You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Vatican II’ tag.
In 2003, Toby Westerman wrote an article for International News Analysis (INA) Today – ‘Infiltration of the Catholic Church?’ — which traced Communist activities within it.
Non-Catholics will also be edified by reading the excerpts which follow, emphases mine.
An affidavit recently obtained by INA Today attributes the Catholic Church’s present state of collapse to a calculated attack beginning decades ago, with initial successes appearing in the 1960s.
The affidavit affirms that Communist Party organizer and high Party official, Bella Dodd, made public statements during the decade of the 1960s declaring that the Catholic priesthood was infiltrated by numerous Communist agents, whose mission was “to destroy the Catholic Church from within.”
As Westerman notes, Dodd published a book called School of Darkness, now available online, which will appear in my next few posts so that you can see from the inside exactly how Communists work in American institutions, primarily state schools.
The Communists drummed Dodd out of the Party. She eventually rediscovered her Catholic faith, which she embraced for the remainder of her life. She died in 1969. This is what she testified, much like what Agent AA-1025 wrote:
“In the late 1920′s and 1930′s, directives were sent from Moscow to all Communist Party organizations. In order to destroy the Catholic Church from within, party members were to be planted in seminaries and within diocesan organizations,” Dodd stated according to the affidavit.
“I, myself, put some 1,200 men in Catholic seminaries,” Dodd publicly declared.
Dodd did not include these remarks concerning her activities directed against the Catholic Church in her book, which was first published in 1954, leading some to question whether the remarks were actually made.
However, as we saw yesterday, the Catholic philosopher Alice von Hildebrand corroborated Dodd’s testimony through this affadavit, which Paul and Johnine Leininger provided.
When contacted by INA Today, Mrs. Johnine Leininger stated that there were others who could also verify that Dodd made the statements regarding infiltration into Catholic seminaries.
Dr. von Hildebrand told INA Today that Dodd had earlier refrained from detailing Communist efforts to undermine the Catholic priesthood at the request of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, the individual responsible for bringing Dodd back into the Church.
Why Archbishop Sheen would have requested such a suppression of information is unclear. However, Vatican II talks were no doubt either underway or about to begin, therefore, he might not have wished to jeopardise his position. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if he had encouraged Dodd to make all her knowledge about the Church public earlier. The Catholic Church might never have seen Vatican II and could have been in a stronger, purer state today. Who knows?
The process of Communist infiltration into Catholic seminaries, which Dodd described in her public talks, would have been part of a larger plan called “Outstretched Hand.”
Communist Party archives in Moscow confirm the existence of operation “Outstretched Hand,” and define its goals, according to Herbert Romerstein, author of the seminal work on Soviet espionage in the United States before, during, and after WWII, “The Venona Secrets” …
One document in Moscow’s Soviet archives reveals that the Communist Party had infiltrated several influential Catholic organizations, including the Holy Name Society, the largest parish-oriented Catholic men’s group, which is devoted to increasing reverence for the name of God and to good works in the Church and in society in general. A Holy Name Society chapter exists in almost every Catholic parish in the U.S.
The “Party comrade” operated in a key parish which provided “leadership” and shaped “the policies of most of the reactionary and anti-Communist campaigns that are now developing in the Catholic world,” according to the Soviet file.
Romerstein also recounts in The Venona Secrets that the staff of the Catholic anti-Communist publication entitled Wisdom, produced by a priest of the Paulist order, was infiltrated, and unknowingly employed two Communist agents in influential positions.
The Party boasted that one of their agents was “widely known to be a conservative in Irish circles,” and was a staff correspondent for Wisdom. Romerstein identified the Party member and Soviet agent as Jeremiah F. O’Carroll, who, in 1930, was the president of the Irish Emergency Relief organization.
Although O’Carroll was identified as a spy in 1938, he remained listed as a staff correspondent for Wisdom at least until March 1939.
The second Soviet agent who worked for Wisdom remains unknown to this day.
In many ways, the struggle traditionalists have against Modernism in the Church is no different from that which conservatives have politically against leftists (e.g. Democratic Party, Socialist Party).
When it happens in one’s own ranks, however, many understandably greet news with disbelief or rationalisation: ‘He must have a reason for saying that. Maybe he’s right.’ This reaction is what subversive instigators wish to elicit. The conservative then starts to doubt what he has been brought up to believe. Alternatively, he believes the words of a sleeper agent. In either case, his beliefs become discredited and compromised.
At the end of Westerman’s article, we find out more about how sleeper agents amongst our clergy work:
Leininger described these priests as “sleepers,” a term designating individuals or groups who carry out their espionage function only at a selected time. Before becoming active, the “sleeper” will refrain from any espionage or subversive functions.
Dodd’s infiltrators — those who lost or never actually held the Catholic faith — would have been the mentors of the present generation of Catholic priests and bishops …
Tomorrow: Excerpts from Bella Dodd’s School of Darkness
Why is the Vatican so quiet on the infiltration of the Catholic Church, which has been going on for at least 80 years?
I remember the shock of reading of the death of Pope John Paul I in 1979 and the P2 involvement in the Vatican which then emerged. I was still a Catholic then and wondered, when the Church specifically forbade Catholics to become Freemasons, how a lodge could be so close to the papacy. My mother and my friends were equally stunned.
Meanwhile, my grandfather could never figure out why Paul VI had ostracised and, it seems, lied to Cardinal Mindszenty, a saintly man who had suffered greatly yet had done so much for the faith behind the Iron Curtain.
At the turn of this century, the Catholic philosopher Alice von Hildebrand had written a book about her late husband, Dietrich. When Soul of a Lion appeared, Latin Mass Magazine interviewed her and asked her more about what she and her husband, whom Pope Pius XII called (informally) ‘the 20th century Doctor of the Church’. Below you will be able to read for yourself what reaction her husband received when he tried to present his evidence to Pope Paul VI.
Sancte Pater has reproduced the interview, excerpts of which follow (emphases mine). Even non-Catholics will find what Dr von Hildebrand has to say of interest. On the general remarks she makes about the supernatural, the Cross and redemption, the orthodox Presbyterian John Gresham Machen (born around the time her husband was) would have wholeheartedly agreed. The late Lutheran pastor Richard Wurmbrand would have also agreed, particularly with her call to holiness and prayer as a faithful Christian against Satan and his earthly agents.
TLM: In terms of the present crisis, when did you first perceive something was terribly wrong?
AVH: It was in February 1965. I was taking a sabbatical year in Florence. My husband was reading a theological journal, and suddenly I heard him burst into tears. I ran to him, fearful that his heart condition had suddenly caused him pain. I asked him if he was all right. He told me that the article that he had been reading had provided him with the certain insight that the devil had entered the Church. Remember, my husband was the first prominent German to speak out publicly against Hitler and the Nazis. His insights were always prescient.
TLM: Did your husband think that the decline in a sense of the supernatural began around that time [1920s -- from an earlier question], and if so, how did he explain it?
AVH: No, he believed that after Pius X’s condemnation of the heresy of Modernism [1907], its proponents merely went underground. He would say that they then took a much more subtle and practical approach. They spread doubt simply by raising questions about the great supernatural interventions throughout salvation history, such as the Virgin Birth and Our Lady’s perpetual virginity, as well as the Resurrection, and the Holy Eucharist. They knew that once faith – the foundation – totters, the liturgy and the moral teachings of the Church would follow suit. My husband entitled one of his books The Devastated Vineyard. After Vatican II, a tornado seemed to have hit the Church …
Even the pagan Plato was open to a sense of the supernatural. He spoke of the weakness, frailty and cowardice often evidenced in human nature. He was asked by a critic to explain why he had such a low opinion of humanity. He replied that he was not denigrating man, only comparing him to God.
With the loss of a sense of the supernatural, there is a loss of the sense of a need for sacrifice today. The closer one comes to God, the greater should be one’s sense of sinfulness. The further one gets from God, as today, the more we hear the philosophy of the new age: “I’m OK, You’re OK.” This loss of the inclination to sacrifice has led to the obscuring of the Church’s redemptive mission. Where the Cross is downplayed, our need for redemption is given hardly a thought.
The aversion to sacrifice and redemption has assisted the secularization of the Church from within. We have been hearing for many years from priests and bishops about the need for the Church to adapt herself to the world. Great popes like St. Pius X said just the opposite: the world must adapt itself to the Church.
TLM: From our conversation throughout this afternoon, I must conclude that you don’t believe that the accelerating loss of the sense of the supernatural is an accident of history.
