Posted on 11/29/2004 11:33:53 PM PST by Sean O L
EWTN and other newsagencies covered the reconciliation with the Catholic Church of Bishop Licinio Rangel, 26 priests and 28,000 lay persons from Campos, Brazil:
"19-Jan-2002 --
EWTN Feature Story BRAZIL'S LEFEBVRE CATHOLICS OPT FOR FULL COMMUNION WITH ROME Rio de Janeiro (Fides)
On Friday January 18, the only schism in the Church on the most Catholic of continents, Latin America, is over. Brazilian Catholics who had followed the line of the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, are being welcomed back to the bosom of the Church after 20 years of separation. etc.
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=22944
Back in the 1980's the SSPX produced a glossy brochure
"Sixty-two Reasons why, in conscience, we cannot attend the New Mass (also known as Mass of Pope Paul VI, Novus Ordo, new liturgy) either in the vernacular or the Latin, whether facing the people or facing the tabernacle. Thus, for the same reasons, we adhere faithfully to the traditional Mass (also known as Tridentine Mass, old Latin Mass, Roman Missal, Pian Missal, Missal of St Pius V, Massof All Time).
Based on the Sixty Reasons set forth by 25 diocesan priests of the Diocese of Campos, Brazil." (Emphasis added. Ed.)
There is not one GOOD reason to justify schism!!! Deo Gratias for the return of the Campos group!
On January 15, 2002, three days prior to the event, Fr. Peter Scott, (then) USA District Superior of the SSPX, issued a letter on the "reconciliation". He was NOT happy.
"Many of you have heard of the reconciliation between the traditional priests of Bishop de Castro Mayer, of the diocese of Campos, Brazil, and Rome, and some of you have asked what we are to think of it. In effect, negotiations have been going on for several months between Rome and Father Rifan, representative of the Priestly Union of Saint John Mary Vianney, and its superior, Bishop Licinio Rangel, who had been consecrated by the Society's bishops in 1991, after the death of Bishop De Castro Mayer. These negotiations were carried on without the knowledge, let alone the agreement, of the Society's superiors. As far as Bishop Fellay was concerned, the negotiations ceased after Rome refused to even respond to his letter of June 22. That letter, published in the August 2001 issue of The Angelus, responded to Rome's refusal to grant the conditions, namely that it be stated that all priests in the world have the right to celebrate the traditional Mass, and that the Society was never schismatic and neverbroke communion. In response to Cardinal Castrillon's refusal to accept that we have the right to reject the errors of Vatican II, he explained the state of necessity that is the basis of our refusal of compromise. The response to those who attack the Society for working on a hidden agreement is that there have been no discussions since then, since there is no common ground to work from, etc." [Emphasis added. Ed.] You can read the rest of the letter on the SSPX's website at http://www.sspx.com
The content and thrust of the letter has been discussed on many forums, including CTNGREG. Moderator, Bill Basile's analysis of Fr. Scott's position was a reductio ad absurdam (a reduction of Fr. Scott's argument to the absurd limit in order to expose its flaws. Ed.):
"If Vatican II is the 'Anti-Church' (something similar to the Antichrist perhaps), then it must be condemned and disavowed. There must also be 'unequivocal' signs of 'the conversion of the Pope'.
"I'd suggest", Basile wrote, "only that this conversion would require from the Pope he:
- Abolish and condemn the Novus Ordo
- Impose the traditional Mass worldwide in all Roman parishes
- Condemn the errors of Vatican II and reverse all teachings that make use of those errors
- Disavow and repent for all scandalous events like Assisi
- Disavow and repent for his own personal actions over the past decades
- Forbid all ecumenical gatherings
- Condemn the idea of diversity in liturgical expression"
Just in case some of the list members thought that the above was what Bill Basile personally thought ought to happen, he explained:
"Some listmembers have asked about these proposals.
"I guess it's not a very good joke if I have to explain it.
"No, this was a reductio ad absurdum, merely taking Fr. Scott's premises to their logical conclusion, and we end with something completely ridiculous.
"The Pope is not going to renounce Vatican II, nor do I believe he should do so.
"I don't believe that he should impose the traditional Mass on the entire Church either, but probably some do believe this, and some (Fr. Scott?) won't find any common ground with Rome until something like that happens.
"I'm just trying to illustrate some of the far- fetched notions that are prevalent in SSPX circles (remember this was an official letter from the SSPX district superior).
"If the Pope has to 'convert' according to the ideas given in this letter by Fr. Scott", Basile said, "it's safe to say that a reconciliation with the SSPX will never take place, at least during this pontificate. I'd suggest that there are no candidates for the papacy in the future who would do any of the things listed above."
