obey the Church and her successors precisely BECAUSE they hold to unchanging, timeless truths. It’s a false dichotomy to say one either should hold to “tradition” OR be in union with the Church. It needs to be BOTH AND. And yet, far too often, far too common, this is precisely what we see.
This is PRECISELY the dilemma that many traditionalist Catholics find themselves in. Obey their conscious about doctrine, morals or tradition, or stay in union with a Church which has abandoned (if not repudiated) the “old paths.” Not that I think even most trads are fully aware of the breadth or depth of Catholic teaching prior to the Council of Trent, because there is much ignorance among both the clergy and laity. But that’s a topic for another day.
As a former trad, but current Catholic struggling with and for my faith in the Byzantine East, I’d like to think my position outlined above is one of common sense, but reading comments such as you posted from Lewis, or from some trads who ultimately have a very low view of the Church and what it means to be in it, I’ve deduced my position probably isn’t all that common sense to most people today.
The Catholic Church, painting with a broad brush, today feels more like a gay man wanting to come out of the closet but dancing around the truth of whom he is knowing he’ll alienate his family or friends. So he keeps hanging onto old appearances while dropping hints. The Church bears little resemblance to the one I read in the pages of the Holy Fathers.
I've watched Dr. Eduardo Echeverria on Dr. Larry Chapp's site. He is a decent and completely reasonable person. I have never heard him say anything that was untrue or even inordinately critical, his views were sober, measured, tempered. The irony of this is that he was punished for adhering to basic truths that don't change, by a prelate who apparently wants them to change.
No, I'm not going to worship the Zeitgeist.
And now I have Megadeth playing in my head.
Bravo, Steve! Bravissimo!! You are absolutely right. I left the Catholic Church for many reasons, one of which being its willingness to manipulate the catechism to reflect papal agendas rather than inspired truth. For me, this was obvious with JPII's unilateral, arbitrary theological revisionism concerning capital punishment for murder, which Francis took to its logical extent by declaring it "morally illicit" (Catholic-ese for fundamentally immoral, which the Church *never* previously taught.). I've written about this in the past so rather than bore your audience with the extensive arguments, I'll link the articles I wrote here:
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/3460-killing-capital-punishment-how-pope-john-paul-set-precedent-for-pope-francis
https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4010-changing-doctrine-pope-francis-vs-cardinal-john-henry-newman
Lewis is not alone in his sycophancy. Archbishop Charles Chaput exhibited it in response to Justice Antonin Scalia's concerns in First Things magazine about JPII's revisionist morality. Chaput criticized Scalia's "cafeteria Catholicism" by equating the late justice to Frances Kessling, the former nun who founded the pro-abortion "Catholics For a Free Choice."
Here are the links from First Things:
https://firstthings.com/gods-justice-and-ours/ (Scalia's position)
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/10/antonin-scalia-and-his-critics-the-church-the-courts-and-the-death-penalty
Needless to say, Chaput probably was born with fewer brain cells than Scalia ever lost in his lifetime.
I've come to the regrettable conclusion that Catholicism is nothing more than a cult (in the most pejorative sense of that term). It doesn't matter if adherents are modernists or traditionalists. Adherents are "conditioned" (i.e., brainwashed) to give blind deference and obedience to a clerical class that manipulates the sacraments as agents of control, a class that doesn't give two micrograms of desiccated rat droppings about anything but its own power, wealth and prestige -- Christ be damned, let alone the laity.
If you don't believe that, read the following "dialogue" I had w/Msgr. Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. :
https://blog.adw.org/2011/10/on-the-noninfallibilists-and-how-they-diminish-virtues-of-docility-and-obedience/
For a Church that in these days elevates “dialogue” to the level of a a sacrament, the good Monsignor sure didn’t seem to know how to engage in a civil one with you. While indeed true that the worth of a man’s words is made up more of the quality of the few than the quantity of the many, one should expect a fair hearing on what is written and not insults, pejoratives or empty rhetoric.
But what should I expect? I have found through the course of my life that true dialogue is a rare thing. Few have the desire to truly listen, consider, and gnaw on the details. And moreover, to lay aside one’s understandings when proven fallacious. Instead, one is either condemned or ostracized by silence. Those who speak the truth will always be the prophets for their times, but like the prophets in the stories of old, they are ignored, condemned, and murdered. But since murder is looked down upon in our time, we’ll have to thankfully settle for the first two.