AVH: No, I do not. There have been two books published in Italy in recent years that confirm what my husband had been suspecting for some time; namely, that there has been a systematic infiltration of the Church by diabolical enemies for much of this century. My husband was a very sanguine man and optimistic by nature. During the last ten years of his life, however, I witnessed him many times in moments of great sorrow, and frequently repeating, “They have desecrated the Holy Bride of Christ.” He was referring to the “abomination of desolation” of which the prophet Daniel speaks.
TLM: This is a critical admission, Dr. von Hildebrand. Your husband had been called a twentieth-century Doctor of the Church by Pope Pius XII. If he felt so strongly, didn’t he have access to the Vatican to tell Pope Paul VI of his fears?
AVH: But he did! I shall never forget the private audience we had with Paul VI just before the end of the [Second Vatican] Council. It was on June 21, 1965. As soon as my husband started pleading with him to condemn the heresies that were rampant, the Pope interrupted him with the words, “Lo scriva, lo scriva.” (“Write it down.”) A few moments later, for the second time, my husband drew the gravity of the situation to the Pope’s attention. Same answer. His Holiness received us standing. It was clear that the Pope was feeling very uncomfortable. The audience lasted only a few minutes. Paul VI immediately gave a sign to his secretary, Fr. Capovilla, to bring us rosaries and medals. We then went back to Florence where my husband wrote a long document (unpublished today) that was delivered to Paul VI just the day before the last session of the Council. It was September of 1965. After reading my husband’s document, he said to my husband’s nephew, Dieter Sattler, who had become the German ambassador to the Holy See, that he had read the document carefully, but that “it was a bit harsh.” The reason was obvious: my husband had humbly requested a clear condemnation of heretical statements.
TLM: You realize, of course, Doctor, that as soon as you mention this idea of infiltration, there will be those who roll their eyes in exasperation and remark, “Not another conspiracy theory!”
AVH: I can only tell you what I know. It is a matter of public record, for instance, that Bella Dodd, the ex-Communist who reconverted to the Church, openly spoke of the Communist Party’s deliberate infiltration of agents into the seminaries. She told my husband and me that when she was an active party member, she had dealt with no fewer than four cardinals within the Vatican “who were working for us.”
Many a time I have heard Americans say that Europeans “smell conspiracy wherever they go.” But from the beginning, the Evil One has “conspired” against the Church – and has always aimed in particular at destroying the Mass and sapping belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. That some people are tempted to blow this undeniable fact out of proportion is no reason for denying its reality. On the other hand, I, European born, am tempted to say that many Americans are naïve; living in a country that has been blessed by peace, and knowing little about history, they are more likely than Europeans (whose history is a tumultuous one) to fall prey to illusions … Judas had played his hand so artfully that no one suspected him, for a cunning conspirator knows how to cover his tracks with a show of orthodoxy.
TLM: Do the two books by the Italian priest you mentioned before the interview contain documentation that would provide evidence of this infiltration?
AVH: The two books I mentioned were published in 1998 and 2000 by an Italian priest, Don Luigi Villa of the diocese of Brescia, who at the request of Padre Pio has devoted many years of his life to the investigation of the possible infiltration of both Freemasons and Communists into the Church. My husband and I met Don Villa in the sixties. He claims that he does not make any statement that he cannot substantiate. When Paulo Sesto Beato? (1998) was published the book was sent to every single Italian bishop. None of them acknowledged receipt; none challenged any of Don Villa’s claims.
In this book, he relates something that no ecclesiastical authority has refuted or asked to be retracted – even though he names particular personalities in regard to the incident. It pertains to the rift between Pope Pius XII and the then Bishop Montini (the future Paul VI) who was his Undersecretary of State. Pius XII, conscious of the threat of Communism, which in the aftermath of World War II was dominating nearly half of Europe, had prohibited the Vatican staff from dealing with Moscow. To his dismay, he was informed one day through the Bishop of Up[p]sala (Sweden) that his strict order had been contravened. The Pope resisted giving credence to this rumor until he was given incontrovertible evidence that Montini had been corresponding with various Soviet agencies. Meanwhile, Pope Pius XII (as had Pius XI) had been sending priests clandestinely into Russia to give comfort to Catholics behind the Iron Curtain. Every one of them had been systematically arrested, tortured, and either executed or sent to the gulag. Eventually a Vatican mole was discovered: Alighiero Tondi, S.J., who was a close advisor to Montini. Tondi was an agent working for Stalin whose mission was to keep Moscow informed about initiatives such as the sending of priests into the Soviet Union.
Add to this Pope Paul’s treatment of Cardinal Mindszenty. Against his will, Mindszenty was ordered by the Vatican to leave Budapest. As most everyone knows, he had escaped the Communists and sought refuge in the American embassy compound. The Pope had given him his solemn promise that he would remain primate of Hungary as long as he lived. When the Cardinal (who had been tortured by the Communists) arrived in Rome, Paul VI embraced him warmly, but then sent him into exile in Vienna. Shortly afterwards, this holy prelate was informed that he had been demoted, and had been replaced by someone more acceptable to the Hungarian Communist government. More puzzling, and tragically sad, is the fact that when Mindszenty died, no Church representative was present at his burial.
Another of Don Villa’s illustrations of infiltration is one related to him by Cardinal Gagnon. Paul VI had asked Gagnon to head an investigation concerning the infiltration of the Church by powerful enemies. Cardinal Gagnon (at that time an Archbishop) accepted this unpleasant task, and compiled a long dossier, rich in worrisome facts. When the work was completed, he requested an audience with Pope Paul in order to deliver personally the manuscript to the Pontiff. This request for a meeting was denied. The Pope sent word that the document should be placed in the offices of the Congregation for the Clergy, specifically in a safe with a double lock. This was done, but the very next day the safe deposit box was broken and the manuscript mysteriously disappeared. The usual policy of the Vatican is to make sure that news of such incidents never sees the light of day. Nevertheless, this theft was reported even in L’Osservatore Romano (perhaps under pressure because it had been reported in the secular press). Cardinal Gagnon, of course, had a copy, and once again asked the Pope for a private audience. Once again his request was denied. He then decided to leave Rome and return to his homeland in Canada. Later, he was called back to Rome by Pope John Paul II and made a cardinal.
TLM: Why did Don Villa write these works singling out Paul VI for criticism?
AVH: Don Villa reluctantly decided to publish the books to which I have alluded. But when several bishops pushed for the beatification of Paul VI, this priest perceived it as a clarion call to print the information he had gathered through the years. In so doing, he was following the guidelines of a Roman Congregation, informing the faithful that it was their duty as members of the Church to relay to the Congregation any information that might militate against the candidate’s qualifications for beatification.
Considering the tumultuous pontificate of Paul VI, and the confusing signals he was giving, e.g.: speaking about the “smoke of Satan that had entered the Church,” yet refusing to condemn heresies officially; his promulgation of Humanae Vitae (the glory of his pontificate), yet his careful avoidance of proclaiming it ex cathedra [infallible doctrine]; delivering his Credo of the People of God in Piazza San Pietro in 1968, and once again failing to declare it binding on all Catholics; disobeying the strict orders of Pius XII to have no contact with Moscow, and appeasing the Hungarian Communist government by reneging on the solemn promise he had made to Cardinal Mindszenty; his treatment of holy Cardinal Slipyj, who had spent seventeen years in a Gulag, only to be made a virtual prisoner in the Vatican by Paul VI; and finally asking Archbishop Gagnon to investigate possible infiltration in the Vatican, only to refuse him an audience when his work was completed – all these speak strongly against the beatification of Paolo VI, dubbed in Rome, “Paolo Sesto, Mesto” (Paul VI, the sad one) …
God alone is the judge of Paul VI. But it cannot be denied that his pontificate was a very complex and tragic one. It was under him that, in the course of fifteen years, more changes were introduced in the Church than in all preceding centuries combined. What is worrisome is that when we read the testimony of ex-Communists like Bella Dodd, and study Freemasonic documents (dating from the nineteenth century, and usually penned by fallen-away priests like Paul Roca), we can see that, to a large extent, their agenda has been carried out: the exodus of priests and nuns after Vatican II, dissenting theologians not censured, feminism, the pressure put on Rome to abolish priestly celibacy, immorality in the clergy, blasphemous liturgies (see the article by David Hart in First Things, April 2001, “The Future of the Papacy”), the radical changes that have been introduced into the sacred liturgy (see Cardinal Ratzinger’s book Milestones, pp. 126 and 148, Ignatius Press), and a misleading ecumenism. Only a blind person could deny that many of the Enemy’s plans have been perfectly carried out.