Fr. Scott praised "Archbishop Lefebvre's clarity of vision..."
Please consider the following:
"These rubrics range rather freely from the Liturgy of St. Pius X to that of Paul VI in 1968. It is simply the 'Rite of Ecône,' a law unto itself...
"As for our seminary training, we were never taught how to celebrate Mass. Preparation for this rather important part of the priestly life was to be seen to in our spare time and on our own. The majority of the seminarians there seem never to have applied themselves to a rigid or systematic study of the rubrics, as may be seen from the way in which they celebrate Mass today ...
"At one time we were taught to reject the Vatican Council II entirely..."
The Roman Catholic, by Fr Daniel L. Dolan, June 1983.
A contemporary of Bishop Richard Williamson, Fr Daniel L. Dolan was one of nine U.S.A. Society priests expelled from the Society in 1980 by Archbishop Lefebvre ".... because "they refused to pray for the Pope at Mass, they refused to conform to the liturgy of the Church as it was immediately prior to the Second Vatican Council, and they refused to recognise the changes made to the calendar by Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII" "Catholic", Nov 83, p.3
The above and other documents may be viewed in the following links:
"He (Lefebvre) often says, in defence of his work, that the saints did not act differently.
"Whatever the prelate may say, the wild seminaries, the ordinations without dimissorial letters, confirmations and confessions without jurisdiction are practices contrary to what has always been done in the Church.
"With the exception of the heretical-schismatics who do not recognize the Catholic Church as the sole ark of salvation and do not belong to her, no bishop or saint whatever has ever opened a seminary, a university, a place of worship, even a private one, or administered the sacraments without the previous permission of the Ordinary, still less in defying his prohibition, without having first denounced him as a heretic and acting publicly in consequence, as did St. Athanasius in his day."
ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara
|
The following is a composite extract from:
Schism, Obedience and the Society of St. Pius X, and
|
On one of Gerry's tapes he is asked if the See is currently vacant. His response? "I don't know."
"Impossibility"? First you talk "precedent", now you move the goalposts to "impossibility"?
Your entry into this thread addressed the issue of papal irresistibility. As precedent you cited the case of St. Paul rebuking St. Peter. My response to this was to point out that what is now being alleged with respect to the last four popes has no precedent because of the scale and breadth of the impropriety of which they are accused.
So you say, "OK, but you can't say it's not impossible".
It isn't. Very little is. It's not "impossible" that the real Paul VI was held prisoner in the basement of the Vatican as the Palmar de Troya people claimed. To use your words, "there's nothing in Catholic doctrine which says it's impossible".
We're both agreed, aren't we though, that there is a not insignificant difference between saying that something is not "impossible" (me) and saying that something is almost certain (you).
You're betting your eternal salvation on the proposition that you know better than the Pope what the Holy Spirit wants for the Church.
Good luck.
"Impossibility"? First you talk "precedent", now you move the goalposts to "impossibility"?
I didn't move any goalposts. I'm starting at the doctrinal level and moving towards a plausible analysis of the situation. Simply put, it would be foolish to assert that something "can't be happening." if the evidence prooves otherwise and their is no doctrinal promise to prevent it from happening.
Your entry into this thread addressed the issue of papal irresistibility. As precedent you cited the case of St. Paul rebuking St. Peter. My response to this was to point out that what is now being alleged with respect to the last four popes has no precedent because of the scale and breadth of the impropriety of which they are accused.
The scale and breadth has no bearing on the truth of the principal. Popes can err. and multiple times. They can have a disequilibrium of mind and the natural factors of the modern world can exascerbate it.
So you say, "OK, but you can't say it's not impossible".
You stipulated that rebuke of a Pope has happened multiple times in history. I asked what makes you think this era is somehow exempted from this situation.
It isn't. Very little is.
The point is, that some things are. The Doctrine of the Church cannot change. The Church will survive somehow, somewhere, it is indefectible. There is no Salvation Outside the Church, that will not change no matter how modernists try and reformulate the dogma, we have no non-Catholic saints from the post resurrection era.
It's not "impossible" that the real Paul VI was held prisoner in the basement of the Vatican as the Palmar de Troya people claimed. To use your words, "there's nothing in Catholic doctrine which says it's impossible".
Your using an example that I suspect you think is silly. The FACT that several Popes in a row have been tainted with liberalism is far more probable than someone thinking that the Pope would have to don a disguise and flee the Vatican as Pius IX had to in 1848.
We're both agreed, aren't we though, that there is a not insignificant difference between saying that something is not "impossible" (me) and saying that something is almost certain (you).
