Jury finds [SSPX] church liable for slander, distress

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

[Dominick]

You never provided any, just a tabloid article. A proof is an objective thing, that you are wholly unable to glean from SSPX brochures and poison pen articles. To help your memory after umpteen previous requests, you finally told me the proof was unobtainable because it was held secret by the Vatican.

A writing would suffice. It would be easy to produce, if this was a credible accusation. So where exactly does Cardinal Kasper say what you think he said?

[Mershon]

Whatever you do, when you cannot answer a post factually, resort to vitrolic slander, detraction and incoherence. If the SSPX sympathizers tend to get emotional, then the sedes simply lose all ability to reason or even react based on emotion--just resort to disrespect and uncharitable behavior. But hey, don't worry, "faith. hope. And charity. But the greatest of these is..."

[ultima ratio]

That was not my meaning. The newspapers reported his doings, not his beliefs. These were recorded in his major works--especially Jesus the Christ.

"The exegetical arguments offered here for "non-historicity" are in themselves so transparently flimsy, as we have seen, that we doubt they could convince men as intelligent as Kasper and Bredin unless bolstered up by some powerful "hidden persuader," such as a philosophical world view which excludes direct or miraculous actions of God in the physical order as outside the realm of the possible or credible...This indeed seems to be very close to the world view of Fr. Kasper as recently, at least, as the mid-seventies. 34 He then wrote of the theological "task of coming to terms with the modern understanding of reality as represented primarily by the natural sciences" (as if there were only one such "modern understanding"). 35 Kasper continues:

"The premiss of the scientific approach is a wholly law-bound determination of all events. ... In scientific theory there is no room for a miracle in the sense of an event with no physical cause and therefore no definable origin." 36

That Fr. Kasper is confusing this particular philosophical position with real science - in the sense of certain and true knowledge which "modern" man just has to accept - becomes clear a little further on, when he tells us that any "miraculous" event

"always comes about through the action of created secondary causes. A divine intervention in the sense of a directly visible action of God is theological nonsense." 37

On the contrary: it is precisely this opinion of Fr. Kasper - which amongst other things would presumably rule out such "directly visible actions of God" as the raising of a dead body and a virginal conception - that seems like theological (and philosophical) nonsense. Why should the One who created the material universe from nothing find it impossible or unseemly to work further marvels?"

--Brian Harrison, "On the Third Day He Arose," Living Tradition, September, 1988.

[Dominick]

Secondary source, lifted from:

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt19.html

Have a extensive quote from Cardinal Kaspar? One sentence fro 1977 does not a proof make.

[gbcdoj]

One sentence fro 1977 does not a proof make.

Plus, that sentence actually affirms the existence of miracles, since it's discussing how God brings them about.

[Mershon]

I agree with the vast majority of your synopsis, but what do you mean by this?

"and teaching doctrine that is no longer Catholic as "true" Catholicism."

In a letter to Bishop Fellay in 2001, Cardinal Hoyos said he detected no heresy nor schismatic attitudes after having dinner and discussing a multitude of issues with 3 of the 4 SSPX bishops, so if Cardinal Hoyos is wrong about this, please let me know what the SSPX teaches as Catholic doctrine that is no longer true Catholicism. Specific examples would be appreciated.

[frog_jerk_2004]

Nobody reads the Catechism

I do!

[Dominick]

In a letter to Bishop Fellay in 2001, Cardinal Hoyos said he detected no heresy nor schismatic attitudes after having dinner and discussing a multitude of issues with 3 of the 4 SSPX bishops, so if Cardinal Hoyos is wrong about this, please let me know what the SSPX teaches as Catholic doctrine that is no longer true Catholicism. Specific examples would be appreciated

In particular to Fellay or in particular to those here at FR touting SSPXism over Catholicism? I can't speak for Fellay, but, saying that one can listen to and revere the Pope at the same time they revile his official actions would be one example of substituting false Catholicism with actual belief. Many openly speak that the Pope is overtly subverting the Church, in making that charge, they can't be possibly teaching Catholicism.

Scott the head of the SSPX in the US district has said:
"Remember that if you cannot get to a true Catholic Mass celebrated by a good traditional priest, you should not attend the New Mass or the Indult Mass, and this even if it is the only traditional Mass available".