One should not forget that the world was shocked at what Hitler did. People like my husband, however, actually read what he had said in Mein Kampf. The plan was there. The world simply chose not to believe it.
But grave as the situation is, no committed Catholic can forget that Christ has promised that He will remain with His Church to the very end of the world. We should meditate on the scene related in the Gospel when the apostles’ boat was battered by a fierce storm. Christ was sleeping! His terrified followers woke Him up: He said one word, and there was a great calm. “O ye of little faith!” …
TLM: So you see the only scenario for a solution to the present crisis as the renewal of a striving for sanctity?
AVH: We should not forget that we are fighting not only against flesh and blood, but against “powers and principalities.” This should elicit sufficient dread in us to make us strive more than ever for holiness, and to pray fervently that the Holy Bride of Christ, who is right now at Calvary, comes out of this fearful crisis more radiant than ever.
Tomorrow: More on Communists in the Church, Bella Dodd and the ‘Outstretched Hand’
Nearly two years ago to the day, Churchmouse Campanologist published a précis of the Communist infiltration of the Roman Catholic Church. The post concerned the memoirs of a Communist agent: AA-1025: The Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle. Please consult the post for shocking revelations and a link to further excerpts from the agent’s book.
A number of my Protestant readers might take exception to the Catholic Church for various theological and scriptural reasons. In many aspects, I would agree with them. However, whatever infiltration or weakening happens in the Catholic Church occurs in Protestant denominations, too. Communist infiltration was also occurring in Protestant churches in America as far back as the 1930s.
Personally, I believe that the methods of Communist influence are both direct and indirect today. The paedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church could not have happened without years of subversion and the co-opting of useful idiots as enablers. And it would not surprise me if the same dark forces which engineered this perversion in the seminaries and parishes then decried all of it as corruption in the Church.
Similarly, in the Protestant churches we have more entertainment and feel-good preaching than solid study of Scripture. From praise bands to the Emergent Church movement, our worship moves us inevitably closer to Man than to God. Again, my hypothesis is that this is a combination of conscious subversion with the co-opting of useful idiots.
Protestant subversion
As far as the Protestant situation is concerned, theologians drifted into Modernism, a notionally Christian offshoot of Marxism, and was furthered by leftists. A few brief excerpts from this post will help set the scene:
Walter Rauschenbusch (1861 – 1918), Professor of Church History at Rochester Theological Seminary, is known as the ‘Father of the Social Gospel’. You might be interested to know that John D Rockefeller funded this seminary, along with many others in the United States.
Dr Rauschenbusch grew up in a German Lutheran family but became a Baptist pastor prior to his professorship. His status as a professor gave him the platform to become an influential theologian. He wrote two books, Christianising the Social Order and A Theology for the Social Gospel. He considered himself steeped in ‘higher criticism’ and well-versed in socialism. He proposed a more relevant and compassionate Gospel designed to change the emphasis and direction of American Protestantism. He also introduced the idea of an earthly Kingdom achieved through socialism. He posited that Jesus didn’t come to save sinners but had a ‘social passion’ for society.
In 1907, he met with the Fabians (socialists) in England … they proposed propaganda and infiltration to achieve their goals. In Rauschenbusch’s case the targets were to be universities, seminaries and churches.
A year later John D Rockefeller helped Rauschenbusch and the Fabian Revd Harry Ward — remember this name — to fund the establishment of the Federal Council of Churches. This would eventually become the National Council of Churches. We now have the World Council of Churches, which is very much aligned with the United Nations and global agendas.
In 1953 the Revd Harry Ward’s name popped up in the McCarthy hearings on Un-American Activities. Here is what the transcripts from July 1953 said (emphasis in the original).
Manning Johnson, a former senior member of the Communist Party, answered questions from Robert Kunzig, Chief Counsel for the committee. What follows is part of his testimony:
- William Z Foster, General Secretary of the Communist Party USA, said, ‘Communists must ever be keen to cultivate the democratic spirit of mutual tolerance among the religious sects … A still greater lesson for us to learn, however, is how to work freely with religious strata for the accomplishment of democratic mass objectives… A very serious mistake of the American left wing during many years … has been its attempt arbitrarily to wave aside religious sentiments among the masses. Reactionary forces [mainly concerned Christians] have already known how to work take advantage of this shortsighted sectarian error … In recent years, however, the Communist Party, with its policy of ‘the outstretched hand’ has done much to overcome the harmful left-wing narrowness of former years and to develop a more healthy cooperation with the religious masses.’
- Deceit was a major policy of Communist propaganda and activity: ‘They made fine gestures and honeyed words to the church people which could be well likened unto the song of the fabled sea nymphs luring millions to moral decay, spiritual death and spiritual slavery.’
- The Revd Harry F Ward also headed the Methodist Federation for Social Service, or the Methodist Federation for Social Action. He ‘was invaluable to the Communist Party … because through it the Party was able to get contacts with thousands of ministers all over the country … Quite a few ministers, for example, participated in the united front known as the American League Against War and Fascism … In fact, they were so deeply involved through Harry F. Ward that they became the spokesmen — the advocates, the builders and the leaders of this most important Communist front that engaged in everything from simple assault on a government to espionage, sabotage and the overthrow of the Government.’
- The Communists infiltrated and poisoned the religious organisations of America wherever possible: ‘Once the tactic of infiltrating religious organisations was set by the Kremlin, the actual mechanics of implementing the ‘new line’ was a question of following … the church movement in Russia, where the Communists discovered that the destruction of religion could proceed much faster through infiltration of the church by Communist agents operating within the church itself … The infiltration tactic in this country would have to adapt itself to American conditions … In the earliest stages it was determined that with only small forces available it would be necessary to concentrate Communist agents in the seminaries and divinity schools. The practical conclusion drawn by the Red leaders was that these institutions would make it possible for a small Communist minority to influence the ideology of future clergymen … The idea was to divert the emphasis of clerical thinking from the spiritual to the material … Instead of emphasis toards the spiritual matters of the soul, the new and heavy emphasis was to deal with those matters which, in the main, led toward the Communist program of ‘immediate demands’ [or 'felt needs'].
Catholic subversion
Agent AA-1025′s account, published posthumously after the nurse tending him found the manuscript among his effects when he died in hospital, described his own indoctrination into Communism and entry into the priesthood:
[When young, Michael, the future agent] decided to run away from home and met a friend who introduced him to his uncle who was a high-ranking official in the Russian Secret Police.
Michael had completed 6 years of study and by now was 20 years old. He was called to the office of The Uncle who told him: ‘I am now going to send you to practice a militant and international atheism. You will have to fight all religions, but principally the Catholic, which is better organized. To do so, you will enter a seminary and become a Roman Catholic priest… ‘
The Uncle gave further instructions to Michael: ‘The ten persons who will be directly under your orders will never know you. To reach you, they will have to pass through me. Thus you will never be denounced. We already have in our service numerous priests in all countries where Catholicism is implanted, but you will never know one another. One is a bishop. Maybe you will enter into contact with him, it will depend upon the rank that you reach. We have spies everywhere and particularly old ones who follow the press of the whole world.’
Agent AA-1025 — Michael — already foresaw the vagaries of Vatican II, the most heinous reform to ever take place in the Catholic Church:
‘Some day, you will see married priests and mass said in vernacular tongues.’ I remember with joy that I was the first one to say these things in 1938. That same year, I urged women to ask for the priesthood…
… Someone was charged to watch attentively all the Vatican writings, in order to detect even very small details capable of displeasing one category of individuals. The quality of those who criticize the Pope does not matter, the only important thing is that he be criticized. The ideal thing, of course, would be that he displeased everybody, that is, reactionaries as well as modernists.
I also prophesied, and we were then in 1940, the disappearance of altars, replaced by a table completely bare, and also of all the crucifixes, in order that Christ be considered as a man, not as a God. I insisted that Mass be only a community meal to which all would be invited, even unbelievers…
Mass must only be a community meal for the greatest welfare of human fraternity…
…The Saints must disappear before God, although it is much easier to kill God than His Saints… Then, we will proceed to suppress Judgement, Heaven, Purgatory and Hell. This is all very easy… Many are well disposed to believe that the Goodness of God surpasses all crimes. AIl we have to do is to insist on this Goodness. A God Whom no one fears, quickly becomes a God about Whom no one thinks. Such was the end to be reached.