No. There is a negative charism of infallibility that rules out certain possibilities. The problem that most people won't face in this day and age is the idea that something "can't possibly be happening" when it is happening in plain sight and there is no promise of Christ that prevents it, but somehow many Catholics pretend there is a doctrine that prevents this reality from happening. Even when Cardinal Ratzinger refers to the "ruins" of the current Church and apologizes for his role, neo-Catholics just pretend he never said it.
You're betting your eternal salvation on the proposition that you know better than the Pope what the Holy Spirit wants for the Church. Good luck.
The Holy Spirit doesn't work in secret. I have access to all revelation that is necessary for salvation. It has all been revealed publicly. The Holy Spirit does not call the Pope on the phone and tell him to engage in ecumenism (which has nothing to do with Catholic doctrine) it is a pet project of the Pope and his disaster alone to make an accounting for. Given a choice between JPII's views on the Church and her priveleges and the papacy itself and St. Pius X's views, I will follow the tried and true path of the Pope that I know is in Heaven and pray for his intercession for the one that is not.
* I can :)
Marcel Lefebvre, in his Aug. 29, 1987. letter to the four bishops-to-be,
"The See of Peter and posts of authority in Rome being occupied by Antichrists, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below."
*Well, sometimes lefevbre spoke the truth, othertimes garbage.
I'm glad you're home. God Bless. You will be a great asset here :)
*Really? The Popes I cited would have given their support to a schism, huh? You really don't seem to have the faintest clue as to what constitues Catholicism.
"Plausible" analysis? How about "subjective" analysis? A "personal" analysis. We're talking about your personal assessment of the situation aren't we?
The doctrinal promise is Our Lord's to St. Peter and his successors.
The scale and breadth has no bearing on the truth of the principal. Popes can err. and multiple times. They can have a disequilibrium of mind and the natural factors of the modern world can exascerbate it.
Indeed it does have a bearing. If there is no limit to the extent to which Popes can err and the extent to which they can lead the Church astray, then the promise of Jesus to Peter is empty. As is the promise that He would not leave us orphans and the promise that the gates of hell would not prevail.
"They can have a disequiibrium of mind"? If I understand your premise correctly there has been a collective and continual disequilibrium of papal minds for the past half century. Your mind of course, is crystal clear and unshakeable. The popes have all been crazy but you have it all figured out.
You stipulated that rebuke of a Pope has happened multiple times in history. I asked what makes you think this era is somehow exempted from this situation.
No. I stipulated that certain popes had been rebuked in certain situations. Infrequently. I never said that this era was exempt and it's entirely possible that someone like Cardinal Ratzinger has, in private, told the Pope that he believes he should consider a particular course of action rather than another. I would consider that to be a "rebuke" of the style St. Paul used with St. Peter.
The total rejection of successive popes and their work and teaching rises above the level of a "rebuke" as does the unauthorized consecration of bishops without papal approval. That is rebellion.
The point is, that some things are. The Doctrine of the Church cannot change. The Church will survive somehow, somewhere, it is indefectible. There is no Salvation Outside the Church, that will not change no matter how modernists try and reformulate the dogma, we have no non-Catholic saints from the post resurrection era.
What and where is the Church? It is built on the Rock, Peter and those in union with him. Sever that union, as when excommunication is incurred and you are outside the Church.
Your using an example that I suspect you think is silly. The FACT that several Popes in a row have been tainted with liberalism is far more probable than someone thinking that the Pope would have to don a disguise and flee the Vatican as Pius IX had to in 1848.
You're right. It is silly. But not impossible. Which is precisely why I used it. Your whole argument is based on the premise that because there is nothing which makes it impossible (at least in your opinion) for popes to lead the Church completely astray then it must be happening. My point was that "possibility" opens the door to all sorts of ridiculous scenarios such as the one I cited. It doesn't however, make them real. And when your eternal salvation is at stake it is folly to go down this road.
No. There is a negative charism of infallibility that rules out certain possibilities. The problem that most people won't face in this day and age is the idea that something "can't possibly be happening" when it is happening in plain sight and there is no promise of Christ that prevents it, but somehow many Catholics pretend there is a doctrine that prevents this reality from happening. Even when Cardinal Ratzinger refers to the "ruins" of the current Church and apologizes for his role, neo-Catholics just pretend he never said it.
What is happening in plain sight?
The Holy Spirit doesn't work in secret.
Really? Perhaps you'd care to show me where this is laid out in the Catechism. Is this Catholic doctrine?
I have access to all revelation that is necessary for salvation.
You don't need the Pope, in other words. Most protestants say the same. Glad that protestantism is working out for you.
It has all been revealed publicly.
Revelation you mean? Yes it has. But it's preservation and explanation has been entrusted to the successors of Peter and those united to him.Not you.
