Posted on 12/20/2004 3:14:59 PM PST by St. Johann Tetzel
Hello, I am new to this site. Like what I see so far. I have to say that I was actually present for the "sermon" back in 1996. I was only 17 at the time, and had met Ferro maybe once. If it wasn't for Doran, I along with hundreds of other parishioners would not have ever known the Ferro situation. I say Doran got what he deserved. I had been following the court case, and let me tell you...Doran was as arrogant and pompous as ever (nothing different from his tenure in Post Falls). He never once apologized for his actions. I bet this would never have gone to court if Doran had acted like a man, admitted his wrong, and tried to seek restitution. Instead, he has and still walks on his cloud of majesty adored by his honor guard. I can't speak for the SSPX as a whole. Most of them are decent priests, but Post Falls has had a history of really strange behaviors to say the least.
Sorry to hear that. I've encountered priests in the SSPX I haven't much liked myself. But that is the way it goes. All institutions have bad apples. An institution becomes corrupt only when the bad apples take over. That is far from what's happening in the SSPX, though the writer of the article apparently would like us to think so. Most of the priests of the SSPX are very kind, hard-working, devout men.
Yes, you're correct. I have since left the SSPX for reasons that are irrelevant to this article, but I still have much respect for most of the priests I have known. In fact, Fr. Doran's successor (Fr. Boyle) was an admirable man who was too good and was subsequently driven out by the Doranite faction. A very unfortunate case! In a way, this court case was about the two factions in Post Falls, since witnesses for both sides fell along the two sides. I like to think of the verdict as a long over due retribution for Fr. Boyle and the good parishioners that supported him. In fact, Fr. Boyle was there to testify, and he had very honest remarks to say about the actions of his predecessor and his followers.
The story on that link is amazing and frightening.
WOW! I thought SSPX adherents were logical. There is hardly any "ad hominem" at all in that attack. No sirreee!!! None at all.
And I guess we are supposed to believe you are the most beautifully looking person on the face of the earth.
Attack his website. Attack his looks. But whatever you do, certainly do not engage in arguing the facts of the case.
"a toy earthlink site" Come on, you can do better than that, can't you?
There is a link to Williamson and Angeles with this priest.
Humpty-dumpty the prophet's "prophetic" prophecies only highlight the difference in the way the priests and bishops should be handled and how they are handled. Williamson was exiled for the high crime of making stupid comments, while New Order priests are promoted, hidden, given new assignments, aided and abetted for the "low" crimes of sodomizing children.
Passages such as this are spot on
Yes, Humpty the Hateful is spot on. The SSPX clergy are nothing but "gods" motivated by all of their new found riches. That's why some of us "SSPXers" have to worship in motel conference rooms. Our elitism and greed attracts us to the splendor of such palaces as the Best Western in Waterloo Iowa. The chapel I attend is in one of the worst areas of town, but that's just to show the peasants we're not square. We've never had a priest that has owned a car. Our last one had to be driven hundreds of miles every week just so he could offer the mass in three distant locations across the state.
I guess these "gods" are just better at concealing their greed and wealth than the New Order, who hides theirs in million dollar homes for clergy and settlements for victims of anal rape - now approaching a billion dollars.
Again, get yourselves a real source instead low-rent lone editorialist on a free website who's imagined all by himself the evil motives behind the Society.
As for the following, it is a perfect paraphrase of the posts of ultima ratio on these boards:
Don't act as a n00b. If you're going ignore forum rules by dragging subject matter and posters in from other threads, at least observe forum etiquette by pinging them.
Besides yours and Humpty's point is irrelevant. Luther rejected the Catholic faith as did the evil king who founded the Anglican church. Neither wanted to preserve it and both disdained the traditional faith. It won't stop obsessed hand wringers from spreading the "trads are Protestants" lie, but that's really their problem in the long run.
I've noticed a few of you are really going after ultima personally lately, which is a compliment. It speak to his effectiveness.
I found your long post and explanation both fascination and nearly right on.