Always drive minds towards a greater charity, a larger fraternity. Never talk about God, but about the greatness of man. Bit by bit, transform the language and the mentalities. Man must occupy the first place. Cultivate confidence in man who will prove his own greatness by founding the Universal Church in which all good wills shall melt together…
We could try to rationalise these developments over the past century, but we would be mistaken. It has happened and is happening. Those pointing to an absence of Scripture or doctrine must look further back than the present to see what is happening.
Monday: More Catholic testimony about Communist infiltration
On February 11, 2011, the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) featured findings from the 2008 Pew Forum survey and asked researchers for more information about the Catholic ‘mass exodus’ in America.
I’m not clear on why this is still news three years after its appearance, but the interview does shed light on where disaffected Catholics go to worship after they leave Holy Mother Church.
John L Allen Jr spoke with Pew Forum Director Luis Lugo and Pew Senior Researcher Greg Smith. Before going into details of the interview, here’s what Allen had to say (emphases mine throughout):
… almost half of American adults have either switched religions or dropped their ties to religion altogether.
For Catholicism, the banner headline was that there are now 22 million ex-Catholics in America, by far the greatest net loss for any religious body. One in three Americans raised Catholic have left the church. Were it not for immigration, Catholicism in America would be contracting dramatically: for every one member the church adds, it loses four. On the other hand, the study also found that the Catholic church has a higher retention rate than other major Christian denominations, and that 2.6 percent of the adult population is composed of converts to Catholicism, representing a pool of nearly six million new Catholics.
Naturally, critics of various aspects of Catholic life, such as the sexual abuse crisis or what some see as an overly conservative ideological drift, see the defections as proof of malaise. (A prominent American theologian recently claimed the Pew data reveal a “mass exodus” from the church, which he linked to a preoccupation by some bishops with the culture wars.) Equally predictably, Catholics content with the status quo play up the good news …
Here’s the bottom line: In comparison with other religious groups in America, the Catholic church’s struggles aren’t really with pastoral care, but missionary muscle. Overall, Catholicism serves existing members fairly well, as measured by the share that chooses to stick around; what it doesn’t do nearly as well is to evangelize …
To put all that into crass capitalistic terms, in America’s highly competitive religious marketplace, the real Catholic problem isn’t customer service but new sales.
Speaking as one of those ex-Catholics, I would disagree and say that a major part of the problem is customer service. We’ll see that in the comments later in the post.
But, first, excerpts from the interview. Bold type, as in the original, indicates Allen’s questions.
What reactions do you get when you discuss these findings with Catholics?
Lugo: People are often a little befuddled when I present the full range of evidence … You have to compare it to retention rates of other religious groups, and see it in terms of retention plus recruitment. It’s the net relationship between those two factors that’s so crucial.
Everybody’s losing members in this country, some even more than Catholics … Protestants are losing lots of members too, but for every four Americans who are no longer Protestant, there are three who are Protestant today who were not raised that way. Protestantism is declining as a whole, but the recruitment rate is pretty good. Catholics are not replenishing their ranks through conversion in the same way.
There are two other key variables. One is immigration, and the other is higher-than-average fertility rates among Hispanic Catholics. If the only factor driving a religious group’s share of the population were conversion, the Catholic church would be declining.
Smith: One of the things I was struck by, especially with regard to the Catholic church, is the degree to which apparent stability masks enormous change just below the surface. If all you look at is the percentage of the population who told us they’re Catholic, it’s exactly what we’ve found for four decades, and you would think nothing much is going on. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In his recent Murray/Bacik Lecture at the University of Toledo, noted Catholic theologian Richard Gaillardetz said the Pew data confirm a “mass exodus from the church.” Is it accurate to talk about a “mass exodus”?
Lugo: In the context of American religion as a whole, it’s not really accurate. In fact, Catholic losses are right in line with what we see overall in terms of people changing affiliation in this country. Look at the fastest-growing religious group in America, the unaffiliated. Even there, half of all people who were raised without an affiliation have since joined a religion! …
What really strikes me about the Catholic numbers is on the recruitment side. The Jehovah’s Witnesses grow because they recruit even more than they lose, which is not the case for the Catholics.
Smith: It’s not fair to say there’s a “mass exodus” from Catholicism more than any other faith … But one of the points of the report is that to understand the dynamics of American religion, you have to see retention and recruitment together. It’s the churn, the ratio of leaving to joining, which matters. It’s the recruitment side that sets Catholics apart. Four people leave Catholicism for every one who joins, and there’s no other religious group where you see a similar ratio. Baptists, for example, also have more people leaving than joining, but their ratio of 2-1 is twice of what we see for Catholics.
Is the take-away not that Catholics have a problem serving existing members, but that Catholics need to ramp up their missionary efforts?
Lugo: In terms of sheer numbers, that’s right …
I know that all the RCIA people will probably be mad, because they’re already over-burdened, but your question nails it: The most striking thing about Catholicism in America isn’t that it’s losing people, but that it’s not recruiting them as successfully as other groups. I should add that … the 2.6 percent of American adults who are converts to Catholicism is a huge pool of folks, so it’s not like nothing is going on.
What do we know about why those 22 million ex-Catholics left the church?
Lugo: It’s very interesting, because we have to break it down between those who have joined the ranks of the unaffiliated and those who have become Protestants … it’s by no means clear … whether the church ought to become more liberal or more conservative! Bear in mind that among those becoming Protestants, a majority are Evangelicals. One out of ten Evangelicals in America today is a former Catholic, and many of those folks say the Catholic church isn’t conservative enough.
Smith: It’s impossible to say in broad strokes why people leave, because it depends on where they’re headed. Among former Catholics who are now unaffiliated, 65 percent say they just stopped believing the religion’s teachings … 58 percent say they were unhappy with the teaching on things like abortion and homosexuality, and 48 percent or so were unhappy with the teaching on birth control. However, even more say they just gradually drifted away. 71 percent of former Catholics who are now unaffiliated say that.
Lugo: For that group … Many were already fairly “secularized” before they stopped identifying as Catholics …
Smith: For those who have become Protestants, 71 percent say their spiritual needs weren’t being met … More than half of those who are now Evangelical cite Catholic teaching about the Bible as a factor … most say that the Catholic church does not view the Bible literally enough …
Lugo: We also find that where ex-Catholic Evangelicals tend to cite reasons of belief and theology, those in mainline Protestant churches tend to be influenced more by what we might call “life cycle” factors, such as marrying someone of a different faith, or they didn’t like the priest at their parish, and so on.
For those who leave the church, when do they do so?
Smith: In 2008 we did a follow-up survey, and we found that switching is something that usually happens early in life. Most who left Catholicism did so prior to reaching the age of 24 …
Catholic membership is being replenished largely through Hispanic immigration. Are those Hispanics likely to remain Catholic?
Smith: People often assume that fewer Latinos leave Catholicism as compared to non-Latinos. There’s something to that, although the difference is not as large as you might expect. Among non-Hispanics who were raised Catholic, 66 percent are still Catholic. Among Hispanics raised Catholic, it’s 73 percent … Among those who have left, it’s just like the non-Hispanic Catholics — roughly half are now unaffiliated and half have become Protestants, mostly Evangelicals.
Now, to two of the comments, which really nail the issue.
First, from Mary Margaret Cannon (page 1 of the comments — sorry, no permalink — caps in the original):
… I believe: …
1. From a marketing perspective (as crude as that may sound) … Catholics literally threw off external “signs” of their Catholic identity at the time of Vatican II — Manifested chiefly by avowed religious who tossed aside habits and collars — at the very same time Americans were rushing to embrace “logos” and “brands”, in a pattern which has grown exponentially over these decades …
2. For the last dozen years or so, we’ve been most definitely moving into another age — not merely “collecting” things we like — but CONNECTING with those we identify with. Hence — the skyrocketing success of social networking places like Facebook …
3. The “problem” of Church membership isn’t as much about “conservative” vs. “liberal” — it’s about which experience — IF ANY — offers people the chance to connect with one another FIRST and foremost, so that they can then connect with God …
Having traveled all over America and having attended Catholic Masses in countless churches — contrast this push from Fundamentalist Churches to “reach out”, with the mumbled responses and lackluster welcomes (if any at all) as you walk in the door at a huge number of Catholic Churches. . . .Small wonder that younger people are slipping out the back door, in search for an experience of connection and joy, belonging and promise.
