Posted on 12/23/2001 4:30:08 PM PST by ELS
Well, I would agree with that statement up to a certain point. I mean, liturgical rules allow for a certain leeway on many different aspects of the Sacraments. But certainly there are a great many ways that being different can and does invalidate Sacraments, and thereby negates any "authenticity." Especially in America, Catholics sadly have to be on guard for liturgical abuse. And generally speaking, priests who disregard or hold little regard for anything but the "bare minimum" as pertains to their priestly duties, can generally be counted on to hold unorthodox views (either privately or publicly) regarding the faith. And although this is a problem that our Church has faced since Christ's time (Judas was an apostle, after all), it's still our duty to be aware so that souls are not misled.
Having talked to them at length, in my experience, writing/ saying you are faithful and actually being/living your faithfulness are two different things.
Read the schismatic web sites such as The Remnant, Catholic Family News, SSPX, SSPV, to get a feel for the kind and degree of "loyalty" out there, and compare it to faithful Indult Latin Mass sites such as Una Voce, Latin Mass Magazine, the FSSP, and the COALITION IN SUPPORT OF ECCLESIA DEI
I realize it is a difficult distinction to make, and as patent stated above, we should not be in the business of judging others as being in schism. But if you compare the "flavor" of the two sets of links here, I think you'll see what I mean.
He must be one of them "Liberation Theologists!"
They are only good to consider if one thinks that the circumstances are analagous. Does the SSPX believe that they were forced into schism by a totalitarian regime over which the Church had no authority?
There is only anger, discord, bitterness, and eventually loss of salvation at the end of the path schismatic traditionalists [Chris Ferrara, Atila Sinke Guimarães, Dr. Marian Horvat, Michael J. Matt, and John Vennari] are taking, because the natural conclusion is that the Pope is either a heretic, or not a Pope at all, which is the sedevacantist position, and the Novus Ordo is invalid/illicit, in which case the Church since Vatican II has fallen into apostacy.
Fron The Remnant's Position Statement:
"Within the Church, however, there are those who take this traditional Catholic counterrevolution too far--declaring that, since Vatican II helped to bring on all of this chaos and denial of Faith, then the popes who called the Council must not be legitimate popes. Many Catholics, who feel this way, believe that there is no legitimate pope presently in Rome, and that Pope John Paul is an impostor. The Remnant has decried this erroneous conclusion, insisting that the Church’s legitimate (though progressivist) pope is most certainly Pope John Paul II."A little farther down:
"Catholics cannot leave the Church, nor are they free to lambaste and deny the Pope at will for things like his "Altar Girl Permission" or the "Assisi Ecumenical Affair" or the convening of the Second Vatican Council. Catholic lay people must guard against this attitude, which is commonly referred to as "sede vacantism." Nevertheless, Catholics must wake up to the fact that the Church is in a state of unprecedented revolution and turmoil at present, and that, since the Council, she has undergone a near total spiritual breakdown."And it restates its defense of JPII as the current Pope:
"The Remnant is part of the "Loyal Opposition"-- it defends Pope John Paul as the legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and it also defends his strong stand on moral issues in the face of the Modern world. At the same time, The Remnant has publicly disagreed with Pope John Paul over his positions on such questions as ecumenism, granting the "altar girls" permission, consorting with the United Nations, and his unqualified and complete support of the Second Vatican Council and all of its unfortunate results.
Yes, I do wish that Mr. Ferrara had edited out the sarcasm and insults. I do not agree with his characterization of whom I consider to be other orthodox Catholics.
I'll get back to you later on the schism point.
patent, thank you for the benefit of the doubt. I am speaking of the Modernists as the ones who are endeavoring to destroy the Church from within, not the orthodox/neo conservatives/traditionalists who I see as on the same side. The only thing keeping EWTN from airing a Latin Mass is the bishop who oversees their operations.
Merry Christmas, Proud2BAmerican!
It does seem that the SSPX defeats their purpose on occasion. The labeling you refer to, I believe, is done by Christopher Ferrara and not necessarily all SSPX members or traditionalists. As for your final comments, did you read the interview with Bishop Fellay? One part that jumped out at me was:
The Pope agrees to say that the old Mass has never been abrogated and that it is legitimate to offer it. Cardinals Ratzinger, Medina and Sodano all agree. But their secretaries and under-secretaries do not agree. Therefore, we cannot say what you want.
