Gibson's Passion forced to find sanctuary

Scotsman.com ^ | February 29, 2004 | Gerald Warner

[Unam Sanctam]

If an indult mass is available but you choose to attend an SSPX service, then it would appear that your intent must not be simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion. It is therefore not justified.

[ultima ratio]

"You have joined what Archbishop Bruskewitz rightly labels a non-Catholic and dangerous organization, the SSPX."

First, the Archbishop is wrong. It is neither non-Catholic nor dangerous. Its priests are, in fact, MORE faithful to traditional Catholicism and more genuinely devout than most clerics in the Church these days--which is why I attend.

Second, no layman has ever "joined" SSPX. It is a fraternity of ordained men. I simply attend Mass at their chapel. I have also been supportive, since I believe they have been persecuted and unfairly stigmatized by men such as Bruskewitz and yourself, as well as by the faithless phonies that populate the halls of both the Vatican itself and the Chanceries of most dioceses. You strain at the gnat, in other words, while swallowing the camel whole.

[ontos-on]

I am no longer a practicing Catholic. However, this Unam Sanctum fellow does not appear to be worth talking to. He sounds extremely hate-filled. He may speak of religion and religous things, but he does not speak from any spirit.

I would say he is not really someone to give sincere time to. It seems that he would bite your head off if he could, preserving you from "error". He also has the rhetoric style of the National Democrat Party. His now familiar refrain is "that is a lie".

[ultima ratio]

"If an indult mass is available but you choose to attend an SSPX service, then it would appear that your intent must not be simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion. It is therefore not justified."

Nonsense. It is not a matter of rite only. It is a matter of devotion. The priest celebrating is crucial. What he teaches is crucial. How our children are instructed is crucial. You need to wise up.

[ultima ratio]

Perhaps you're right.

[Land of the Irish]

A curial official denied the false true reports of an "interfaith" shrine at Fatima.

Pure B.S. and you know it.

Peter, the first Pope, denied Christ three time before the cock crowed.

The Vatican now denies Pope John Paul II gave any public endorsement of the "The Passion of The Christ" movie. If he said, "It is as it was"; it was not for public knowledge.

Yet on January 26th, the AP reported that Pope John Paul II "presided Sunday over a performance of break-dancers who leaped, flipped and spun their bodies to beats from a tinny boom box." The pontiff remarked that artistic talent is a gift from God" and said to the break-dancers, "For this creative hard work, I bless you from my heart."

But earlier, on January 19th, CNS reported that Monsignor Dziwisz stated, "I said the Holy Father saw the film privately in his apartment, but gave no declaration to anyone," he said. "He does not make judgements of this kind; he leaves that to others, to experts."

So I guess the Holy Father is and expert on break-dancing; but not on the Passion of Christ.

[Siobhan]

There was also a judgement rendered in the case of the egregious Hawaii ex-communications. I had a copy of that appeal and judgement, but it is at home and I am visiting my daughter right now. Should you have it, perhaps posting it would be helpful on this thread (in addition to Msgr. Perle's statement above). Or a link to a news story would suffice. (Just a thought.) God bless.

[Land of the Irish]

and expert = an expert

[saradippity]

Please Max,get a copy of "The Final Conclave" by Malachai Martin. The first 113 pages are a commentary with lots of documenntation about the state of the Church in 1978.It was published in 1978 on the death of Paul VI,who had been Pope for sixteen years. The last pages,115 to the end,are fiction and are Martin's musings on how that conclave will proceed. Rather interesting but not necessary reading.

I read it when it first came out but it was so shocking that I could not bear to try to understand how dire the picture actually was. I had a difficult job,three boys I was raising alone,major injuries sustained in an automobile accident and a personal life that was troubled so it didn't really penetrate,I think the Holy Ghost was protecting me.

Anyhow,picking it up a couple weeks ago and rereading it,confirmed everything I had observed and experienced and concluded over the 26 years.The Church in the English speaking countries is in serious trouble because it was planned that way and Paul had had 16 years to to sow the seeds in soil that had been fertilized since at least 1917. He quite possibly saw the error late in his papacy but by then things had gotten so out of hand he was unable to act.

I will just give you one line which follows a description of what the conclave that selected John Paul I as well as JOhn Paul II was facing due to the wager Paul had made about the world as it would be in the future. Paul made the decision to tailor a church that would attract the "new man",his appointments and actions were in keeping with the plan or plot.After this description he states new Pope will face "THE BREAK WITH THE LONG PAST IS ALREADY COMPLETED,AND HE WILL KNOW IT".In other words Pope John Paul II has had to try to turn the Church around in an environment that was riddled with land mines planted all over the place.