One caveat though: It is difficult for many Catholics to put the decision on themselves to determine what is, and what is not, in keeping with the Catholic Faith, and many fear it leaves up to them a decision that resides with the Pope himself. Should we be in the position of having to compare what the Pope says with Catholic teaching?
Also, since Vatican I clearly says that adherence to the Papacy in matter of discipline and governance is REQUIRED, this too, is part of the Catholic Faith. Therefore, to attend chapels of a group of priests, no matter what they say their intentions are, which are excommunicated by the Pope, puts one's self in as much "proximate occasion to sin" as attending a Greek Orthodox chapel.
That's why on the rare occasion they find a bad apple such as the subject of this article they get gleeful.
When this priest dies they'll make him the patron saint of anti-SSPX propaganda. You find his waxy corpse preserved in plexiglass under on of their altars tables.
Of course not. That's why the traditional view was that what the Pope judges should be accepted. Msgr. Fenton explains this quite well in his article "The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Allocutions":
The clear and unequivocal answer to this question is contained in the Holy Father's encyclical letter Humani generis, issued Aug. 12, 1950. According to this document: "if, in their 'Acta' the Supreme Pontiffs take care to render a decision on a point that has hitherto been controverted, it is obvious to all that this point, according to the mind and will of these same Pontiffs, can no longer be regarded as a question theologians may freely debate among themselves."[6]Thus, in the teaching of the Humani generis, any doctrinal decision made by the Pope and included in his "Acta" are authoritative. Now many of the allocutions made by the Sovereign Pontiff to private groups are included in the "Acta" of the Sovereign Pontiff himself, as a section of the Acta apostolicae sedis. Hence, any doctrinal decision made in one of these allocutions that is published in the Holy Father's "Acta" is authoritative and binding on all the members of the universal Church.
There is, according to the words of the Humani generis, an authoritative doctrinal decision whenever the Roman Pontiffs, in their "Acta," "de re hactenus controversa data opera sententiam ferunt." When this condition is fulfilled, even in an allocution originally delivered to a private group, but subsequently published as part of the Holy Father's "Acta," an authoritative doctrinal judgment has been proposed to the universal Church. All of those within the Church are obliged, under penalty of serious sin, to accept this decision.
Never in the traditional theologians is mention made of an obligation to first compare the teaching of the Church to the sources of revelation. In fact, Pius XII rejects this very argument in Humani generis, when it was put forth by the neo-Modernists:
It is also true that theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition ... For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church. But if the Church does exercise this function of teaching, as she often has through the centuries, either in the ordinary or in the extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure. Indeed, the very opposite procedure must be used.
I am totally new to this conversation but after reading up on SSPX's relationship with the Catholic Church, if the Pope's judges should be accepted, why did Archbishop Lefebvre go ahead and consecrate bishops without the Pope's approval?
I'm totally ignoring the author's web hosting service, the size of his organization, his girth, his resemblance to Humpty Dumpty and any other extraneous issue. I'm concentrating on his words. The subject matter of his article. I thought it was a good analysis of how divisions come about. I saw little evidence of "hate".
If you wish to raise these criticisms, however, I think they apply in spades to many of the threads that get posted here by SSPXers. Opinion pieces from sites such as "Tradition in Action" and "The Remnant" by people like Horvat, Drolesky and others could reasonably be said to be "low-rent editorializing".
Just my .02.
I certainly don't doubt (and I don't remember the author addressing) hardships endured by those attending SSPX chapels. The article wasn't focused on that issue. Just the anatomy of how a schism comes about.
"Rome is no longer Catholic Rome ... We shall from now on be more and more obliged to act on the assumption that this new Conciliar Church is no longer Catholic." - Msgr. Lefebvre, 1986
Of course, this is an obvious denial of the indefectibility of the Roman See defined by the Fourth Council of Constantinople and reiterated at Vatican I. I guess Msgr. Lefebvre had to destroy tradition in order to save it.
As usual, your post is right on:
However, clarify something for me. You said:
"Never in the traditional theologians is mention made of an obligation to first compare the teaching of the Church to the sources of revelation."
