Jury finds [SSPX] church liable for slander, distress

The Coeur d'Alene (Idaho) Press ^ | Dec 17, 2004 | DAVE TURNER

[ultima ratio]

Because to have done otherwise would have meant the demise of the ancient Mass. The Pope intended to starve tradition of priests--since only bishops might consecrate. The Archbishop properly resisted the Pope--in good conscience, and in accordance with the Pope's own canon law. The Pope, morally speaking, doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[Mershon]

"Kneeling for Communion out of adoration for Christ is Catholic, standing is not."

Eastern-rite Catholics stand, and have always stood. They are as Catholic as you and me.

You want to argue based on one's own limited perceptions on what constitutes Catholicism, and what does not, then be my guest.

You know that the vast majority of things you listed have to do with piety, liturgy and discipline, which while connected with doctrine, are not in any way by themselves, defining as Catholicism.

[gbcdoj]

Right. Of course, the present teachings of the Church should not be understood to contradict pre-conciliar teachings, especially since the Roman Pontiffs have many times affirmed that that is not their intent.

[gbcdoj]

a Pope who believes truth is relative

If something is true, then it must be true for all people and at all times. (Fides et Ratio 27)

[Dominick]

There is absolutely no accountability for SSPX priests. Even considering that this Priest had no faculties at all to hear confessions, he still should have kept the seal of the Confessional. We learn in a real Catholic CCD class, that the seal of the Confessional is absolute, and even beyond that, if you accidentally hear another person in confession, you are bound by that same seal.

It comes down to the problem of rules applying to anyone else but us, because the SSPX is right and everyone else is wrong. The means are unimportant when the SSPX' ends are justified.

Look at this thread carefully, some ex-Catholics can justify this breaking of confidentiality and slander by saying at least he didn't molest any boys. This is the excuse made by many who wish to relax morality and authority in our culture, not by those who come to FR because they uphold conservatism. Conservatives don't need excuses, as a whole we take things as they are and move on. A conservative will agree that the means and the ends are important, and by living out "means", we achieve our "ends". Thats how Father O'Sullivan a conservative AND Catholic taught it to me, and I try and live that way.

A fraud in one area is a fraud all the way around, and while the SSPX can hold valid but illicit Mass, they deceive thousands by hearing totally invalid confessions, and teaching doctrine that is no longer Catholic as "true" Catholicism. One important fundamental thing makes the Catholic Church different from all other Churches, from the first hour, is that Christ instituted the Church with Peter at the head, and with Peter having the Keys to the Kingdom wholly within his grasp. Lefebvre nor his successors can wrench the keys from the hands of the Pope, even if they claim to be more Catholic than the Pope.

Who is to remove this man from the Priesthood? Why doesn't he have a Bishop there in his defense? It is obvious, he isn't Catholic at all, and again, as we all learn in CCD, a Priest is the agent of the Bishop, and only can derive his authority from a competent Ordinary. I guess we can chalk up another twisted reform to the SSPX, in addition to no longer being bound by the See of Rome and the Chair of Peter.

[Dominick]

To UR:
You know that the vast majority of things you listed have to do with piety, liturgy and discipline, which while connected with doctrine, are not in any way by themselves, defining as Catholicism

BOOYAH!

That is exactly on target.

[ultima ratio]

There was nothing disciplinary about this. It had to do with the Pope's deliberately starving the ancient Mass of traditional priests--who could not be ordained without consecrated bishops. Lefebvre was old and ill. It was now or never. Meanwhile the Pope had not elevated a SINGLE traditional priest as bishop in his entire pontificate--though he had elevated scores of perverts and apostates. Meanwhile the faith was collapsing because of the New Mass, as even Cardinal Ratzinger has admitted.

You would like to reduce this to a matter of discipline--but it was not that at all. The Pope had just convened Assisi I--he was hellbent on a new kind of Church and a new kind of religion in which Catholic Tradition had no part. So it isn't as if the Archbishop didn't have plenty to be alarmed about. And it isn't as if Catholic doctrine did not permit disobedience when a Pontiff overstepped his authority.