This is openly in violation of Catholic teaching, since we teach that the Peccability of a Priest has no bearing on the validity of the Mass, that local Ordinaries validly celebrate the Mass, and among other problems, the See with the Ordinary can authorize Indult Masses. The SSPX thus denigrate a valid Sacrament. Is this a Catholic teaching?

[Mershon]

You are right in the way you have framed your answer, of course. But Fr. Scott, by and large, as far as I can tell, does not represent the official doctrine taught by the SSPX, although I have read some of their propaganda espousing the same "attend no Mass other than SSPX" principles. However, I doubt that even Fr. Scott would identify his statements as official teaching of the Catholic Church. I'm sure he recognizes it as his own theological opinion, as true as he think it may be.

The same principle, of course, could be applied to a myriad of priests, bishops and Cardinals who are de jure, if not de facto, within the Roman Catholic Church.

[ultima ratio]

What is this, a doctoral exam? Research the primary source yourself, I don't happen to have that Kasper text and it's not available on the net. It's enough for me that Fr. Harrison, a man of honor and a good scholar, wrote it and cites Kasper. And what is this "lifted from" stuff? I properly cited the fact that the piece was published in Living Tradition--where else should I have gotten it? Though I've read of Kasper's opinions often enough in other journals--places you'd never approve of like The Angelus--which cited chapter and verse concerning his heretical views. Traditionalists had been wary of Kasper for a long time--long before the Pontiff decided to reward him with a red hat for his heresy.

[ultima ratio]

"saying that one can listen to and revere the Pope at the same time they revile his official actions would be one example of substituting false Catholicism with actual belief."

It's not necessary for Catholics to "revere" the Pope, personally. It's enough to revere his office. Nor is being a good Catholic incompatible with reviling the Pope's official actions when these run contrary to Catholic Tradition and are even sources of scandal. We may certainly revile, for instance, his praying with animists and pouring libations to the Great Thumb. How does such abhorrence in any way substitute a false Catholicism with actual belief as you say? Are we supposed to clap our hands and applaud even acts against the the first commandment? On the contrary, such actions are reviled because they have little to do with real Catholicism and are disgraceful actions for any pope, no matter how popular.

[ultima ratio]

"You never provided any [proof], just a tabloid article."

Don't you tire of being wrong all the time? Fr. Harrison will be sorry to hear you say he writes for the tabloids.

[gbcdoj]

Though I've read of Kasper's opinions often enough in other journals--places you'd never approve of like The Angelus

SiSiNoNo article "Cardinals with no faith":

So, for Walter Kasper, Our Lord Jesus Christ was not divine, there were no miracles, no resurrection and, therefore, no ascension.

Alister McGrath notes that Kasper believes "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".

Why are we supposed to believe the SSPX publications over Dulles and McGrath? They flatly contradict each other.

[Mershon]

"It's not necessary for Catholics to "revere" the Pope, personally. It's enough to revere his office. Nor is being a good Catholic incompatible with reviling the Pope's official actions when these run contrary to Catholic Tradition and are even sources of scandal. We may certainly revile, for instance, his praying with animists and pouring libations to the Great Thumb."

Absolutely true. However, how we go about addressing our concerns in this matter must be done respectfully, and hopefully, directly to the Pope, or his appointees, such as our spiritual director, our local Ordinary, or the Congregation of the Faith (Ratzinger). But as far as you go in this regard, I agree.

I don't think Fr. Scott or many other SSPX priests or Bishops substitute "false teaching" in this regard. Perhaps Dominick was referring to their claim to "pray for him and the local Ordinary" at all their Masses and claiming to be "recognizing his authority" as the Pope, all the while ignoring him regarding jurisdiction.

[Dominick]

What is this, a doctoral exam? Research the primary source yourself, I don't happen to have that Kasper text and it's not available on the net.

You made the accusation, and have not submitted a first hand writing; you can only depend on a second hand opinion. I predicted the exact kind of "proof" you would offer right here, in this thread, and you did not disappoint me. Other opinions hold there is nothing wrong with Kaspar's writing, "Jesus the Christ" in particular, and his writings in general.