If we really REALLY want to turn around the numbers — however anyone interprets them — the answer is clear: …
Instead of concentrating on rewriting the Roman Missal (sorry — not a segue or a rant — just an observation) — it’s a huge pity that the following 3 SIMPLE elements are not added to every Sunday Mass (at least), at every single Catholic church in America:
1. Take 1 minute (literally) of every homily to EXPLAIN the origins of Catholic rituals like genuflecting (a fascinating story) — or the origins of the 12 Days of Christmas Song — or why bells were/are rung during the Consecration. People DON”T KNOW this stuff any more — But it’s fun, it’s trivia and it INFORMS the congregation — AND it helps the congregation CONNECT to 20 centuries of Christians before us. It helps Catholics understand that there IS a reason for everything we do — that it’s not just because “father said so”.
2. Devote 3 minutes (literally) during every Communion meditation to the “personal testimony” of a Catholic-in-the-pews, to tell a quick story of how Jesus is working in his/her life. (Take a look at the denominations attracting ex-Catholics: they all celebrate personal testimony/witness — enabling people to lift one another up in encouragement, enabling people to get to know one another, lessening a sense of “embarrassment” that faith should somehow be “private”, enabling people to connect with one another AND with the Church as a whole. THIS IS EVANGELIZATION and Catholics need to do it first and foremost in our own houses of worship — then, we can spread the Good News more effectively than ever.
3. I’m 56 years old, with several fabulous relatives who are avowed religious & I’ve had friends my whole life who are priests and nuns. I cannot ever remember a time when a priest gave a homily where he shared his own faith journey — where he openly shared his own desert experience and how God walked him through the desert. But, Why????? …
At the end of the day, this isn’t a perplexing problem of stemming the tide of defections. It’s not about the scandals (as much as I abhor them) or about whether the Church is “conservative” or “liberal”.
All we have to do is incorporate new ways to connect, to share, to “see” Jesus in our daily lives — and if we build that Church, they will come at a run …
And, from page 2 of the comments, Patrick Buckley:
… I was in the seminary when Vatican II started up, and I was there when Pope Paul VI gave his famous encyclical “Humanae Vitae” (of Human Life) … Nonetheless, many priests had been expecting the opposite decision, and rebelled and in the privacy of confession told many Catholics that is was okay to use the pill.
Next: mortification by abstaining from meat on Fridays was abolished and people were told to do their own mortification privately. Guess what? Nobody did. I certainly didn’t and happily ate hamburger and steak on Fridays from then on. Also, full abstinence and fasting were dropped to almost nothing in Lent. No penance to remind us that we are sinful beings who need to regularly practice the rites of self-control …
Next: the Church dropped it’s emphasis on the Rosary during the months of October and May (the month of Mary). Soon, nobody was praying the Rosary …
Next: the change of Confession to Reconciliation. One could go to Confession in the 50′s and early 60′s, spend some time before confession reviewing our sins, confess them, and receive some sort of penance. The whole time spent was not much, and therefore, I was much more inclined to attend confession regularly. But……….after Vatican II “reconciliation” greatly lengthened the time in the confessional from an average of 2 minutes to 15 minutes … Four people per hour, and there were no longer 2 priests to hear confession but only 1 priest in a parish with 4000 people! It doesn’t take a mathematician to figure out that it was impossible to hear even 1 confession per year for each of the parishioners. So, general confession had to take place, and pretty [soon] individual confession dropped even more.
Finally, sermons became bland; we had one priest for 10 years who spent most of his sermon making light jokes and entertaining us. My kids despised him, and all 7 dropped away from the church for many of the above reasons. I have had 3 that have come back partway, but that’s no consolation. All difficult topics were avoided from the altar. The priests explained to me that their sermons had to confine their topics to the 3 readings, but they no introduced none or very little relevant matter regarding the moral dissolution of our society during that period …
They could have preached that Catholicism is and has been under attack since year one. They never gave any historical background to why our faith is so important. They never mentioned the anti-[C]atholic[is]m of Napoleon, Mao, Stalin-Lenin, Planned Parenthood, and indicated that if we fell morally, the forces of anti-God authortarianism would take the place of the Church.
Next: the rol[e] of CCD—Confraternity of Catholic Doctrine or the teaching of the Faith to our children has been another disaster. While it’s fine and dandy to tell 1st-4th graders that Jesus loves us, it ‘s a qualitatively different matter when you then fail to instruct the children about Catholic Doctrine in detail and give reasons “why” it is truthful and divinely inspired. Instead, right up thru 12th grade, the main intent is to “entertain” the youth first during the first 20 minutes with games …
Our current and best priest at our Parish in the last 35 years is our current priest- a convert from Presbyterianism, whose father is indeed a pastor in that faith … He includes Church history from the first 2 centuries of our Church that explain many of our Doctrines, and he uses Latin words and then defines them into English for purposes of clarity …
Kent/Renton Washington locale
My purpose in compiling this post is less a call to or criticism of Catholicism than it is a warning to Christians around the world: if we don’t bring up children properly in the faith or have appropriate pastors willing to preach Scripture and doctrine from the pulpit, then we must accept the consequences.
Regardless of what we think about Catholicism, we have been warned about being lax and lukewarm.
Over the past few days, I have seen several searches for my Mariology dossier from November 2010. No one has found all of them, so to make things easier, here are links to the entire set.
Informative and educational, these will no doubt answer a number of questions you might have about how Mary is viewed within Christianity:
A summary of Mariology and the Church – November 17, 2010
John MacArthur on Mariolatry – Part 1 — November 18, 2010
John MacArthur on Mariolatry – Part 2 — November 19, 2010
Emotion, sensation, Mary and ecumenism = One World Religion — November 21, 2010
The Revd Johnold Strey is a pastor in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS).
In September 2009, he posted his insights in ‘Love of the Lectionary’. Readers offered excellent points as well. As we have just started Year A — ‘Matthew’s year’ (as his Gospel is featured) — it seemed apposite to see how Pastor Strey and his readers view the Lectionary. If you missed my post yesterday on the subject, you might want to read it before continuing below.
Some history
For centuries, the Church — including the churches of the Reformation — used a one-year Lectionary. Many of us preferred it as we were familiar with the readings and knew what Sunday a certain Gospel passage would be read.
However, as Strey notes (emphases mine):
As a part of Vatican II’s worship reforms, a new three-year lectionary was produced, with the goal of opening up a larger portion of God’s Word to worshippers over the three years of the cycle. The Vatican II lectionary was obviously designed for Roman Catholic parishes, but the liturgical tsunami that shook Vatican II swept over other liturgical churches, including Lutherans. Eventually the Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship (ILCW) tweaked the Vatican II lectionary, which was further tweaked by the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod in its 1982 hymnal, Lutheran Worship, and was still further tweaked by the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod in its 1993 hymnal, Christian Worship: A Lutheran Hymnal. (As an aside, the WELS Commission on Worship gave our previous lectionary a major overhaul and included the revisions in the new “Supplemental Lectionary” found in Christian Worship: Supplement).
The Vatican II lectionary, and all the ones that followed it, added an Old Testament Lesson (the “First Lesson,” which reverts to Acts during the Easter season but is otherwise from the Old Testament), and expanded the cycle to cover three years instead of one year. Each of the three years focuses on one of the synoptic Gospels (Year A is Matthew, B is Mark, C is Luke), with John scattered throughout all three years (especially Year B). First Lessons were generally chosen to match the emphasis of the Gospel for the day, i.e. to demonstrate the connection between Old and New Testament. Sometimes Second Lessons were also chosen to match the Gospel’s focus, but in other seasons the Second Lesson is a running series of readings from the same book. This was designed to help people get an understanding of the overall flow and content of these New Testament letters.
What does the Bible say?
There are no scriptural prescriptives about what or how much of the Bible to read in worship. The Lectionary does help us to see the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. It also gives us relevant readings which match the Church year, so we’re not hearing a reading about Jesus’s baptism on Easter Sunday, for example.
Therefore, in principle, the greater the variety of Scripture we hear, the better nourished we are. Hence, the three-year cycle.
Drawbacks to the Lectionary
I still maintain that we are missing out on vital Bible passages, ones which clergy avoid because they might be too difficult to tackle in a sermon.
