Posted on 03/06/2005 9:45:17 AM PST by Land of the Irish
1) Where Mr. Droleskey denies the primacy of the papacy
2) Where he rejects the teaching authority of the Church
and how is lauding a priest a "denial of dogma"?
No Chuck,
You're confusing Droleskey with JPII.
He denies papal primacy (see Ut Unum Sint, he is open to others deciding what the exercise of papal primacy is to be. He leaves the question open ended. Therefore attempting to undo the dogma proclaimed infallibly at Vatican I)
His constant rejections of the teaching authority of the Church in his "reflections" which he safely tightrope walks on the abyss of outright heresy (see Crossing the Threshold where he says people are saved IN the Church and other BY the Church, another open ended attack on the dogma of EENS)
And who could laud a disobedient priest more than JPII? He elevates them to bishops and gives the worst of them the red hat. He wants them to be Pope. Why else would he laud Walter Kaspar and Roger Mahoney? They all would've had to take the anti-modernist oath. Along with JPII, they have all broken their vows.
Please see my reply to #80. In my vagueness I did not intend to say Thomas Droleskey denies any dogmas.
Answer: murphE in post #81 and Gerard.P in post #82 have done a pretty good job of answering for me. At this time I would only add that for you to be taking this position requires you to have ignored history and the plain facts that describe what has been going on, especially since that year Our Lady said "it would become clearer," 1960. She also said that if the Pope and bishops do not obey the command of heaven (not exactly her words) that the entire world, but especially the heirarchy of the Church (and therefore those who fall in line behind their disorientation) would suffer a "diabolical disorientation" which would lead to much confusion and discord.
What we are experiencing now is the fruit of that D2, diabolical disorientation. Why can't a faithful Catholic find a traditional Mass in his neighborhood anymore unless he run the gaunltlet of ridicule by other Catholics who think the Mass is "schismatic?" -- D2.
Why do the respectful appeals by a faithful Catholic to the Pope, the cardinals, his local bishop, because he has found himself persecuted for doing nothing other than what all the saints of history have done, fall on deaf ears; or worse, why does his complaint become published or returned to the local level exposing his identity and breaking his trust, and he then becomes chastised locally all the more for having tried to appeal to legitimate authority? -- D2.
Why are good and loyal priests who take a just stand against the international network of homosexual priests, or the lavender mafia, slapped with penalties by their bishop as if THEY are the one in the wrong? -- D2.
Why is a well meaning and traditional Catholic like Thomas Droleskey vilified by those who would be Catholic, merely because he dares to annunciate the current crisis and show them who would be Catholic where they are drifting away: is it because he is capable of expressing himself and they can't stand the threat of clarity? The popes and bishops used to be clear in what they said, but no more! -- D2.
Why do otherwise intelligent people persist in mispelling his name ("Drolesky," "Drochesky")? -- D2.
Why is it when you go to the local parish for confession and ask the priest, under the seal of confession, anything regarding these issues (except perhaps the mispelling issue), you consistently get nothing that makes any sense, as if the diabolical spirit of disorientation reaches even into the sacred space of the Sacrament that would be "Penance?" (They changed it to "Reconciliation.") -- D2.
When one pope of long ago (I can look up his name if anyone wants to know) was wont to dictate his writing of books to a scribe who sat on the other side of a curtain, one day the scribe pulled the curtain aside, the legend goes, and he saw the Holy Spirit as a white dove speaking into the ear of the pope the words that the pope would make part of his new book. I have to wonder what the legend would be today; or, more precisely, if there are new legends, how many are buried deep in the silence of the better judgment of those who would never repeat them?
Once you see the connections, once you connect the dots, once you know where you've been and can see where you would be going if you continue, once it becomes clear to you the inexorable advance of the auto-demolition of the Faith toward the prophesy of Jesus, "When I return, shall I find, think ye, faith on earth?" Once you can look upon the historical record with vision clear, things will never be the same for you. Until that time, you will continue to defend the indefensible. You will continue to be under the D2 curse. You will remaind D2'd.
Am not.
He denies papal primacy (see Ut Unum Sint, he is open to others deciding what the exercise of papal primacy is to be.Therefore attempting to undo the dogma proclaimed infallibly at Vatican I)
I don't think so. JPII has wielded his authority to the dismay of a lot of factions. I don't recall a synod being called to discuss the excommunication of Lefebvre. On the contrary, he uses his authority as expressed in the Vatican II document, Decree on the Bishops' Pastoral Office of the Church.