You only have the time to make a wild accusation, with no foundation, and use that the shellac the Church. Jack Chick makes the same kind of argument as you, and with the same exact method.

Though I've read of Kasper's opinions often enough in other journals--places you'd never approve of like The Angelus--which cited chapter and verse concerning his heretical views. Traditionalists had been wary of Kasper for a long time--long before the Pontiff decided to reward him with a red hat for his heresy

You don't care to cite them? I asked you for a writing of Kaspar that showed Heresy, and you said you didn't have to. Now, you just mentioned you had read enough of his opinions. So produce the writing. Cite the article written by Kaspar, if he believes as you say, he should have volumes of writing to support your accusation.

I bet you won't, you will once again weasel out of it, and do the equivalent of a hit and run. You run the reputation of a Cardinal over, and then run off as you hear the sirens. Your mission is accomplished, not to spread the Latin Mass, but to promote the status of the SSPX at the expense of the reputation of innocent men.

[ultima ratio]

"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"

The Pope last year wrote an encyclical warning against liturgical abuses. Yet he himself has presided over outdoor Masses which were the scenes of the worst abuses. He urged in a motu proprio a "generous" introduction of the Indult. But his own diocese of Rome allows Indult Masses only at two small hole-in-the-wall chapels in obscure corners of the city--and at the exact same time. This is typical of his pontificate. The Pope talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. Like I say, talk is cheap. After twenty-five years, let's see some action.

[gbcdoj]

If you are admitting that the Papal teaching is orthodox, what's the problem with looking to him for doctrinal guidance? No one says that you have to copy whatever the Vatican liturgical office dreamed up for the papal Mass.

[AAABEST]

his praying with animists and pouring libations to the Great Thumb

LOL! I was giggling to myself about this (like a Jackass) while attempting to have phone conversations when ultima first posted it before, then you had to go and mention it again.

This is just funny.

[Mershon]

"The Pope talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk."

OR perhaps those bishops and cardinals who ignore him will suffer greatly for it. He alone is not the Church. He must lead, and the others must follow. The bishops and cardinals, in many cases, have not "walked the talk" so to speak.

[ultima ratio]

Nonsense. I came up with something within minutes. If you want further proof, do a little digging yourself. The Cardinal is a heretic. Harrison cites his text, Jesus the Christ. It is a footnoted article, you yourself have given the link, check the source from the text--unless you believe Harrison is being deceitful.

There is nothing wild at all in what I've posted. It is a fact that Kasper denies the Gospel miracles, including the Resurrection. It is also a fact that he has been awarded the red hat. The cognitive dissonance is on your part, not mine. You can't reconcile your affection and admiration for the Pope with his really shocking and unCatholic behavior. So you want to shoot the messenger.

If you want a citation from the traditionalist Si Si, No No, I'd be happy to oblige:
________________________________________________________

---

CARDINALS WITH NO FAITH

Recently we have seen that Pope John Paul II appointed as Cardinals two German Bishops, Walter Kasper and Karl Lehmann. On what merits? We have illustrated them in the past, but since time has passed, it is well to recall them in order to better understand the gravity of these appointments vis à vis the facts.

For Walter Kasper, the miracles narrated in the Gospels are not historical facts related as eyewitness testimony by two Apostles, and as testimony heard by two of the Apostles' disciples, nor are they "segni certessimi” of Our Lord Jesus Christ's divinity as defined by Vatican I dogma. Rather, they are "instead, a problem which makes Jesus' activity strange, and difficult for modern man to understand."1,2 So, in homage to "modern man," or to be precise, to prideful man who believes only in himself, Walter Kasper deems himself authorized to put into perspective the "undeniable tradition which witnesses these miracles to us."3

Let us pass over the process that Kasper employs because we've previously treated it,4 and because it is just the parroted echo of the gratuitous assertions of the worst Protestant rationalist "criticism." Instead, let us move on to the conclusions: For Kasper, the new purple biretta, what are Jesus' miracles?

"These non-historical stories," he writes, "are statements of belief in the salvific meaning of the person and message of Jesus."5 Briefly, for Walter Kasper, Jesus never raised either Jairus' daughter or the widow of Naim's son from the dead, nor did He even call Lazarus from his tomb. Neither did He ever calm tempests, nor multiply the loaves, nor walk on water, etc.