Some of Pastor Strey’s readers agree:
Captain Thin: … I was just reviewing the LSB-LW Lectionary Comparison and was grieving just how much Scripture is never read from the lectern in these lectionaries. For example, the books of Ezra, Esther, Song of Solomon, Obadiah, Nahum, Haggai, 2nd John, 3rd John are never read in either lectionary. And many of the other books are read from just once or twice every three years. The result? There are large gaps in the public proclamation of Scripture – to the detriment of the Church.
Pastor Strey: … A good, solid adult Bible class might be the way to address additional sections.
Jeff Samelson: … while a good, solid adult Bible class might be a way to address additional sections, when I consider only maybe a quarter to a third of my adults who attend church are in Bible Class – and recently most of my confirmands haven’t been regular in Sunday School – I can’t help but think that Scripture I don’t read and preach on in the service may otherwise never be learned.
The advantages of a three-year cycle
To the Catholics now to see statistically how much more of the Bible we’re hearing every three years. The Revd Felix Just, a Jesuit, has compiled a comparison table of the increase of Scripture that churchgoers receive every Sunday.
However, even he concedes:
since many parts of the Bible (esp. the Old Testament) are still not included in the Lectionary, one must go beyond the readings used at Mass to cover the entire Bible.
And, let’s face it, how many people will do that? Which is one of the reasons for my having started Forbidden Bible Verses — I’ve learned much from the series.
Pastor Strey points out:
Lectionaries are not designed to allow the preacher to get on his soap box each week and preach about the particular topic that he wants to preach about; rather, they are (hopefully) designed to cover what God wants us to talk about, namely, the content and doctrines of Scripture.
And:
The pastor who doesn’t follow the lectionary often picks his own readings each week. In other words, the individual pastor decides what the “topic” is going to be, then he find a reading to match the chosen subject. This may (notice I said “may,” not “does”) keep a church from hearing all the major doctrines of the Bible in worship, or listening through important sections of Scripture over an extended period of time, or walking through Jesus’ life and ministry annually.
He concludes:
I do not want to suggest that one may not set aside the lectionary from time to time for special occasions. I also want to clarify that one will not go to liturgical hell if one fails to use a lectionary. This is not a mortal sin! But if this is the direction a pastor or congregation takes, it would be reasonable to politely ask, “Why?” There are so many benefits from using the lectionary that, in this pastor’s opinion, it just doesn’t seem wise to limit worship to one reading, to jump around from one lesson to another each week, or to have the pastor pick his own readings from week to week. But whatever system we use in the end, let’s be sure to preach the whole counsel of God and the entire story of salvation to our people on a regular and repeating basis!
And, when someone puts it like that, indeed, the Lectionary does appear as a good thing.
A couple of years ago, I read in a magazine that when a society starts advancing by leaps and bounds (e.g. the Industrial Revolution, our current high-tech age), people begin to turn from technology to things spiritual.
Spiritualism, mesmerisation and seances were popular in the 19th century. Today, we have New Age mysticism and Marian apparitions. In our churches, we have seen the charismatic movement, healing services, unusual carnality (the infamous Anglican Nine O’Clock Service at a church in England in the 1990s) and many other unbiblical aberrations.
As modern Western society, we have been knee-deep in emotion over the past two decades. We are losing our characteristic sang froid, stiff upper lip, objectivity and intelligence which got us through two world wars and other conflicts. The West is now mainly filled with fearful jessies — big girls’ blouses — who cry at the drop of a hat.
Where does it all lead? Enslaved to our emotions, we start looking for deep, powerful sensations that will transcend our daily lives. These sensations must be big and bold.
At the same time, we sometimes forget that Satan is looking for any flaws in our armour. He is there, ready to persuade us to discard our reason and discernment for falsehood and error. And it’s not just on a personal level but a churchwide one, too.
If you stopped by last week you will have read posts about Mariology and Mariolatry. Along with many other members of the online keyboard brigade, I believe that we face the very real possibility of a One World Religion (OWR). Because many of us are biblically illiterate, find the idea of crucifixion too ‘offensive’, think God is too authoritarian, dislike the idea of classically beautiful churches and idolise feminine qualities, it could well be that Satan has a plan to get us to replace the Holy Trinity with a goddess who could unite everyone — man, woman and child. If you look at that sentence again, he is already doing quite well at paving the way for this.
In 1991, Time magazine published an article by Richard N Ostling, ‘Mary: Handmaid or Feminist?’ Ostling runs through an extensive list of Marian apparitions — many in obscure, out-of-the-way places, as John MacArthur said — and writes that the then-Pope, John Paul II, could only have been pleased with this revival of ‘growth of faith in the Virgin’.
Remember, at that time, the Berlin Wall had fallen two years before and a coup had taken place in Russia in August 1991. Communism had supposedly died, the Pope was popular and it seemed as if devotion to Mary — in line with the messages received at Fatima in 1917 — had made it all possible.
However, John Paul II’s interpretation of Mary was a traditionalist one. Ostling notes (emphases mine throughout):
The Pontiff’s 1988 apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem (On the Dignity and Vocation of Women), citing positions taken at Vatican II, declared that “the Blessed Virgin came first as an eminent and singular exemplar of both virginity and motherhood.” He extolled both states as ways women could find their dignity …
John Paul’s traditionalist leanings find their most pointed expression in the Pope’s continued refusal to consider the ordination of women as priests. The Vatican’s argument is that if Christ had wanted women priests or bishops, Mary above all would have become one.
There is an even better reason: 1 Timothy 3.
However, Ostling observed that a tension had begun to develop over Mary’s role in the Church and what all of us could derive from it. Some women, particularly nuns and feminist professors, were looking for the Church to promote a stronger, politicised, more assertive Mary. On the other hand, various Protestant clergy and theologians, especially Anglicans and Lutherans, were revisiting their objections to Catholicism’s high esteem of Jesus’s mother.
He touches on the belief of many in Mary as a Co-Redemptrix, for which there was pressure to formalise as dogma during Vatican II in the early 1960s. Instead, the participating bishops incorporated her into the Constitution on the Church, with the result that Mary’s position was closer to that of Catholics as a body of the faithful than on a par with Christ.
Fast-forward to 1997, where Newsweek examines the clamour for a new Marian dogma. In ‘Hail Mary’, the then-Religion Editor Kenneth L Woodward wrote that the Vatican had received 4.3m signatures from 157 countries between 1993 and 1997 in support of a new dogma to make Mary Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces and Advocate for the People of God. Woodward explains:
This is what theologians call high Mariology, and it seems to contradict the basic New Testament belief that “there is one God and one mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). In place of the Holy Trinity, it would appear, there would be a kind of Holy Quartet, with Mary playing the multiple roles of daughter of the Father, mother of the Son and spouse of the Holy Spirit.
He notes that the proposal is not without its opponents:
Rumors of the potential new dogma have triggered blistering criticism from other Christian denominations and ignited a battle within the church itself. “Calling Mary a Co-Redeemer is a heresy in the simplest sense,” says the Rev. George G. Passias, chancellor of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. ” It is one thing to ask Mary to intercede with her son, but it is another thing to exalt her as the Mediatrix between God and men.” Episcopal theologian R. William Franklin, a veteran of the ecumenical dialogue between the Anglican and the Roman Catholic Churches, is equally outraged. A new papal dogma on Mary, he warns, “would be a further nail in the coffin of ecumenism” by stressing two points that Protestants cannot accept: “the Marian de-emphasis of Jesus and the re-emphasis of the dogmatic authority of the pope.” But, says Franklin, “I don’t think the church gives a damn. It’s an arrogance which stems from the mystical Marian devotion of the current pope.’‘
This is true even amongst Catholic theologians. In June 1997:
… the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, reported that the Holy See had asked a commission of 23 Mariologists to study the proposal. These are specialists in the theology of Mary and the scholars most likely to applaud the initiative. But, by a vote of 23-0, the commission advised against promulgating the new dogma. It was, the panel argued, contrary to the teaching of Vatican Council II, ambiguous in its wording and insensitive to “”the ecumenical difficulties” such a definition of dogma would cause.
Two years later, Ralph E MacKenzie wrote an article, ‘New Marian Dogmas for Roman Catholicism?’ for Christian Research Institute:
While predisposed toward Marian devotion, many Roman Catholic leaders (including the Pope) are hesitant to embrace the new dogmas. Doing so would certainly curtail most ecumenical activity toward Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestant groups. Ecumenism is very important to the contemporary Catholic Church.