"Hence by divine institution he enjoys (odd choice of word for such an awesome responsibility IMHO) supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority over the care of souls."
The footnotes are more detailed: "supreme -over all the churches; full - over everything pertaining to them; immediate - over all members, including bishops, without intermediary; and ordinary- by the very reason of his office (not delegated)"
I don't see how one could think the V2 pope, John Paul II, would not understand, nor not be able to observe, during his 27 year pontificate, how the pope would deny this dogma. He has used his authority unilaterally, personally, and suddenly throughout his pontificate.
On the other hand, Mr. Droleskey, by embracing the schism, apparently has denied this dogma.
His constant rejections of the teaching authority of the Church in his "reflections" which he safely tightrope walks on the abyss of outright heresy (see Crossing the Threshold where he says people are saved IN the Church and other BY the Church, another open ended attack on the dogma of EENS)
I like your defense. "He safely tightropes." Nothing more need be said.
And who could laud a disobedient priest more than JPII? He elevates them to bishops and gives the worst of them the red hat. He wants them to be Pope. Why else would he laud Walter Kaspar and Roger Mahoney? They all would've had to take the anti-modernist oath. Along with JPII, they have all broken their vows.
The assignment of a red hat has nothing whatsoever to do with his desire to see them as pope. I believe Mahoney was made archbishop of L.A. due to his vigorous appeal, as bishop of Stockton, for Catholics to have nothing to do with the nuclear arms proliferation then underway. The pope was impressed. Don't know why Kaspar was red hatted. Sometimes there are odd politics occurring that propels the advancement of clergy. Karol Wojtyla was appointed archbishop of Krakow by fluke too. The primate of Poland didn't want Wojtyla because he wasn't political enough. The communist minister of religious affairs wanted him because he didn't think Wojtyla was political either. So they both thought the same thing, yet wanted different things, and they were both wrong and it's a different world as a result.
Anyway, the pope can govern his church any which way he "enjoys". Mr. Droleskey, not being the pope, doesn't get to make similar judgements.
I don't ignore history or plain facts. I trust that God is in charge. It is not His will for me to share in the contempt that so many have for his Bride, the Church, nor in the pastors that he has appointed to rule over it during my lifetime.(Not that I'm not tempted. :o))
I'm not familiar with your Lady quote, but I'm not into Marian Gnosticism either.
What we are experiencing now is the fruit of that D2, diabolical disorientation. Why can't a faithful Catholic find a traditional Mass in his neighborhood anymore unless he run the gaunltlet of ridicule by other Catholics who think the Mass is "schismatic?"
I don't think that "schismatic" and traditional are synonyms, but if you refer to a council of the Church as a "diabolical disorientation", then the term, "schismatic" certainly becomes applicable. You invite it. Here's something from the book,"Self-abandonment to Divine Providence"
"We have to arrive at the point where at which the whole created universe no longer exists for us, and God is everything. For that purpose it is necessary that God should oppose himself to all the particular affections of the soul, so that when it is led to some particlar form of prayer or idea of piety or method of devotion, when it proposes to attain perfection by such and such plans or ways or by the direction of such and such people, in fact, when it attaches itself to anything whatever, God upsets its ideas and permits that instead of what it thought it would do, it finds in it all nothing but confusion, trouble, emptiness, folly. No sooner has it said: that is my path, there is the person I ought to consult, that is how I should act, than God immediately says the contrary and withdraws his power from the means chosen by the soul. So, finding in everything only deception and nothingness, the soul is constrained to have recourse to God himself and be content with him.
Happy the soul that understands this loving severity of its God and corresponds to it faithfully!"
Why do the respectful appeals by a faithful Catholic to the Pope, the cardinals, his local bishop, because he has found himself persecuted for doing nothing other than what all the saints of history have done, fall on deaf ears; or worse, why does his complaint become published or returned to the local level exposing his identity and breaking his trust, and he then becomes chastised locally all the more for having tried to appeal to legitimate authority? -- D2.
I'm very sorry that you have endured some personal setbacks and humiliations as far as your desire for a traditional mass go, but I wouldn't equate the traditional mass with sainthood. Saints would be saints no matter what form the mass was in. Conforming to God's will, not just completing one's religious duties makes a saint.