The Holy Spirit does not call the Pope on the phone and tell him to engage in ecumenism (which has nothing to do with Catholic doctrine) it is a pet project of the Pope and his disaster alone to make an accounting for.
I'll agree that the Holy Spirit doesn't have a cell phone, but are you saying that the Holy Spirit doesn't work through the Pope and more importantly, can't?
How do you know what takes place between God and the Pope? You're way out in deep waters here, my friend.
Given a choice between JPII's views on the Church and her priveleges and the papacy itself and St. Pius X's views, I will follow the tried and true path of the Pope that I know is in Heaven and pray for his intercession for the one that is not.
Like, I said, "good luck".
"Plausible" analysis? How about "subjective" analysis? A "personal" analysis. We're talking about your personal assessment of the situation aren't we?
Not subjective. An objective few of the facts. the analysis of millions of thinking people including Paul VI in his lucid moments is objective. A subjective view is the Pope's "Springtime of Vatican II" that we're supposedly in.
We're talking about your personal subjective denial of the situation. Hiding behind a doctrine of papal impeccability that doesn't exist will not do anything but endanger souls.
The doctrinal promise is Our Lord's to St. Peter and his successors.
That's the essential part of the discussion, the reality of the auto-destruction of the Church's organizational structure is in no way a denial of Our Lord's promises. The neo-Catholics have simply exaggerated Our Lord's promises beyond all reason in order to make themselves feel comfortable.
The scale and breadth has no bearing on the truth of the principal. Popes can err. and multiple times. They can have a disequilibrium of mind and the natural factors of the modern world can exascerbate it.
Indeed it does have a bearing. If there is no limit to the extent to which Popes can err and the extent to which they can lead the Church astray, then the promise of Jesus to Peter is empty.
But it seems you want to be the one to determine where those limits are according to your comfort level. The promise of Jesus guarantees that the Church won't be destroyed, if it's reduced to an amazingly small amount of people, the promise still holds. The Pope is bound by the doctrine of the Church, not the other way around. He can invoke the magisterium of the Church but he is also subject to it.
As is the promise that He would not leave us orphans and the promise that the gates of hell would not prevail.
He promised the gates of Hell would not prevail, he made no promise about the gates of the Church. He hasn't left us orphaned but he has given us a few deadbeat dads.
"They can have a disequiibrium of mind"? If I understand your premise correctly there has been a collective and continual disequilibrium of papal minds for the past half century. Your mind of course, is crystal clear and unshakeable. The popes have all been crazy but you have it all figured out.
Yes. Along with millions of others.
Gerard: You stipulated that rebuke of a Pope has happened multiple times in history. I asked what makes you think this era is somehow exempted from this situation.
No. I stipulated that certain popes had been rebuked in certain situations. Infrequently. I never said that this era was exempt and it's entirely possible that someone like Cardinal Ratzinger has, in private, told the Pope that he believes he should consider a particular course of action rather than another. I would consider that to be a "rebuke" of the style St. Paul used with St. Peter.
Oh, so a rebuke of the Pope is according to your own rules and comfort level and reality must fit in to it. I understand. Only Card. Ratzinger can meekly tell the Pope he thinks something else might be a better course of action. Again, reality is conforming itself merely to your own personal comfort level.
The total rejection of successive popes and their work and teaching rises above the level of a "rebuke" as does the unauthorized consecration of bishops without papal approval. That is rebellion.
You're exaggerating to avoid the point. There hasn't been a total rejection of the Popes and their work. Just a rejection of their novel (and stupid) ideas and their objective efforts to destroy tradition in the Church by their actions and inactions. A Pope who kisses the Koran spits in the face of the Magisterium he has sworn to defend. THAT is rebellion. A Pope who foists a mishmash, senseless, inferior, non-Apostolic rite of Mass on the faithful is basically giving the finger to the Saints, the Angels, the Papacy, the Blessed Mother and the faithful and thinks Our Lord will like it. THAT is rebellion and Stupidity.
Gerard: The point is, that some things are. The Doctrine of the Church cannot change. The Church will survive somehow, somewhere, it is indefectible. There is no Salvation Outside the Church, that will not change no matter how modernists try and reformulate the dogma, we have no non-Catholic saints from the post resurrection era.
What and where is the Church? It is built on the Rock, Peter and those in union with him. Sever that union, as when excommunication is incurred and you are outside the Church.
When Peter lies about excommunications, no severing occurs. Because when he speaks like that he denies Our Lord 3 times all over again.
Gerard: Your using an example that I suspect you think is silly. The FACT that several Popes in a row have been tainted with liberalism is far more probable than someone thinking that the Pope would have to don a disguise and flee the Vatican as Pius IX had to in 1848.
You're right. It is silly. But not impossible. Which is precisely why I used it.