Some Mariologists who are presently against any pronouncement feel that the situation may change in the future. This is similar to the position taken by Henry Cardinal Newman concerning the dogma of the infallibility and universality of papal authority, proposed and ratified by Pius IX at Vatican I in 1870. Newman was opposed at the time. Some Catholic apologists claim that his opposition came not because he thought the promulgation was “inaccurate,” but “inopportune.”
Evangelicals are guided by Scripture alone and not extrabiblical traditions and papal decrees. They are convinced that the Marian proposals are not only “inopportune” now but also “inappropriate” at any time.
In 2001, Donald Anthony Foley examined the surge in Marian apparitions for the Homiletic and Pastoral Review. He urged readers to be cautious about these visions as well as the calls for a new dogma, emphasising the need to discern the motivations and desires behind them:
In conclusion we can say that the lesson of history regarding the general area of genuine writings, revelations and prophecies is that a major problem is that they are subject to imitation at the instigation of Satan, the father of lies; that is the devil attempts to drown out the truth by a deluge of confusion. (This is not to deny though that false apparitions may well have a purely human origin, in some psychological disorder, or hallucination, or desire for money or fame). Thus there is more than a danger that true apparitions will be followed by false ones – in fact it is pretty much a certainty. We are apparently seeing this in our own time, as the message of the genuine Marian apparitions is in danger of being submerged by a host of alleged apparitions, visions, messages, and other dubious and unauthenticated claims.
In the end, as Our Lady proclaimed at Fatima, her Immaculate Heart will triumph, but in the meantime it is up to us to be vigilant, and not allow ourselves to be deceived. It is thus opportune for all those genuinely devoted to Mary to honestly examine their position, look at what the Church is saying about Fatima, take up the message given through the recently beatified children, and then put it into practice in everyday life. The alternative could well be a continued vain quest for new “signs and wonders,” a quest that that may well end in disappointment and possibly disaster.
‘Signs and wonders’ says it all, doesn’t it? How many laypeople — and clergy — have been deceived by such sensationalism: ‘Show me a sign, Lord, show me a sign!’
And this is where we could have problems. ‘Queen of All’ posits that the major Marian sites feature healing or planetary phenomena (the Miracle of the Sun — recall that in Jeremiah 44, the ‘Queen of Heaven’, not Mary but a pagan goddess, is connected with the sun or the moon, depending on interpretation). Those signs and wonders! Isn’t the Bible enough?
So, we have sensation and a type of carnality — both man-centred. ‘Wow — what will I experience? What will I see? It’s all about me!’
‘Queen of All’ quotes a 1996 Life magazine article which reported that interdenominational Marian prayer groups are springing up all over the world. The Koran mentions Mary 34 times. Hindu and Buddhist goddesses share Marian characteristics. This must come as excellent news to the Catholic Church.
Note that Mary’s messages in apparitions revolve around unity and peace. Beware of deception here! The two most overused words by collectivists — whether among the elite or politicians — are unity and peace:
The following message from the “Lady and Mother of All Nations” states her clear mission:
‘Try to understand the reason for My coming on this day. The Lord Jesus Christ has selected this great day for “the Lady of All Nations.” Her mission is to establish unity among Her nations. She is sent to make one great Community of Her nations. To gather all nations into one Community, that is the task set before the world in this present time, which I have heralded repeatedly.’ …
Global peace, unity, and tolerance are repeatedly heralded by the Queen of Peace — as she is often called. This is a common reason for the Marian apparition’s universal appeal.
Hmm. We got a very similar message — without Mary — a couple of weeks ago from the unelected EU president, Jesuit-educated Herman van Rompuy.
In closing — and looking towards the future — here is an interesting observation from a rather sensible forum thread discussing OWR:
Doxiemom: IMHO, the Catholic Church will play a huge role in the OWR because it is a world wide governmental system already in place. And, obviously, many of its characteristics can be found in scripture as others have pointed out.
It will be stripped, however, of all connections with Christ. Why would Anti-christ want to have the paintings, the crucifixes, the beautiful art all depicting Jesus? Why would he want the stores of items in the Vatican vaults? Those will be destroyed, I think.
What will be used, I think, is everything connected to Mary. Imagine another “vision” of Mary, this one captured on television, making some announcements that will be hard to ignore. Suppose this came from jerusalem itself, and from Rome. How powerful will that be for a world that the Age of grace had ended?
Islam venerates Mary as has the RCC. The other faiths will [find it] hard to ignore what is seen. The world loved Mother Teresa, she was Catholic, she believed in Mary. Easy to accept Mary, therefore, no? Even the mother-earther can hold onto a vision of Mary, the incarnation of mother earth goddess. This “Mary” could do miracles.
The Ac will have as his false prophet a “pope” who of course denounces Christ. Even the RCC has prophecies concerning this “false pope”, which, is to come in the not too far future.
Islam and the RCC will merge under Mary and all others will fall into place.
Further reading:
‘The Charmer and the Enforcer’
‘Has there been an increase of reported Marian apparitions in recent years?’
‘Mary: “The Mother of My Lord”‘
‘New Marian Dogmas for Roman Catholicism?’
A Catholic friend of mine wrote to me a couple of weeks ago saying that she is worried about the state of the Church in light of the paedophile priest cases coming to light. She cited stories from Newsweek as the source of her concerns.
To her and any other Catholic readers who are similarly troubled, please remember that the left-wing press covering this story, mainly Newsweek, the New York Times and the Times (London) adopt an anti-Catholic viewpoint. Therefore, they already speak from a biased perspective.
Having said that, the problem lies within the Catholic Church’s leniency to discipline these priests immediately. Beginning in the 1990s, they should have investigated these claims quickly and, in cases of proven abuse, made doubly sure that priests were disciplined by moving them to other posts out of the public eye or by defrocking them.
It seems as if only Protestant churches take church discipline seriously. It’s there to keep the churches pure. Yet, we see very little of this with our Catholic cousins. The last real case I could think of involved laity: some Catholic priests refusing to give Sen. John Kerry Holy Communion during the Presidential contest in 2004 because of his laissez-faire stance on abortion. Yes, the secular worldwide press fumed at that, but those few priests were doing the right thing.
Similarly, the Vatican should not be leaving disciplinary decisions to local bishops, whether in the US or elsewhere. Vatican II dramatically increased the autonomy of the bishops, and many in America took it seriously to the point where they run their dioceses as fiefdoms.
As a result, many Catholics are disappointed in their leadership. It does the traditional wing, however well-intentioned, no good in promoting Church teachings only to ignore these scandals and call for Christian unity under the Catholic banner.
Whilst we do not need the sensationalism of the NYT, Newsweek and the Times, there is a need to approach this problem objectively and realise that had the Catholic hierarchy cared to apply disciplinary measures sooner, the Church would have had fewer scandals.
No one is saying that Protestant denominations are free of similar sins, but, by and large, they have a better system of internal checks and balances with higher expectations of clergy (and laity). It’s called church discipline: Biblically mandated and there to be used.
Recently, Spouse Mouse and I were in the US visiting family and friends. What follows are musings from four friends, all of whom are lapsed Catholics. (Dialogue below as close as I can recall it.)
On opting out:
P: I just don’t go to Mass any more. It has no meaning for me. When I do go, it’s for someone’s First Communion or for a wedding. But those are family events.
On the Novus Ordo Mass:
K: I went to a different parish church today for a First Holy Communion Mass. What I’ll remember is that they rang the bells at the Elevation of the Host — so beautiful. They don’t do that at my church any more. Why?
I really don’t go to Mass very often any more. I do church my own way — at home in prayer.
R: I don’t go to Mass, either. It’s too different to what it was when I was growing up. I was an altar boy. It was the Latin Mass then. We had respect for the Mass and the priest. Nowadays, the priest just sits there in his chair. Why? There’s something wrong when a priest sits in a chair for that much of the Mass. I also don’t think the servers are trained that well. Sloppy. I look at them and shake my head. Never would have happened in my day.
Would I still be going if it were Latin Mass every week? That’s a good question. Maybe not every week, but a lot more often, sure.
On First Holy Communion:
K: When we made our First Communion, we got a missal, a rosary and a scapular. Today, the kids didn’t receive anything more than a scapular. What will that mean to them? How will they be able to pray and meditate privately? A scapular won’t do it. What will happen to their faith?
R: When I made my First Communion, everyone got a missal, rosary and scapular. Everybody did. It was the norm. I don’t understand why they’re not still doing that. Why not? The Church can’t be short of money. What’s this all going to mean to the kids? Nothing much.