Why are good and loyal priests who take a just stand against the international network of homosexual priests, or the lavender mafia, slapped with penalties by their bishop as if THEY are the one in the wrong? -- D2.
Maybe because they are just completely wrong about their allegations and come across as looney tunes.
Why is a well meaning and traditional Catholic like Thomas Droleskey vilified by those who would be Catholic, merely because he dares to annunciate the current crisis and show them who would be Catholic where they are drifting away: is it because he is capable of expressing himself and they can't stand the threat of clarity? The popes and bishops used to be clear in what they said, but no more! -- D2.
Mr. Droleskey has lost faith in the Church. For that fact no good Catholic should be attracted to his musings. He has drunk the Kool-aid and has devoted his life to exciting contempt for the Church. You are right about his ability to express himself. I used to enjoy his columns in the Wanderer but he no longer writes as a Catholic.
Why do otherwise intelligent people persist in mispelling his name ("Drolesky," "Drochesky")? -- D2.
It was purposeful since you pointed out a previous misspelling. BTW, Thanks for the compliment. I'm usually described as confused, dumb, modernist, uninformed (that's just in the last week, let alone the past four years, LOL) on this forum. You are kind.
"When I return, shall I find, think ye, faith on earth?"
I have no doubt. Jesus will find faith in his indefectable Bride, The Holy Roman Catholic Church.
I do think so. And JPII has dismayed a lot more by his lack of weilding his authority. This isn't even debatable.
From Ut Unum Sint. "As Bishop of Rome I am fully aware, as I have reaffirmed in the present Encyclical Letter, that Christ ardently desires the full and visible communion of all those Communities in which, by virtue of God's faithfulness, his Spirit dwells. I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding THE REQUEST MADE OF ME TO FIND A WAY OF EXERCISING THE PRIMACY WHICH, WHILE IN NO WAY RENOUNCING WHAT IS ESSENTIAL TO ITS MISSION, IS NONETHELESS OPEN TO A NEW SITUATION.
I don't recall a synod being called to discuss the excommunication of Lefebvre. On the contrary, he uses his authority as expressed in the Vatican II document, Decree on the Bishops' Pastoral Office of the Church. "Hence by divine institution he enjoys (odd choice of word for such an awesome responsibility IMHO) supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority over the care of souls." The footnotes are more detailed: "supreme -over all the churches; full - over everything pertaining to them; immediate - over all members, including bishops, without intermediary; and ordinary- by the very reason of his office (not delegated)"
......IS NONETHELESS OPEN TO A NEW SITUATION.
On the other hand, Mr. Droleskey, by embracing the schism, apparently has denied this dogma.
Which definition of schism are you using the pre-Vatican II or the post-Vatican II or the special definition that was just for Archbishop Lefebvre?
His constant rejections of the teaching authority of the Church in his "reflections" which he safely tightrope walks on the abyss of outright heresy (see Crossing the Threshold where he says people are saved IN the Church and other BY the Church, another open ended attack on the dogma of EENS)
I like your defense. "He safely tightropes." Nothing more need be said.
Plenty can be said on that. It's the same model of speech that Bill Clinton was so good at. He "undefines things" and while never actually stepping into manifest heresy, he leads others right into it. I realize you might not want to say anything more because it would burst the bubble.
And who could laud a disobedient priest more than JPII? He elevates them to bishops and gives the worst of them the red hat. He wants them to be Pope. Why else would he laud Walter Kaspar and Roger Mahoney? They all would've had to take the anti-modernist oath. Along with JPII, they have all broken their vows.
The assignment of a red hat has nothing whatsoever to do with his desire to see them as pope.
Really? That's a stretch. At the very least he thinks they are excellent candidates to vote for Pope and what are the odds that a Cardinal becomes Pope opposed to a monk? Mahoney and Law and Kaspar obviously have the best methods and designs for the Church. I'm sure they would have all voted for a nice conservative Pope.
I believe Mahoney was made archbishop of L.A. due to his vigorous appeal, as bishop of Stockton, for Catholics to have nothing to do with the nuclear arms proliferation then underway. The pope was impressed.
You believe. You mean JPII wasn't clear as a bell on this? Mahoney's politics are obviously more important than souls. Good.
Don't know why Kaspar was red hatted.
Oh come on. You were doing so well. He was obviously given the red hat for being what he is. A theologian in the mold of JPII. What did he objectively do? He rewarded a scandalous "theologian" with the highest honor he could.