I really get furious with the constant sniping from the Modernists/Progressives as well as those on the other side,please read the book.If you read it and find reason to disagree with me about John Paul II after reading it,I will be very surprised. I think you will see that he has been a great Pope and tried against tremendous odds to give us back our Church and I think he will succeed in our lifetimes.

[saradippity]

Post #89 is for you too. It is great to see you back,welcome.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Two quotes here from Cardinals Ratzinger and Cassidy:

IS THE SSPX SCHISMATIC?

The Society is not regarded as schismatic by some of the highest prelates in the Vatican. As proof the letter from the Apostolic Pro-Nuncio in the United States in the name of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (1), Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and a letter from Cardinal Edward Cassidy (2), President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

(1) In Hawaii in May 1991 Bishop Ferrario decided to excommunicate some followers of the Society of St.Pius X for supporting the Society and attending its Masses. Rome declared that the decision "lacks foundation and hence validity". The excommunication was overturned by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on June 28, 1993.

"From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned Decreee, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offence of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity" (Apostolic Nunciature, Washington DC)

(2) Extract from a reply written on May 3,1994 by Cardinal Edward Casssidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity,to an inquiry about the status of the Society of St.Pius X

"... Regarding your inquiry (March 25, 1994) I would point out at once that the Directory on Ecumenism is not concerned with the Society of St. Pius X. The situation of the members of this Society is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory. Of course the Mass and Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid. The Bishops are validly, but not lawfully, consecrated.... I hope this answers your letter satisfactorily."

[polemikos]

ecumaniac

LOL

[St.Chuck]

"2. We have already told you that we cannot recommend your attendance at such a Mass and have explained the reason why. If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin.

I don't think that you should continue to post this statement as a defense of your position. It is self-incriminating. You have opted for the SSPX, not "for the sake of devotion", but as you have freely admitted, because of the Vatican's treatment of the FSSP's leadership. Your reasons are political, not devotional, because the indult is available to you.

Your consistent disparaging of the actions and judgement of the Holy Roman Pontiff can only lead the most casual and objective reader of your posts to conclude that you have no desire to be in communion with this pope, except on your own terms. But do not fear; Christ's mercy will exceed the judgement of the most casual and objective reader.

[Siobhan]

Thank you very much for your kind words, and also thank you for your post on the Final Conclave.

[polemikos]

At the elevation of the host, the Catholic believer knows - although he can scarcely comprehend the fact - that he is as close to Christ as were Our Lady and St John at the foot of the cross.

[Land of the Irish]

Of course the Church has problem, but she requires loyalty and fidelity to her and to the deposit of faith, and people who will fight for orthodoxy within the Church, not take potshots at her from outside.

It is not within your juristiction to determine who is inside or outside the Catholic church. I don't believe any of the three you have addressed have been excommunicated, either explicity or implicity.

Shield thy sword.

[polemikos]

What a great phrase, one that will have to enter my lexicon -- Second Vatican Catastrophe. Let's not pussyfoot around with obfuscation about the "spirit" of the "implementation." Vatican II was a catastrophe starting with the opening speech of Pope John XXIII which won him Time magazine Man of the Year.

The smoke of Satan was there before VC2.

[rcath60]

WOW!

[sfRummygirl]

"Religion should be nice. It should have no doctrines, since that would create division. There are no moral absolutes, no objective truths. In an ideal world, you should not be able to put a
cigarette-paper between a Catholic and a Buddhist. Since we are all going to Heaven, regardless of our conduct on earth, what is the point of all this violence on Calvary? Of course, we need
some ritual and collective spirituality: so, let’s go and hang some cuddly toys on the railings of Kensington Palace. What we need is a one-size-fits-all, syncretic religion, centred on the United
Nations; an ethical code that does not restrict us from the perpetual gratification of all appetites."

YES! LOVE it. I am so sick of hearing people say that Christians should adopt this way of thinking. And I'm sorry to say, that goes for Savage and Glenn Beck. Did anyone catch Beck's friday show, where he thought it was gross for people to wear crosses and crucifixes? I'm paraphrasing, gross wasn't his exact word. He was originally saying that the nails people were buying were ridiculous. (I actually don't feel like wearing a nail around my neck, but I will tell you this, I think I'm going to get one to keep with me. I will look at it when I get wrapped up in my own day, and start ignoring the Holy Spirit again....) But then he lumped in people wearing crosses into that. He's Mormon, by the way.

Why does everyone feel they have to tell us what our religion is, and how it should be?

[ultima ratio]

I love it how you guys want to drum me out of the Church for criticizing the Pope. The Church has suffered grave harm for twenty-five years under JPII's reckless pontificate. But saying this doesn't make me any less of a Catholic. Nor do I need you to advise me where I should go to attend Mass on Sundays.