As St. Robert Bellarmine, the Great doctor of the Church has put it: "Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff that aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, one who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed. It is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior."

Not only this, but canon law had been properly evoked by the Archbishop. It legally and morally permitted his action in a state of necessity--which surely existed in Archbishop Lefebvre's own mind. Never mind if he was right or wrong--the law says as long as he SINCERELY evoked the state of necessity, no penalty could accrue. Facts are hard things. They can't be buried by Rome forever. The laws are still on the books, even if the Pope ignores them.

[gbcdoj]

Believing in Christ's Resurrection is Catholic, not believing in his Resurrection is not.

The Resurrection of Jesus is the crowning truth of our faith in Christ, a faith believed and lived as the central truth by the first Christian community; handed on as fundamental by Tradition; established by the documents of the New Testament; and preached as an essential part of the Paschal mystery along with the cross ... The mystery of Christ's resurrection is a real event, with manifestations that were historically verified, as the New Testament bears witness. (CCC 638-639)

Believing in the historicity of the Gospels is Catholic, doubting their historicity is not.

3. The written Gospels. "The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus." (CCC 126)

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.

In accordance with the structure of each church and legitimate local customs, the Most Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a tabernacle in a part of the church that is truly noble, prominent, readily visible, beautifully decorated, and suitable for prayer. (GIRM 314)

Attending a Mass that is a propitiatory sacrifice is Catholic, attending one that is primarily a memorial meal is not.

Yet it must not be forgotten that the Eucharistic meal also has a profoundly and primarily sacrificial meaning. In the Eucharist, Christ makes present to us anew the sacrifice offered once for all on Golgotha. (JP II, Mane nobiscum domine 15)

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory." (CCC 1367)

Focusing on worhiping God at Mass is Catholic, focusing on the congregation instead is not.

The Second Vatican Council rightly proclaimed that the Eucharistic sacrifice is “the source and summit of the Christian life”. “For the most holy Eucharist contains the Church's entire spiritual wealth: Christ himself, our passover and living bread. Through his own flesh, now made living and life-giving by the Holy Spirit, he offers life to men”. Consequently the gaze of the Church is constantly turned to her Lord, present in the Sacrament of the Altar, in which she discovers the full manifestation of his boundless love. (Ecclesia de Eucharistia 1)

The list is very long. I could go on indefinitely.

Go on. Catholics can "turn for guidance" to the Pope on all those beliefs.

[ultima ratio]

Words are cheap.

[Wessex]

"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."


Of course, the Greek similarity here would not be declared as such by Newchurch nowadays. Which would leave only the SSPX exposed to sin since it is out of fashion elsewhere. Thus, the SSPX will be judged by its own rules and not the new set of rules reserved for those not 'excommunicated' or excommunicated in the distant past. Gosh, what it is to fall foul of peevish Wojtyla!

[AAABEST]

As far as I can tell, the man in the picture you posted is not the author of the article. It's a reprint from Fidelity Magazine by a Thomas Case.

I apologize. In my anger and haste (i.e. sin) I neglected to point out that the author is an ex-Frisco hippie, turned Buddhist, turned Moonie, turned Catholic who resorts to hyperbolic mud slinging.

The webmaster is a obsessed shut-in whose entire online Catholic experience focuses soley on trashing the society from a garbage (in design and content) site. No apologetics of any value, no advancement of the faith, no heavy lifting, no Rosary, no furthering of the Gospel, no web design skills, no cost to maintain his site.

Just a lot of bottom feeding from Humpty because he fell off the Society wall and had a great fall.

[gbcdoj]

Words are cheap.

Don't try to get away from the facts. You said that Catholics can't trust the Pope for correct teaching, and listed a bunch of things - all of which the Pope actually teaches.

[AAABEST]

Where is it stated that he broke the confessional? I scanned the thread and the first mention of "confession" was on your post.