According to Kasper, the evangelists invented these "non-historical stories" the way that our grandmothers made up fables at the fireside when there was no television to corrupt children. And just as our grandmothers' fables only sought to inculcate a "morality," so too the Evangelists' "fables" about Jesus' miracles "did not intend to present Jesus as Lord over life and death."6

In any case, for Walter Kasper, also as to his assumption that the miracles did occur-which, like all of the "new theologians" he firmly doubts-Jesus could not have performed miracles simply because he was not God. Jesus, he says, never advanced such "claims," and at Caesarea Philippi, Peter merely confessed, "You are the Messiah," and Jesus also proclaimed this before the Sanhedrin.7 But when the first Christian community confessed that Jesus is the Son of God, it did not in fact mean that Jesus really is the Son of God, but only wished "to express the idea that God manifests and communicates Himself in an absolute and definite way in the story of Jesus." End of story. In fact, the first Christian community did not intend "to acknowledge a dignity for him that would further his claims." Naturally, it was St. Paul's and St. John's habit to further Jesus' "claims."8

In our day, we are fortunate to have the Dutch Catechism to sort out all of this for us. Kasper partakes of its heresy, namely that "the doctrine of Jesus' divinity and humanity constitutes a development of the original conviction that this man is our divine salvation."9

You have read it correctly: salvation is "divine,” but Jesus is simply "this man"! And this would be "the original belief of the faith," indeed, the primitive Church's belief and faith!

We could stop here because we don't see how a man can still exercise his priestly function, be made a Bishop, and today even be made a Cardinal who, in his writings, negates fundamental Christian doctrine, i.e., Our Lord Jesus Christ's divinity, which, rather than heresy ought to be called apostasy.

If Jesus is not God but was made so by his later followers, there can logically be no resurrection. And in fact, Walter Kasper negates the Resurrection. For him, "the empty tomb represents an ambiguous phenomenon, open to different possibilities of interpretation."10 And interpretations of the Resurrection are "beliefs and testimonies produced by people who believe," and who, via the "new theology's" strange logic, necessarily lie, and who also simply attest to whatever facts that they have been lead to believe.

Undoubtedly, he continues, a certain "grossly erroneous type of assertion that Jesus was touched by their hands and ate at the table with his disciples...runs the risk of justifying a too coarse Paschal faith."11 But fortunately, as to the spiritualization of this "coarse" Paschal faith which has been the Church's faith for 2000 years, lo and behold, we have Walter Kasper to inform us that these apparitions were nothing more than "meetings with Christ present in the Spirit."12Clear, no?

So, for Walter Kasper, Our Lord Jesus Christ was not divine, there were no miracles, no resurrection and, therefore, no ascension.13 And in error's inexorable "logic," there was no Immaculate Conception or divine maternity. Consequently, Walter Kasper actually teaches the windy rehabilitation of Nestorius. Isn't that also logical? If, for Kasper, Jesus is not God, then Nestorius was wrongly condemned for having denied Mary the title, "Mother of God."14Everything squares in the new Cardinal's "logic." What a pity that it is the logic of apostasy and of total rejection of Revealed Truth!

Karl Lehmann is the other new purple biretta. Lehman's "faith" is specifically exemplified for us in the document of the 1986 Working Group on Justification, and Priestly Ministry (Fribourg in Br.-Göttingen), which he directed along with the Protestant, Pannenberg. On this subject, we shall also limit ourselves to the minimum while referring the reader to a long article published in the September 15, 1987 edition of SiSiNoNo, titled, "Germany: A Disgusting Document of Ecumenical Treason." Lehmann reveals himself to be this document's true "father" or, at least, the standard bearer of the shameful "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification," signed two years ago by Catholics and Protestants.15

For Lehmann, the Council of Trent's anathemas have no value, because as he and his "separated brethren" say, that Council judged and condemned the "first" Luther. This, so that the "second" Luther might be tidied up and covered over!