Sometimes there are odd politics occurring that propels the advancement of clergy. Karol Wojtyla was appointed archbishop of Krakow by fluke too.
Obviously. He certainly didn't warrant it with his views. Just like Kaspar. So, Kaspar is just as much a papabile as Wojtyla was.
The primate of Poland didn't want Wojtyla because he wasn't political enough.
You aren't talking about Wyzinski are you?
The communist minister of religious affairs wanted him because he didn't think Wojtyla was political either. So they both thought the same thing, yet wanted different things, and they were both wrong and it's a different world as a result.
So you are saying that JPII is a good actor and isn't necessarily what he appears? That he fooled a bunch of people into thinking he was pious and not political? Sounds par for the course.
Anyway, the pope can govern his church any which way he "enjoys". Mr. Droleskey, not being the pope, doesn't get to make similar judgements.
No. First it's not JPII's Church. He's the steward of Christ's Church. And he's doing a lousy job of it, he can't govern as he "enjoys" either. You need to learn something about the papacy. He's responsible for defending and preserving the Deposit of Faith. Part of that is the papacy itself. And he is "open to a new situation." What EXACTLY did he mean by that? Not what you think he meant. What did he mean by "new situation?"
I'm not certain why you are so scandalized by this statement. I think he is addressing the shifting relationships other denominations have with the Church. He is heeding the request to be sensitive to those relationships. He is acknowledging that his hands may be tied due to the essential mission of the papacy, which is to protect the deposit of faith. He can only go so far. Pretty innocuous statement. I'm not sure how you can see it as being anything otherwise, except that it contains the word "new" which sets off some kind of Pavlovian reaction.
You mean JPII wasn't clear as a bell on this? Mahoney's politics are obviously more important than souls. Good.
JPII hasn't told me anything. I can only pass along what I have picked up reading, and I imagine what I read is only speculation as well, because the pope doesn't publicly explain his reasons for making his appointments, but I like the theory, given that JPII has a strong anti-nuke position.
Politics and morals are linked so characterizing Cardinal Mahoney's stance as purely political is inaccurate. In hindsight the American bishops are proven to be correct in opposing the nuclear arms race, as now the world has to worry about where all these warheads have gotten to.
Yes, and the Kasparites have sent teams of missionaries to my neighborhood passing out flyers and magazines, evidently intent on spreading their heresy to the ends of the earth. For some reason, though their efforts are failing as 99.99999999 % of the population associates Kaspar with the image of a friendly cartoon phantom. If they could just get the Schillebeexzer's out of the way, perhaps their efforts would pay off.
You aren't talking about Wyzinski are you?
Yes, Wyzinski opposed Wojtyla initially. They became good friends and allies in time.
So you are saying that JPII is a good actor and isn't necessarily what he appears? That he fooled a bunch of people into thinking he was pious and not political?
Yes, JPII was a very talented actor. When he decide to become a priest his friends and theatre associates were incredulous, because they felt he had a God given superior ability as an actor and therefore a duty to pursue that career. Karol Wojtyla never fooled anyone into thinking he was pious. His piety was observed in childhood and throughout his life. His piety has fueled his success in whatever he has been asked to do. Were it his decision, he would have become a Carmelite contemplative, but when asked to work in a parish he excelled at that, and when asked to return to academia he excelled at that, and when asked to be a bishop he excelled at that. His success, in whatever role the church would have him, is due to his ability to submit wholly to God's plan. "Totus tuus" is his motto. No need to fool anyone, he's the real deal.
Some teacher. Nobody knows what he's talking about. Must be frustrating for someone fluent in about 8 languages. "Nukes" of course are more important than the Eucharist. How utterly humanist.
I'm not certain why you are so scandalized by this statement. I think he is addressing the shifting relationships other denominations have with the Church. He is heeding the request to be sensitive to those relationships. He is acknowledging that his hands may be tied due to the essential mission of the papacy, which is to protect the deposit of faith. He can only go so far. Pretty innocuous statement. I'm not sure how you can see it as being anything otherwise, except that it contains the word "new" which sets off some kind of Pavlovian reaction.
The only thing Pavlovian is the defense of such ambiguous statements. He's flat out wrong in that encyclical first by implying if not outright saying that the prayer of Our Lord "That they may be one." has not been fulfilled in the Church. "You think he is addressing..." He is addressing nothing. He is "open to a new situation" regarding the exercise of Petrine Primacy. And he is asking non-Catholics to redefine the papacy for him. If it weren't flat out in the face of Vatican I, I'd think that he would give Catholics a vote in it as well, since we actually believe in Petrine Primacy.