Further who here defended breaking the confessional?

[ultima ratio]

Your citing the Catechism on the Resurrection is interesting. Nobody reads the Catechism--but people do read the newspapers and the doings of Cardinal Kasper who was on record as doubting the historicity of the Gospels and of Gospel miracles in general--but who was nevertheless made a cardinal by the Pontiff.

Now tell me, if it's Catholic to believe in the Resurrection, and if it's not Catholic not to believe in the Resurrection--is a heresy, in fact--why in God's name did this Pope make such a man a cardinal? How can that be said to be in any way Catholic?

This is why I say words are cheap. The Catechism, the encyclicals--all say one thing, while the Pope and his Vatican apparachiks do another. There is never any frontal assault on doctrine--but it is subverted at every opportunity. It is mind-boggling really. They claim to love tradition, but allow it to be devastated and assist in its destruction.

[Dominick]

I apologize. In my anger and haste (i.e. sin) I neglected to point out that the author is an ex-Frisco hippie, turned Buddhist, turned Moonie, turned Catholic who resorts to hyperbolic mud slinging.

Do you realize that half the New Testament was written by a Jew who preached murder against early Christians, probably responsible for many innocent deaths, and was even reproached by Christ himself?

[gbcdoj]

Nobody reads the Catechism

This is absolutely false. Plenty of Catholics do read the Catechism - perhaps you trads don't.

Kasper who was on record as doubting the historicity of the Gospels and of Gospel miracles in general

What newspapers was this reported in? SiSiNoNo is not read by normal Catholics.

Another permutation of this position is given in W Kasper who hopes to avoid the problem of adoptionism inherent in the position. Kasper tries to circumvent adoptionism by stressing that the resurrection is the validation of the continued and unique presence of Spirit in Jesus. This, he thinks, avoids the problematic of adoptionism that fails to justify divinity in Christ as all one can say is that at some point Jesus was a 'vessel' or 'prophet' but not divine. The resurrection, as seen in the New Testament, is the confirmation that Jesus was God's Son. Kasper thinks that the resurrection is an affirmation of the continued presence of Spirit in Jesus, and hence not of his 'adoption' by God but intrinsic and unique divinity. (Alistair McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, III, 11, 4)

[AAABEST]

Do you realize that half the New Testament was written by a Jew who preached murder against early Christians, probably responsible for many innocent deaths, and was even reproached by Christ himself?

Sorry but I don't see any resemblence whatsover between this goof and Saint Paul. St. Paul put his persecutive ways aside for the Gospels, this guy puts the Gospels aside for persecution.

If he's going to step down from the altar of false gods, he should do it right.

[Dominick]

I would like to see the "record" that clearly shows Kasper making this claim. It should be a quote or a writing at length from Cardinal Kasper stating as much, and not an isolated quote from a SSPX Tabloid.

I imagine this will be identical to the "proof" that some Vatican II Cardinals were Masons. (shhhh secret evidence!)

[ultima ratio]

I've posted the proof many times on this site. Fr. Brian Harrison did a whole article on it some years ago. You guys make me laugh--always looking for proof. When it's given, it goes down into the memory hole.

[gbcdoj]

And I showed that Avery Dulles reviewed the same book, Jesus the Christ, and stated that it was completely in conformity with the traditional faith.

Tübingen's distinguished Catholic dogmatician, Walter Kasper, here presents a remarkably concise, complete, and informative Christology. Rooted in the ancient and medieval tradition, he is also fully in touch with recent exegetical and philosophical trends. In compact style, Kasper handles practically all the standard Christological questions, such as the pre-existence of the Son, the hypostatic union (one person in two natures), the virginal conception, the freedom and sinlessness of Jesus, his Messianic claims and titles, his miracles, and his resurrection. Refusing to separate Christology from soteriology, Kasper likewise treats the redemptive character of Jesus's sacrificial death. On all these points, Kasper stands with the ancient councils and with the mainstream of the theological tradition.