On fellowship:
S: I’ve been going to a small, independent Bible church of 100 people. Everyone has been so nice to me. I had an operation last year and I couldn’t believe how friendly everyone was. Every day, at least one lady from church would drop by with food. They would also help me with little household chores. I couldn’t believe it.
That wouldn’t have happened in the Catholic church. They wouldn’t have cared if I were sick or not. I wouldn’t have been able to reach out to them.
Those women, including the pastor’s wife, really are my friends. They’re not holy rollers, just good people. They’ve given me such good advice. They’re really generous with their time.
On the Bible:
S: Since I’ve been going to my church, I’ve learned so much about Scripture. Verses I never even knew existed. The pastor and my friends there really help me understand what the Bible says and how I can apply it to my daily life.
These are (ex)Catholics — baptised, confirmed and educated in Catholic schools (through high school) – who are disillusioned with the faith into which they were born. If these are just my friends, how many others like them exist throughout the world?
The conversations just get more profound in the Tridentine Mass versus Novus Ordo (NO) debate. Vatican II worked out quite well, because, although it was never intended — on paper, at least — to do away with the Latin Mass, in practice, Novus Ordo quickly became the de facto global replacement. Churchmouse Campanologist has a variety of posts on Vatican II, in particular, the Mass.
InsideCatholic.com featured an article recently by John Zmirak. ‘All Your Church Are Belong to Us‘ (as in ‘All Your Base Are Belong to Us’), explores the hijacking by reformer (as opposed to Reformed) Catholic bishops, eager to subvert orthodoxy in the Catholic Church. Thanks to their efforts to ‘modernise’, we have one, if not two, generations of Catholics who don’t understand orthodoxy or the focus of the Mass. Converts and young people who know only Novus Ordo (‘New Order’!) Mass are at loggerheads with the more traditionalist, Tridentine fans (like many of my Catholic readers). The NO types reduce their argument to one of ‘externals’, when that’s really only a tiny part of the story. (Emphases mine below.)
Both the article and subsequent comments are worthwhile reading. First, here are excerpts from the article:
- ‘Having come from churches that didn’t have the Eucharist, and remaining through God’s grace flush with gratitude for the sacraments, many converts really don’t understand what the rest of us are nattering on about … We owe these good people an explanation.’
- ‘While the universal language of the Church is still to be revered for all the reasons that Vatican II prescribed in Sacrosanctum Concilium, it isn’t Why We Fight.’
- ‘The liturgy is miraculous, but it doesn’t work like magic: Rev. Teilhard de Chardin had said the Tridentine Mass for decades even as he invented Catholic Scientology; conversely, his sometime housemate at New York’s St. Ignatius Loyola, the holy Rev. John Hardon, obediently switched missals with every tinkering that came to him from the bishops.’
- ‘The old Mass reminds me of what they used to say about the Catholic Church and the U.S. Navy: “It’s a machine built by geniuses so it can be operated safely by idiots” … The new rite was patched together by bureaucrats, and should only be safely celebrated by the saintly.’
- ‘Here’s what we Trads have realized, that the merely orthodox haven’t: Inessential things have power, which is why we bother with them in the first place. In every revolution, the first thing you change is the flag. Once that has been replaced, in the public mind all bets are off …’
- ‘The perception that the Church was in a constant state of doctrinal flux was confirmed by the reality that her most central, sacred mystery was being monkeyed with — almost every year.’
YES! I remember that ‘doctrinal flux’ well. How many different versions of Missals do I own? What about reception of Communion and the type of Host? Confession? Don’t get me started.
Then, two highly important passages. The first explains what happened next and what Catholics today experience in the pew. This gave us the CINO (Catholic in Name Only):
The campaign of dissenting priests, nuns, and (let’s be honest) bishops culminated, in America, with the Call to Action Conference, which its leading advocate John Francis Cardinal Dearden described in 1977 as “an assembly of the American Catholic community .” This gathering of 2,400 radical Catholic activists was composed of “people deeply involved with the life of the institutional Church and appointed by their bishops” (emphasis added). The Conference approved “progressive resolutions, ones calling for, among other things, the ordination of women and married men, female altar servers, and the right and responsibility of married couples to form their own consciences on the issue of artificial birth control.” This is the mess made by the bishops appointed by the author of Humanae Vitae, which his rightly beloved successor John Paul II spent much of his pontificate trying to clean up. What we Trads feel compelled to point out is that he couldn’t quite finish the job, and that the deformations of the Roman liturgy enacted by (you guessed it) appointees of Paul VI helped enable all these doctrinal abuses. They changed the flag.
And the second explains why traditionalists are upset:
… how it felt to be young and Catholic in the 1970s. Every sacred thing had to be changed, every old thing replaced with a new one, every complicated beauty plastered over by the cheap and the easy. The message was almost subliminal, but by that means all the more powerful: All Your Church Are Belong to Us.
The comments demonstrate the feuding between both sides. Those 45 and younger as well as recent converts side with the modernisers. I wonder if they realise what they are saying with statements such as these:
Dan the Dad: ‘Wow, that’s one seriously long, rambling article. I still can’t figure out why Trads are so crazy about the Tridentine Mass. I would suggest you use bullet points and write a shorter article that is clear … I’m a very orthodox Catholic. I like the Novus Ordo (thought I think it would be better if it were in Latin). I believe the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and kept free from error. Thus, the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo can not be mistakes.’
You can read the author’s reply in bullet points.
Mary Kay: ‘It’s more than being offended. They’re attacking their brothers and sisters in Christ and rationalizing their doing so.‘
Daria: ‘I feast upon the body and blood of Christ at either form of the mass.’
Croix: ‘Kneeling? Some people kneel before Communion, yes, but somehow it seems like showing off. I usually have an intense desire to prostrate myself but of course I will never to do it.’
Cephas: ‘I’ve attended enough TLM’s to know that for the most part people basically just sit there (or, kneel there: ouch!) for long stretches of time watching the priest and altar boys move around.
‘Actual participation like (gasp!) giving the responses is looked down upon in many Traddie parishes. And, the silence . . . O, the Silence! Silence is overrated. When I’m on retreat at a monastery, I want silence. When I attend a liturgical celebration I don’t want to kneel, sit, stand in silence.’
Marie: ‘… feel free to die in my parish in California (where I am the Liturgy planner). Although far away from an FSSP, I’ll make sure you get the Requiem chant for the Introit, “Dominus pascit me” for Responsorial, the Dies Irae as Sequence, the Jubilate Deo Ordinary with the “Dona eis” at the Agnus Dei, and “Lux aeterna” for Communion. I’ll get the priest to wear black (albeit with the deepest violet sheen) for your glorious send-off. Heck, I’ll even throw in “In Paradisum” at the gravesite, and even “Libera Me.”
‘But it will all be the Novus Ordo, ha-ha!‘
So, Catholic friends and reverent visitors who prefer the Tridentine Rite, you will need to deal with the therapeutic, pomo generation:
- NO (Novus Ordo) Catholics who believe TLM people are ‘attacking’ them and being ‘uncharitable’
- Catholics who are accepting of what ‘Holy Mother Church gives them’ — as if one could compare the solemn and reverent Tridentine Rite to the abomination of the NO
- Catholics who wish to feel comfortable (no kneeling!) and ‘celebrate’ the remembrance of Christ’s holy and living sacrifice
- Catholics who like having their ‘itching ears’ tickled with an easy, fun Mass — the horror!
Now, how is that to be transformed, particularly in light of bishops and priests who can’t be bothered?
This, for me, was the most poignant of comments. Prayers for Another Old Catholic — with whom many can empathise (my emphasis):
I was a child when the mass was changed, when the Blessed Mother’s statue was ‘disappeared’ from her little altar to the left of the main altar, this old and lovely altar later ripped out and replaced by a large dining room table. I was frightened when the priest, instead of facing East with the rest of us turned toward us got between us and God. It seemed to me that we had gone from the worship of God to the worship of the priest. I was a child but I cringed at the bad music with sometimes sacrilegious lyrics. I was robbed of my tradition, and so were the next two generations who never even had the experience of the Traditional Latin Mass..
Even now I often leave the Novus Ordo mass in tears over my loss. The closest TLM near me is an hour away over dangerous roads and my car is also old. All I want is the TLM restored to every parish so that those of us who love it have an equal chance to worship as those who want the Novus Ordo. I want the next generations to have a chance to see what they have been missing before those of us who remember it are gone.
How true. And that’s how I remembered it, too.