I suspect that you really mean you used it because you do think it's impossible. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turned out to be true. We had enough body doubles of Saddam Hussein running around the middle east over the years. Obviously the idea in principal has some merit. As an example, just watching the events of Sept 11 2001 you can see the hysterical people who were living in a bubble thinking and yelling "this can't be happening" My reaction besides the tragic consequences for souls and the world was "here we go." Malachi Martin predicted the event in 1993 right after the first attempt. He said, "this is merely a foretaste of what is coming."
Your whole argument is based on the premise that because there is nothing which makes it impossible (at least in your opinion) for popes to lead the Church completely astray then it must be happening. My point was that "possibility" opens the door to all sorts of ridiculous scenarios such as the one I cited. It doesn't however, make them real. And when your eternal salvation is at stake it is folly to go down this road.
Not at all. The Popes haven't lead the Church completely astray. They have lead the majority of the Church Militant astray and allowed Apostasy to spread like wildfire. This is because the promise of Christ holds DESPITE their misguided or malicious efforts.
Your salvation is at stake by following the mistakes of these Popes which lead to Indifferentism and a total loss of Catholic faith. That is folly. God has already placed us in a ridiculous scenario that is real, because of the faithlessness and foolishness of 3 (only 3) Popes and their malfeasance in high office.
No. There is a negative charism of infallibility that rules out certain possibilities. The problem that most people won't face in this day and age is the idea that something "can't possibly be happening" when it is happening in plain sight and there is no promise of Christ that prevents it, but somehow many Catholics pretend there is a doctrine that prevents this reality from happening. Even when Cardinal Ratzinger refers to the "ruins" of the current Church and apologizes for his role, neo-Catholics just pretend he never said it.
What is happening in plain sight?
Blindness.
Gerard: The Holy Spirit doesn't work in secret.
Really? Perhaps you'd care to show me where this is laid out in the Catechism. Is this Catholic doctrine?
Yes. We have the Holy Ghost himself speaking through the Prophet Isaiah telling us: Come ye near unto Me, and hear this: I HAVE NOT SPOKEN IN SECRET, from the beginning; from the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit. --According to St. Jerome, Isaiah is speaking on behalf of the Trinity in this passage. Because the opposite would be Gnosticism. Jesus spoke plainly and publicly, his Church and what proceeds from him do the same.
Gerard: I have access to all revelation that is necessary for salvation.
You don't need the Pope, in other words.
In other words, I need the papacy, not a bad individual Pope and I don't need the Pope's mistakes.
Most protestants say the same.
No they don't. They don't believe in the papal primacy or infallibility and they believe Catholics think the Pope is impeccable in their error.
Glad that protestantism is working out for you.
Wrong again. Typical neo-Catholic attempt at guilt by association, but it provides a good teaching moment. Protestants have been accusing Catholics of papal worship and mistaking papal infallibility for impeccability. The neo-Catholics have been making that lie appear true for decades now. I feel particularly sorry for the EWTN/Journey Home type of converts that never changed from the Protestant view of the papacy. They simply decided to like it.
Gerard:It has all been revealed publicly.
Revelation you mean? Yes it has. But it's preservation and explanation has been entrusted to the successors of Peter and those united to him.
What guarantees that he won't be a screw up? Better yet, what proves that he hasn't already blundered numerous times? Just because its been entrusted to him doesn't mean he'll do the job well. JPII's been ignoring it for his whole Pontificate and sliced away most defenses and guards the whole time.
Not you.
Wrong. My Baptismal promises and the slap on my cheek from Confirmation tell me I'm a soldier for Christ. Revelation has told all of us, publicly that rebuking a Pope is permissable and sometimes necessary.
Gerard: The Holy Spirit does not call the Pope on the phone and tell him to engage in ecumenism (which has nothing to do with Catholic doctrine) it is a pet project of the Pope and his disaster alone to make an accounting for.
I'll agree that the Holy Spirit doesn't have a cell phone, but are you saying that the Holy Spirit doesn't work through the Pope and more importantly, can't?
Do you agree that ecumenism is not an article of faith?
I'm saying there is no reason to believe that JPII and Paul VI were did or are doing what the Holy Spirit WANTS, they simply are given enormous leeway in destroying parts of it. And they will make an accounting (Paul VI has of course)
How do you know what takes place between God and the Pope? You're way out in deep waters here, my friend.
The waters may be deep but Our Lord is with the Barque of Peter and even when Peter doubts and stumbles and sinks beneath the waves because he has taken his eyes of Our Lord and been frightened by the storms in the world, I know that he'll rescue the boat and Peter eventually. I just don't invent doctrine where there is none. And I don't presume upon the Holy Ghost to make me comfortable in following him. And I don't presume that if the Pope does something foolish that it really must be good and be of the Holy Ghost. If the Holy Ghost is telling the Pope to kiss the Koran because Islam is a lovely religion by which people are save. There is no Holy Ghost.