Politics and morals are linked so characterizing Cardinal Mahoney's stance as purely political is inaccurate.
That's right. It's not purely political. He is motivated by the destruction of the Church. He (mahoney) does not believe in the real presence according to his letters. What kind of Pope would give a man like that the title of Prince of the Church? Prince of Darkness is more accurate.
In hindsight the American bishops are proven to be correct in opposing the nuclear arms race, as now the world has to worry about where all these warheads have gotten to.
You're on a tangent. The U.S. bishops are a disgrace. Catholic in name only. God comes first and the politics of a bishop are worthless if he is not lead by the Faith.
Yes, and the Kasparites have sent teams of missionaries to my neighborhood passing out flyers and magazines, evidently intent on spreading their heresy to the ends of the earth. For some reason, though their efforts are failing as 99.99999999 % of the population associates Kaspar with the image of a friendly cartoon phantom. If they could just get the Schillebeexzer's out of the way, perhaps their efforts would pay off.
You wouldn't have to deal with any of that at all if JPII had done his job regarding Kaspar.
Yes, Wyzinski opposed Wojtyla initially. They became good friends and allies in time.
He should've gone with his first impressions. It was merciful that he died so as not to see the destruction of the Church organization.
"You have to know the psychology of priests who spend a good part of their time praying and serving people and finally discover that they are not being rewarded properly by God on earth. They don’t want to blame the Holy Ghost, so they turn to their peers and try to maneuver them into recognizing them as a little more than equal."--Stefan Cardinal Wyszynski as quoted when asked about how JPII was elected. From God’s Broker: The Life of John Paul II By Antoni Gronowicz
Karol Wojtyla never fooled anyone into thinking he was pious. His piety was observed in childhood and throughout his life. His piety has fueled his success in whatever he has been asked to do.
That would explain his failures as Pope. It makes sense too, if that quote I supplied is true. Especially thought provoking is his failures in Russia. Makes one think that he didn't actually fulfill Our Lady's request at Fatima.
I've often noticed myself how God has taken everything away from him that he entered into the papacy with his vitality, his voice, his charisma. He has been a disaster. He stubbornly refuses to clarify the issues that flail at the Church. He is so dazzled by ecumenism that he let the demons loose in the Church. His actions are identical to those that have been condemned as injurious to the faith by numerous Popes. God is probably in his mercy going to keep him alive until he finally "gets it."
The proper sanction for heresy is major excommunication; Pius XII knew that, even if his successors often seem not to. If Fr. Schillebeeckx was a heretic, why was he not excommunicated?
Why were progressivists like Schillebeeckx not excommunicated for heresy by Pope Pius XII? While they harbored heresy in their hearts, they cleverly disguised it so as not to be crushed. They believed their crusade of auto-demolition was a noble cause. They were not stupid about it, either. They meticulously wormed their way into positions of power so that when the time was right, they could all strike together.
You might as well ask why Pope Pius XII brought in someone as destructive to the traditional Church as Annibale Bugnini, the "chief architect of the liturgical reform." Why would he place someone with such an agenda to uproot tradition, into a place where he could do just that? If it wasn't heresy, it was as close as he could dare get and not get excommunicated.
Unless you are aware of how consequential the errors of theologians and teachers of religion can be, it is useless to discuss this issue. If, for example, you do not think that the destruction and confusion that followed the Second Vatican Council is something we ought to find appalling, there is not much to say. Perhaps you think there has been progress. Within varying degrees among them, progressivists recognize destruction as good and necessary so that their new religion may grow and conquer. Do you agree with them?
Available quotations from avant-garde “luminaries” such as Fr. Schillebeeckx and his comrades make it clear that these men believed that the “old religion” (or at least parts of it) had to be wiped out in order for the “new springtime” of Vatican II to succeed. Is that what you think, too?
Pope Pius XII did a lot of good, but he also, unfortunately, allowed Modernism to continue to grow. He permitted and approved the first changes to the Mass, the reactions to which the revolutionaries observed, and since Catholics the world over did not cry out in opposition to those first changes, the revolutionaries rightly concluded that more drastic changes would not be resisted, either. They were mostly correct. That doesn't mean they were morally right in making more changes.
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.