Saturday, December 6, 2014

Faithful Catholics and Theological Positions -- A Difference Which Must be Overlooked

Katholisches.info strives to present those things necessary for internal church discussions which don't officially take place and are in part also not desired. These include the guest comments by Clement Victor Oldendorf, some of which met with strong opposition, while the author felt misunderstood. Most recently, he set out in an essay about  the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops, "The letter concluded" (Pope Francis) - attempt to overcome barriers of understanding, in  the search for ways  to counter the modernist innovation by theological reflection. The present article does not have the modernists in its sights, but the Society of St. Pius X.   Ultimately, it is Odendorf by his own admission to engage in reasonable debate in all of his contributions to tradition and its orientation in the debate within the Church.
,
Guest commentary by Victor Clemens Oldendorf
Last Sunday of the Church year, at our view of the world and the end of the eschatological return of Christ. This eschatological orientation is prepared in Advent, in which we relive the expectation of the first coming of the Messiah and celebrate Christmas is in the liturgical calendar of the Novus Ordo, which is also characterized by the displacement of the feast of Christ the King on this Sunday. But the liturgy of the 24th and last Sunday after Pentecost in the traditional Roman Rite clearly shows this character - especially in the Scripture readings.
There is talk of false Christs, which one should not chase into the desert and not in the chambers and of the signs of the times, in which they are recognized. With that   the Antichrist becomes the topic and also the question of whether and in what sense he is condensed in a person and if it is not already present and atmospheric - has his precursor - in all trends, and movements. The great exegete Erik Peterson (1890-1960) spoke for that reason of the "eschatological proviso" under which the whole story is already complete and remains with the first coming of Christ.
I heard Holy Mass in a Priory of last Sunday Society of St. Pius X recently. There, too, the preacher dealt, inter alia with these issues.
In addition to what I report below, I'm emphatically not engaging in a criticism of this Father. That's why I won't deliberately reveal his identity and the place where I've heard the sermon. Also, there is general finding that not every preacher a good preacher, yes certainly every preacher can not be a good theologian, is not restricted to the SSPX, and vice versa you meet there, even often,   equally successful rhetorical and theological preaching. 

FSSP a Forerunner of the Antichrist?

After introductory remarks about the Antichrist and his predecessor suddenly remembered the sudden remark that "the FSSP is unacceptable for the Catholics" because they had accepted the "errors of Vatican II" or at least remain silent. The consequence of that, in the words of the priest, that  the Masses of FSSP and those other priests who celebrate it under the provisions of Summorum Pontificum, are  "unacceptable for Catholics"  remained unspoken to the best of my memory yet was unmistakable.
My basic point  is not aimed to even challenge that position. I think you can argue it and  justify it.   But not so, as in this case. While it is true that there is a theological problem of consciousness in relation to the Second Vatican Council in circles around Summorum Pontificum, for they often only pronounce privately or not at all, and there is no full understanding  given as to why   the "Old Mass" is favored and what's more, should practically avoid the "New". Nevertheless, the SSPX does not have binding magisterial authority about statements of the Second Vatican Council, which it sees problematic as "errors", which means that it identifies the theological positions of the SSPX with the Catholic faith, ultimately, I am deliberately formulating a provocative alternative identification  of the "Lefebvre-follower" and "Catholic." This was never done in this way or supported by  Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. It is  not only to participation in the "New Mass"  that is  to be rejected, but also at every Mass in the traditional Roman Rite, not celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X.
Why do I run with this rigamarole? Because  there is an actual mistake  that I notice in parts of the SSPX.  Namely, to see the difference that stands between fidelity to the disclosed and traditional Catholic faith and judgment with which it evaluated by this criterion, for example, controversial statements of the Second Vatican Council, or the new liturgy.

Despite Differences of Opinion Equally Faithful

What I want to say for sure is very easily illustrated  in 1988 with a flashback. The situation at that time was undoubtedly as complicated and confused as it was unmanageable. Thus  it was come to a conclusion without a doubt that one was  entitled or even obliged to consecrate bishops, but just as convinced this is not to be allowed, without the consent of John Paul II. Both convictions included in my opinion, does not exclude that both supporters of the consecrations, as well as those who believed they had to distance himself from it, in spite of the disagreement, were equally Catholic and remained faithful.
Similarly, it is my concern with the  appreciation of religious freedom by the SSPX and its connection with a certain political theories or political ends, that are not presupposed theologically to  underlie this position, which I believe it is by no means incompatible with the Catholic faith to take this position, but the SSPX can not also claim or demand (especially not necessarily prove) that one must share this vision, to be considered a faithful traditional Catholic.There have always been different positions in the Church on details and in particular with practical assessments of theological and pastoral problems on the basis of common unity in orthodoxy. If one does not see or bears with this, he succumbs to an illusion or fiction.