Gerard: Given a choice between JPII's views on the Church and her priveleges and the papacy itself and St. Pius X's views, I will follow the tried and true path of the Pope that I know is in Heaven and pray for his intercession for the one that is not.
Like, I said, "good luck".
Do you have a problem with someone praying to St. Pius X or St. Pius V or any other sainted pontiff to intercede and pray for the current Pope?
You're giving me your opinion on why you think we are free to ignore the Pope when we choose. That's all. That's as subjective as it gets.
"Millions of thinking people"? Hyperbole.
We're talking about your personal subjective denial of the situation. Hiding behind a doctrine of papal impeccability that doesn't exist will not do anything but endanger souls.
No. The only thing I'm denying is your hypothesis that we all have the freedom to "rebuke" the Pope as and when it pleases us and to become an autonomous interpreter of what constitutes Catholicism. Further, I deny that a "rebuke" allows us to take things to whatever lengths we please. Including consecrating our own bishops.
That's the essential part of the discussion, the reality of the auto-destruction of the Church's organizational structure is in no way a denial of Our Lord's promises. The neo-Catholics have simply exaggerated Our Lord's promises beyond all reason in order to make themselves feel comfortable.
I'd say the opposite. I'd say you interpret them in a way that allows you to go to whatever lengths you deem necessary to ignore the one whom Jesus appointed to lead his Church.
I further say that in addition to the concrete promises which Jesus made to Peter, Peter also has a charism enabling him to lead the Church-something which is not given to me nor to you. It is not part of my job description to grade the Pope's report card. Humility prohibits it. I have no religious vocation, still less a charism which enables me to discern when it's time to wave my middle finger at him.
But it seems you want to be the one to determine where those limits are according to your comfort level. The promise of Jesus guarantees that the Church won't be destroyed, if it's reduced to an amazingly small amount of people, the promise still holds. The Pope is bound by the doctrine of the Church, not the other way around. He can invoke the magisterium of the Church but he is also subject to it.
Comfort level has nothing to do with it. I do however, say that there are "limits" to what the term "rebuke" means with regard to the obedience and respect which we are obliged to give to the successor of Peter. Ironically, it seems that you think there are no limits to the disobedience one can show when one deems it time for a "rebuke." Including consecrating one's own bishops.
The example you originally cited of St. Paul taking issue with St. Peter, in no way allows one to define a "rebuke" as "going to whatever lengths one considers necessary."
Me:Your mind of course, is crystal clear and unshakeable. The popes have all been crazy but you have it all figured out.
You: Yes. Along with millions of others.
Thanks for admitting it openly.
These are not the words of a reasonable, well-balanced individual.
Oh, so a rebuke of the Pope is according to your own rules and comfort level and reality must fit in to it. I understand. Only Card. Ratzinger can meekly tell the Pope he thinks something else might be a better course of action. Again, reality is conforming itself merely to your own personal comfort level.
See above.
You are the one who wants to make the rules and thumb your nose when it suits. I'm preaching obedience and respect.
You're exaggerating to avoid the point. There hasn't been a total rejection of the Popes and their work. Just a rejection of their novel (and stupid) ideas and their objective efforts to destroy tradition in the Church by their actions and inactions. A Pope who kisses the Koran spits in the face of the Magisterium he has sworn to defend. THAT is rebellion. A Pope who foists a mishmash, senseless, inferior, non-Apostolic rite of Mass on the faithful is basically giving the finger to the Saints, the Angels, the Papacy, the Blessed Mother and the faithful and thinks Our Lord will like it. THAT is rebellion and Stupidity.
No. This is rebelllion. There is a point at which a "rebuke" is no longer such and becomes rebellion. Excommunication is usually a reasonably good line in the sand.
When Peter lies about excommunications, no severing occurs. Because when he speaks like that he denies Our Lord 3 times all over again.
At best, uncharitable. At worst, outright lies by you.
I suspect that you really mean you used it because you do think it's impossible. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turned out to be true. We had enough body doubles of Saddam Hussein running around the middle east over the years. Obviously the idea in principal has some merit. As an example, just watching the events of Sept 11 2001 you can see the hysterical people who were living in a bubble thinking and yelling "this can't be happening" My reaction besides the tragic consequences for souls and the world was "here we go." Malachi Martin predicted the event in 1993 right after the first attempt. He said, "this is merely a foretaste of what is coming."
My emphasis. More silliness.