Naturally, with satisfaction, the document emphasizes that the "departure from Trent" has been established in the Catholic Church. Obviously, here Lehmann confuses the Catholic Church with the "new theology," which is philo-Protestant and heretical. For this reason, we can understand why he says, "what is decisive in the reformers' conception of faith" no longer constitutes "any problem for today's Catholic theology."16

According to Lehmann, today, the Protestant theses—among which however there is no "departure" from Luther-no longer fall under Trent's anathemas. And, no matter that you might level them again, given that he has denied, par excellence, any value to that dogmatic Council.

In this same document, Protestant heresies are blasphemously and impudently placed on the same plane as Trent's infallible definitions, and Protestant sects' human and heretical "traditions" are put on the same level as the Church's Divine, Apostolic Tradition. Therefore, it is not surprising that just as Carlo M. Martini, S J. would like to send us to the Jews' schools to understand Sacred Scripture,17 so Lehmann would like to send us to the Protestants' school "in order to more profoundly understand the Church's doctrines and their roots."

Regarding this more profound "understanding," he presents proof composed of really many Protestant heresies, including sola Scriptura, which has no component of Tradition and no Magisterium, and is abandonment to private interpretation; and dogmatic relativism, by which a dogma can be true for Catholics and false for Protestants and vice-versa, and so also means that there are only diverse confessional "traditions," all of them respectable, despite the principle of non-contradiction.

Looking forward to Catholics allowing themselves to be instructed by Protestants, Lehmann rejoices that "in reality, the exegetical praxis of both Churches have become largely similar." And for him it is of little importance that the "Catholic" exegetes have aligned themselves with the Protestants, and not vice-versa.

Karl Lehmann speaks of a plurality of "churches," but in reality he partakes of the heresy of the "Church divided," which retains the unity of the Church destroyed by the schisms, against Sacred Scripture and Tradition, which, as faithfully transmitted by the Magisterium, teaches that the schism did not corrode the unity of the Church, exactly as when a dry branch that falls from a tree or is chopped off leaves the integral unity of the tree intact. Karl Lehmann not only unites himself to "the separated brethren" in exalting Luther, but he also unites himself to them in the denigration of the Catholic Church, her doctrine and her "very often unenlightened practices"18

If, then, we consider the document's content relative to doctrine on justification, merit, and on the sacraments, the picture becomes even more distressing: Or, doesn't Karl Lehmann know Catholic doctrine, or does he want to sacrifice it to an imaginary and illusory "consensus" at the expense of, and damage to Divine Revelation?

Here is just one example: Luther reduced the traditional seven sacraments to two, and Lehmann concedes that the relevant condemnation of Trent "can today only have value in a limited way."19 Let us ask: For Lehmann, are there seven or two sacraments? Or better, does he consider the sacraments to be a human or a divine institution? Similarly, Lehmann concedes that the Protestant critique regarding "the Roman Mass's canon's sacrificial thesis" is "understandable"!20 We ask: For Lehmann, is the Mass really a sacrifice, as the Catholic Faith defined it at Trent, or is it only a memorial, as his "separated brethren" want to say? Another cunning condescension: Today's Protestants' position would no longer fall under Trent's anathema only because—playing on words—they speak of the "real presence" in the Eucharist. But by "real presence," they really mean the "personal," spiritual presence and not at all the corporeal presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ.21

Also, in Vatican II texts, the absence of the term "transubstantiation" was hailed as a prudent distancing,22 naturally, from Catholic doctrine. And it doesn't matter at all that the same Pope Paul VI in Mysterium Fidei forced himself to undo this omission of the Council. For Lehmann, the "devotion before the Tabernacle"23 —notice that he puts it in quotation marks-and the Corpus Christi procession, are considered "forms of still conserved medieval devotions." And he supports the liturgical reform's operative reductions, thus confirming that Protestantization of the liturgy denounced by Cardinals Ottaviani and Baci to Pope Paul VI in their Breve esame critico. He also slips toward Protestant theology on Purgatory, which doesn't exist for Protestants; on Communion, which for Protestants is a means of remission of mortal sins; on Confirmation, Extreme Unction, Marriage, and on Ordination. He equivocates on the word, "Sacrament," which Protestants will adopt, but who mean by it something totally different from the Catholic faith's meaning. All of this is either serious or a betrayal, and both of these possibilities are unforgivable in a minister of God, a priest, who ought never to have become a Bishop, and instead, is now even a Cardinal.