"Not even the Son", "but in the last 80 years"

When I come back to the sermon, which has pushed me to these considerations, it is fairly harmless when compared with this fundamental error, because the preacher,  although related to Matt 25:13, where it is noted that we have neither the day nor the hour of the Second Coming know Christ, but three times he emphatically said, "in the last eighty years." What you have to grin admit is that it speaks for someone to announce the date of the Last Judgment, for a certain shrewdness to choose such a time: With the exception of infants who did not follow the sermon with understanding, virtually none of the listeners can verify the accuracy of this statement, nor refute it.
The view of the preacher on the Advent let him weave the proper admonition to commit this period as a time of collection and seclusion. He exhorted them  to give up television and recommended obviously seriously, best to "rip out that plug". Whoever does not own pliers, can ask the preacher.

Not Autonomous, but Responsible

The very negative attitude of Society to television seems to me to be such a practical example where catholicity is not decided. It's also not that the believer, so to speak, is entirely self-determined, without distinction to consume all, or may, without asking for measures of value, but in this particular case, the values must be taken into account and  act  responsibly. The  principle position  which expects a traditional Catholic to refrain entirely from television, is followed by a bit of convincing logic, which would insist that one can not read anything, because there are bad books.
Text: Victor Clemens Oldendorf
image: laportelatin.org
Trans: vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches...
AMDG

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

The author's view on television is kinda goyish to be honest, but then again not everyone can be blessed with the wisdom of God's formerly chosen people... or chosen people if you're not a Lefebvrist.

In almost every Jewish house I've been to the television was either not present or collecting dust in the basement. Not surprisingly, the children in these families are very well educated, skilled, and grow up to be very successful.

I've noticed a similar pattern in SSPX families; the televisions are only used to view documentaries, nature programs, religious media, and other such things. In the parishes/chapels I've been to (urban/suburban), the youth are mostly university educated (e.g. engineers) or skilled tradesmen. In this respect the Lefebvrists are very Jewish, and that's a good thing. The "Novus Ordo" behaves more like liberal Jews who are more accepting of modern media.

Cable and broadcast television is pure filth; a sewer filled with lust, violence, idiocy, and revolutionary brainwashing. A Mohammedan acquaintance of mine said she saw some children's show (5 and under) where the mouse is a cross dressing homosexual (Toopy and Binoo).

I admittedly envy SSPX parishioners, their biggest social problem is priests who hate television. The "Novus Ordo" has priests who are huge fans of Game of Thrones (aka a porno disguised as tv show) and who are crazy sports fanatics (e.g. when my Archbishop was made a Cardinal, he went to the Vatican wearing the local sports team jersey with his name on it as a celebration). When it comes to extremes, unworldliness is better than worldliness.

Tancred said...

The analogy between television and books he employs is disappointing, inmho.

Anonymous said...

Catholics should turn their back on TV since Hollywood in general has turned their backs on catholics.

Anonymous said...

I once heard it said that the "worst evil that could befall a man is to not recon evil that which is evil." That's what we are all dealing with. We live in a corrupt culture to which we become desensitize, at our own peril. Much of TV is so insidious because it offers entertainment that is mostly harmless. Yet "mostly" is the operative word. It changes our values and our moral judgment slowly and subconsciously.
50 years ago, women wearing pants was controversial because it challenged our moral standards. Certainly men are no less affected now by woman in pants than they were then. If you argue that they are not affected, you are arguing that either they have lost an appropriate/natural response to the opposite sex or that they have become desensitized by being exposed to more intense stimulations (e.g. sexual promiscuity or pornography). The former is patently absurd, as the sheer fact of it being popular is due to the alluring nature of such clothing. In the latter case desensitization is not an excuse for tolerance of something that is intrinsically inappropriate; that would be like saying its OK to leave candy around a household of obese children because they already over-indulge during meals; true, removing the candy may not stop the problem but it would be a step in the right direction, while leaving the candy – if we have the power to take it – is wrong. Edmond Burke once said that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. 50 years ago, there were not enough good men taking action and so now people have come to accept, tolerate, or – worst of all – not recognize the evils of modern culture.
Similarly, TV shows that are mostly good, with occasional nudity or other objectionable material, should be avoided. If they are not, 50 years from now, things that we find morally objectionable are going to be missed as such by future generations. An obvious example is the fact that many TV shows now have homosexual characters who are portrayed in a sympathetic light. While, we know and accept the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, the natural aversion and repugnance that ought to be elicited by encountering a person who openly embodies that life “style” may become dulled, just as something that stinks smells less and less the longer that you are around it. Chesterton’s book The Ball and the Cross demonstrates this well: when the protagonist, who is a passionate Catholic, encounters an atheist who disrespects the Blessed Mother, he attacks him. The police break up the fight and attempt to distance the Catholic and the atheist from one-another, so the two of them have to flee from the legal system in order to have the necessary freedom and privacy to have a duel. In the process of the flight from the police, they must pool their resources (or “team up”). The longer they do so the harder it becomes to desire a duel. Once the Catholic perceives this peril of no longer fighting for what he believes in (because of the budding friendship) he insists that they stop running and fight, despite the strategic inconvenience of the current location. We too must stop and fight; we must cut our ties with this insidious “friend” before we no longer have the heart to fight. It’s either our principles or peace with the world. For “he that finds his life, shall lose it and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it (Matt 10:39).

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...