Not at all. The Popes haven't lead the Church completely astray. They have lead the majority of the Church Militant astray and allowed Apostasy to spread like wildfire. This is because the promise of Christ holds DESPITE their misguided or malicious efforts.
On the contrary. The confusion within the Church has come about in spite of the Pope. It's been the work of those who have willfully ignored his teaching.
Yes. We have the Holy Ghost himself speaking through the Prophet Isaiah telling us: Come ye near unto Me, and hear this: I HAVE NOT SPOKEN IN SECRET, from the beginning; from the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit. --According to St. Jerome, Isaiah is speaking on behalf of the Trinity in this passage. Because the opposite would be Gnosticism. Jesus spoke plainly and publicly, his Church and what proceeds from him do the same.
You said the Holy Spirit never speaks privately. I never said that the Holy Spirit doesn't speak publicly. He does. He also speaks privately to those whom he chooses, as and when He chooses. You may not be privy to the conversation.
In other words, I need the papacy, not a bad individual Pope and I don't need the Pope's mistakes.
Oh, OK. So you need a pope but not this pope, right? If this pope is unnecessary perhaps we could abolish the papacy then? Seeing as how previous popes are sufficient for you and have done it all. Maybe that's going a bit far. Maybe we could just suspend the papacy until one comes along who is more suited to your tastes. How's that?
No they don't. They don't believe in the papal primacy or infallibility and they believe Catholics think the Pope is impeccable in their error.
Protestants say this: "I have access to all revelation that is necessary for salvation." Exactly what you said.
What guarantees that he won't be a screw up? Better yet, what proves that he hasn't already blundered numerous times? Just because its been entrusted to him doesn't mean he'll do the job well. JPII's been ignoring it for his whole Pontificate and sliced away most defenses and guards the whole time.
He's the Pope. If this answer isn't sufficient for you then maybe you need to think a little about why we even need a pope.
If there are no guarantees that he won't be a screw up and we are free to "rebuke" him whenever we, consider that he is screwing up, we've pretty much reached the point where a pope is just a nuisance. Let's drop the pretense and appoint ourselves pope.
At least we know that we won't screw up, right?
Wrong. My Baptismal promises and the slap on my cheek from Confirmation tell me I'm a soldier for Christ. Revelation has told all of us, publicly that rebuking a Pope is permissable and sometimes necessary.
But that wasn't what you said before. You said that you had access to all the revelation necessary for salvation because it was "public". My point was that the interpretation of revelation is the work of the Church. Not you.
Do you agree that ecumenism is not an article of faith?
OK. Now for the nitty gritty.
Ecumenism is a process. A mechanism. It can't be an article of faith.
Here is the faith. Jesus founded one church. Not a thousand. The Church is one, holy, Catholic and apostolic. He also prayed that all may be one. Ecumenism is the process by which we attempt to bring about that unity for which God prayed.
In your posts overall, there is an absence of understanding that the Church is a living Church. Truth is immortal and unchanging but the Holy Spirit constantly inspires the Church to present that truth to men in many ways in many different ages.
The Pope is certainly one of the main conduits by which the Holy Spirit moves in the Church and with all due respect, you're probably not in the loop, so to speak, with respect to how the Spirit wishes to heal the many divisions in Christianity. I certainly don't consider that I am. Unless of course the white courtesy phone rings and I'm summoned to Rome for my input. Otherwise, I'll simply continue to pray and ask God to help me to be a loyal son of the Church.
You may not like the the Pope's overtures to those of other faiths, but I'd humbly submit, on the basis of this and other posts which you've made, that you are incompetent to judge.
Over and out.
No, Archbishop Lefebvre spoke the truth since he declared only what had always been taught for two thousand years. The garbage is the slander you and others like you spew relentlessly in imitation of your modernist mentors--pretending what is now going on in the Church is the Catholic faith. It is not. It is a new apostate religion recently invented--and it will fail because of this.
"The Popes I cited would have given their support to a schism, huh?"
1. No, they would have recognized it was impossible that Marcel Lefebvre was guilty of what JPII said he was. They could distinguish between protecting the traditional faith and rejecting the papacy. Neither you nor the people you emulate can do so.
2. There never was a schism. What you imagine was a schism was merely a fit of pique expressed by the Pontiff who could not stomach anyone standing up to his stupendous errors--not even when this was done simply to defend the Catholic faith from his destructive agenda.
Promises to Peter do not include protection from doing real evil or committing blunders on a huge scale. The divine protection Peter enjoys is very circumscribed--and it's high time you and bornacatholic started thinking like real Catholics and rejected the notion that the pope is some kind of godlike being who never misjudges and never sins. He is a man like other men, someone in charge of a vast organization who enjoys a particular papal charism under very circumscribed conditions. He was never intended as a being for Catholics to worship. Nor was his charism granted to maximize his own celebrity or to push for closer ecumenical relations but to protect the deposit of faith. If a pope doesn't do this, then no matter how much CBS or NBC or the National Council of Churches or the UN or the cheering crowds, admire him, he is still a failure.