If such is Rasper's and Lehmann's faith, it is not difficult to intuit what has become of morality in their hands: abortion, divorce, contraception, abolition of priestly celibacy, etc. Regarding the "remarried divorced," we have stressed here that Cardinals Kasper and Lehmann want to allow them to receive Communion, even if culpable and impenitent, "after an examination of conscience" and "a meeting with a prudent priest-expert." This statement provoked the intervention of the Congregation for the Faith.24

It is superfluous to say that Cardinals Kasper and Lehmann are enemies of the Roman Primate.25

Is it possible that Pope John Paul II is ignorant of much of what we have reviewed here about Kasper and Lehmann? Unfortunately, this is not so. In fact, in Kasper's case, he has treated one of his books that has circulated undisturbed for years in Italy. And in Lehmann's case, he has been treated in an official document on "ecumenical dialogue" in Germany. In any case, to prove that Pope John Paul II was well enough informed, his letter, a monitum that was sent to the German Cardinals at the time of the last consistory, suffices.

The first report on the letter was published on March 12, 2001 by the German daily, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. It reported that in the February 22nd letter, the Pope spoke of "confusion and abuse" and of "the decline in human and Christian values in Germany." He deplored an upsurge in liturgy, preaching, catechesis, in management of the community that does not correspond to disciplinary directives and Church teachings; and then, as to ecumenism, the German Bishops are called to guidelines recently presented in Dominus Jesus. Also while praising the German Church's "solid organizational structure," John Paul II warned of the risk of "gutting the Church from within by means that seem strong from the outside, but internally always [cause the Church] to lose ever more strength and credibility.

On May 16, Vatican Radio confirmed the same letter's content, as had been widely purveyed by the German mass media, and carefully repeated by Ansa. Vatican Radio added that the Pope had referred the new German Cardinals to the teaching of Humanae Vitaeand to the Congregation for the Faith's letter on the exclusion of the remarried divorced from Holy Communion; it otherwise noted that "confusion and abuses" were lamented, "particularly in the area of intercommunion with Protestants."

Therefore, John Paul II knew and disapproved many things. What sense then is there in making the two Cardinals, warning them within the same act of creating them as such? In his speech, the Pope told the new Cardinals: "Isn't the red of the vestments you wear the burning fire of love for the Church, which ought to nourish in you readiness, if necessary, for the supreme witness to life?" But how can one love the faith and love it " usque ad effusionem sanguinem” if one doesn't have the faith? And can the Cardinal's purple biretta perform the miracle of transforming "Bishops without faith"26 into Cardinals burning with faith unto martyrdom? Won't appointing them Cardinals have the singularly terrible effect of placing them in a position to do major damage to the Church, and no longer only in Germany?

Hirpinus

---

(Translated exclusively for Angelus Press by Suzanne Rini from the Italian edition of SiSiNoNo, No.10, May 31, 2001.)

1. W. Kasper, Gesù Cristo, Queriniana, 6th edition, p. 115.

2. SiSiNoNo [Italian Edition], April 30, 1989, p.4ff.

3. Kasper, ibid.

4. SiSiNoNo [Italian Edition], op. cit.

5. Kasper, op. cit. p. 118.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid. p. 143.

8. Ibid, p.233.

9. Ibid, p.223.

10. Ibid, p. 173.

11. Ibid. p. 193.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid, p.203.

14. Ibid, p.353.

15. SiSiNoNo [Italian Edition], January 15, 2000, p. 1ff.

16. Lehmann, Working Group on Justification and Priestly Ministry, Fribourg in Br.-Gottingen, 1986, p.57.

17. SiSiNoNo [Italian Edition], August 1985, p.2.

18. Working Group, op. cit., p.64.

19. Ibid. p.81.

20. Ibid. p.93.

21. Ibid. p.97.

22. Ibid. p. 105.

23. Ibid. p. 110

24. SiSiNoNo [Italian Edition], December 15, 1994, p.8.

25. SiSiNoNo [Italian Edition], July, 1986, "The Future of the Church in Germany."

26. SiSiNoNo [Italian Edition], March 15, 1993, p.5.