The text you bolded said: "it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure."
Perhaps I was unclear in my previous post to ultima, but this bolded part is exactly what I was trying to say we should do. If the "newer" or "updated" teachings from Vatican II (for example, on relgious liberty or ecumenism) are not clearly delineated or understood due to my limited intellect and inability to truly harmonize them, I resort to clearer explanations on the same subject in encyclicals and other authoritative Church teaching. Of course, I will read what Ratzinger and other theologians say in their theological commentaries to explain this "developed" teaching to attempt to understand the mind of the Church, but when all else fails, the Syllabus of Errors and other shorter, more direct, papal encyclicals, are often times clearer, and frame the "newer, developed" teaching in a more understandable light.
Therefore, I attempt to understand "what is obscure (some of the newer teachings) by what is clear (the older teachings).
Does this make sense?
You're making too much of this. The priest was a dud. Big deal. This happened years ago. No little boys were raped. It's over--except for those who WANT it to mean something more than it does.
1. "Should we be in the position of having to compare what the Pope says with Catholic teaching?"
That is precisely the position this Pope placed Lefebvre--and he chose to stick with his faith, as we should. Whether you want to think so or not, it devolves upon every single Catholic to uphold the faith before all else, even if it means resisting the Pope.
2. "to attend chapels of a group of priests, no matter what they say their intentions are, which are excommunicated by the Pope, puts one's self in as much 'proximate occasion to sin' as attending a Greek Orthodox chapel."
First of all, Rome permits Catholics to fulfill their obligation by attending Mass at SSPX chapels. Second of all, it's a little ironic for traditionalists to be warned about attendance at an SSPX chapel when the Pope is going around pouring libations to the Great Thumb in sacred forests. We live in strange times.
"That is precisely the position this Pope placed Lefebvre--and he chose to stick with his faith, as we should."
Subjectively, perhaps. Lefebvre did not "stick to his faith" by ordaining bishops against the express will of the Holy Father. Obedience to the Holy Father's disciplinary and governing decrees is an element of our Faith. Disobedience, even if not technically schismatic, in a matter as grave as ordaining bishops, is no light matter and can NEVER be justified.
It is not an "either-or," but a "both-and" no matter what Lefebvre thought subjectively.
Sure it's tough to decide what is and what is not traditionally Catholic. But Catholics sure can't turn for guidance to a Pope who believes truth is relative, who supports revolution, who prays with animists, who likes clown Masses, and who elevates to the cardinalate men who are known heretics. None of this is traditionally Catholic. And that's just for starters.
Besides, it's not too tough to figure out what's Catholic. It was all around in spades within the lifetime of anybody over forty! So we already KNOW what Catholicism is--just ask the little old lady next door. It existed everywhere only forty short years ago. We're not talking about the Dark Ages--most people alive today REMEMBER the Catholic Church as it used to be--with valid sacraments, a Mass that was sacred and expressive of Catholic, not Protestant, doctrines, dogmas that were universally revered among all Catholics and a Pontiff who understood his first duty was to guard, above all else, the deposit of faith.
We still know what's Catholic!
Kneeling for Communion out of adoration for Christ is Catholic, standing is not.
Believing in Christ's Resurrection is Catholic, not believing in his Resurrection is not.
Believing in the historicity of the Gospels is Catholic, doubting their historicity is not.
Placing the tabernacle in the central place of honor in a parish church is Catholic, hiding it in some remote corner of the church is not.
Attending a Mass that is a propitiatory sacrifice is Catholic, attending one that is primarily a memorial meal is not.
Focusing on worhiping God at Mass is Catholic, focusing on the congregation instead is not.
The list is very long. I could go on indefinitely.
"The author (who was a former, Druggie, then a Buddhist, then a Moonie before blooming into a Society basher) accuses the our clergy of being "gods" who are motivated by material concerns."
Don't worry. I'm quite certain this is not an ad hominem or "uncharitable" attack on another Catholic. Naw, not at all...
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.