The notion, moreover, that to consecrate bishops in order to preserve the ancient Mass from a certain destruction is somehow a "rebellion" sets truth on its end. Marcel Lefebvre spent twenty years trying to preserve Catholic Tradition from the gang of Vatican marauders out to destroy the traditional faith in the name of a second-rate council hijacked by those with a wrecking-ball agenda. The real rebellion was on the part of Rome and its hierarchy, not on the part of the traditional Catholic community--and their corruptions and devastations now litter the Catholic landscape. This Pope, moreover, has applauded the general demolition and has promoted the men who do this--some of them heretics, some of them perverts, some of them outright crooks, most of them mediocrities at best--but yet he had promoted not a single traditionalist priest, not even one of singular wisdom or sanctity. Not a one. On the contrary, there can be no doubt JPII intended their elimination within the Catholic Church when he denied his mandate. He only relented a smidgen when he met resistance--that of the Archbishop and his followers--but he did so grudgingly, at the same time unjustly disparaging the opposition he met.
So suppose you stash your rationalizations for the colossal breakdown of the Church everywhere, especially in the West. The causes are evident--and they have nothing to do with the traditionalist movement whatsoever. You need to ascribe blame where it truly belongs--with the revolution emanating from the very top. And in this regard it also would behoove you to recall an even more apt scriptural passage than the one you've posted: that of Christ warning about phony prophets--men who seem like spiritual shepherds but care not a whit for the sheep they are supposed to be leading to salvation. He warned that these men were wolves in sheep's clothing. He also advised how to tell them from the true prophets: by their fruits we were supposed to know them--not by their celebrity nor high status within the Church. So we are expected to use our common sense. Because a rotten tree produces rotten fruit and a good tree produces good fruit. And I ask you--what have been the fruits of the postconciliar papacies besides widespread corruption and devastation? What fruits have been good enough or sufficient enough to justify the truly colossal breakdown of faith within the Church for the past forty years? To my mind nothing whatsoever can justify the revolutionary agenda that has caused the present devastation.
BTTT
OK. Now for the nitty gritty. Ecumenism is a process. A mechanism. It can't be an article of faith.OK. Here is the faith. Jesus founded one church. Not a thousand. The Church is one, holy, Catholic and apostolic. He also prayed that all may be one. ECUMENISM IS THE PROCESS BY WHICH WE ATTEMPT TO BRING ABOUT THAT UNITY FOR WHICH GOD PRAYED.
The disrespect of that false opinion is amazing to me. As if Our Lord's prayers aren't efficacious enough to grant his wishes. As a process, it's a pointless process considering Our Lord's prayers are fulfilled. From Mortalium Animos.... 7. AND HERE IT SEEMS OPPORTUNE TO EXPOUND AND TO REFUTE A CERTAIN FALSE OPINION, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. FOR AUTHORS WHO FAVOR THIS VIEW ARE ACCUSTOMED, TIMES ALMOST WITHOUT NUMBER, TO BRING FORWARD THESE WORDS OF CHRIST: "THAT THEY ALL MAY BE ONE.... AND THERE SHALL BE ONE FOLD AND ONE SHEPHERD,"[14] WITH THIS SIGNIFICATION HOWEVER: THAT CHRIST JESUS MERELY EXPRESSED A DESIRE AND PRAYER, WHICH STILL LACKS ITS FULFILLMENT. -- Pius XI Mortalium Animos
In your posts overall, there is an absence of understanding that the Church is a living Church.
That's just your perception. What I see is your lack of understanding is that the Saints and Popes and Magisterial teachings of the past are still living in Christ and part of the Church.
Truth is immortal and unchanging but the Holy Spirit constantly inspires the Church to present that truth to men in many ways in many different ages.
There is a difference between legitimate development of the understanding of doctrine like St. Augustine referring to the Blessed Sacrament's existence as a "latent mystery" which leads to Thomas Aquinas categorizing it in transubstantiation and JPII contradicting pre-conciliar (heck even post conciliar) Popes. His idea of Ut Unum Sint is exactly the FALSE opinion condemned by Pius XI. THAT is not the work of the Holy Ghost.
It is sad enough when people lose their faith and leave the Church; but it is much worse when those who in reality have lost their faith remain within the Church and try -- like termites -- to undermine Christian faith with their claim that they are giving to Christian revelation the interpretation that suits "modern man." --Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand, Trojan Horse in the City of God, p. 265
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.