What about obedience toward the Pope? Many on this thread throw out accusations about certain traditionalists not following the Pope, but what about members of the Curia? Why did the view of the secretaries and under-secretaries carry more weight than the views of the Pope and their superiors?
This whole article is a question of the wisdom of the Vatican's prudential judgements. It is completely subjective. It simply cannet be objectively debated. Furthermore, I personally do not think this can be debated with charity in such a forum as this, thus my own tangent. This is dangerous ground, and it could very well give public scandal.
"The Remnant is part of the "Loyal Opposition"-- it defends Pope John Paul as the legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and it also defends his strong stand on moral issues in the face of the Modern world. At the same time, The Remnant has publicly disagreed with Pope John Paul over his positions on such questions as ecumenism, granting the "altar girls" permission, consorting with the United Nations, and his unqualified and complete support of the Second Vatican Council and all of its unfortunate results.
Gosh, with defenders like this, who needs enemies? Many, in and out of the Church, defend Pope John Paul as the legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and defend his strong stand on moral issues in the face of the Modern world.
The rest sounds like attack, not defense.
I realize it is a difficult distinction to make, and as patent stated above, we should not be in the business of judging others as being in schism. But if you compare the "flavor" of the two sets of links here, I think you'll see what I mean.I have to concur with Proud2bRC here. There is a substantial difference between how the Remnant crowd, and even more so the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, etc. dissent from Rome, and how those of us attached to the Tridentine and attending the Indult tend to dissent. One group seeks to reform the Church from within, by lawful methods and using what lawful means the Church will allow them. Another seeks to reform the Church by standing apart from it, safely separated from any of the things they don’t like, obeying when they choose, disobeying when they like. History is replete with examples of where these two paths lead. One restores God’s Church. The other invariably heads into schism if not hard and firmly corrected within a generation or two.
patent +AMDG
thank you for the benefit of the doubt.No problem, I am relieved. ;-)
#49:
At the same time, The Remnant has publicly disagreed with Pope John Paul over his positions on such questions as ecumenism, granting the "altar girls" permission, consorting with the United Nations, and his unqualified and complete support of the Second Vatican Council and all of its unfortunate results.A statement that certainly makes Mr. Ferrara’s statement in this article seem a bit disingenuous, no?
How exactly does one "resist" the Second Vatican Council? Did the Council generate some kind of ecclesiastical forcefield to which Catholics must submit, as if to the ministrations of a hypnotist? What teaching of Vatican II does Vere claim traditionalists are "resisting"? What does Vatican II require Catholics to believe which they had not always believed before the Council? The answer is nothing, of course.It seems many do seek to resist the Second Vatican Council, and the Pope’s support thereof. There are many in the Traditionalist camp quite fond of rejecting the Council, or at least parts of it, though some deny this when it doesn’t suit their purposes. In particular Mr. Ferrara’s Remnant colleagues of “we resist you” fame have spent a fair amount of time doing exactly that, they criticize Vatican II in a document called “we resist you”, how else is that to be taken but resisting Vatican II? From chapter 1:
The documents of Vatican II Dignitatis humanae and Unitatis redintegratio represented respectively the embrace by the leaders of the Conciliar Church of the errors of religious indifferentism of the State and its acceptance in the spiritual sphere.
labeling you refer to, I believe, is done by Christopher Ferrara and not necessarily all SSPX members or traditionalists.Reread the interview with Bishop Fellay. How many times does he intimate or outright say that various Cardinals in the Vatican don’t understand this or that, usually a relatively forthright theological position that anyone can understand:
The Cardinal does not understand the problem with the new Mass, so I tried to explain it to him.Bishop Fellay almost seems to act as though only Society people can understand liturgy, and he takes a Cardinal’s disagreement or the Cardinal’s diplomatic tact not to air disagreement as a lack of understanding. This labeling may be more subtle at the top of the SSPX, but the arrogant tone is not something invented at the bottom, but rather something that trickles its way down from on high.
Dominus Vobiscum
patent +AMDG
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.