Posted on 03/06/2005 9:45:17 AM PST by Land of the Irish
During the Council? Drolesky is quoting from his post-conciliar writings, it would seem. And even in 1968 he was able to defend himself before the Holy Office (then headed up by Card. Ottaviani) from charges of denying the Perpetual Virginity, which Drolesky charges with him here and seems to claim that he held (this denial) during the Council.
But on this matter too, to rouse the torpid and increasingly inspire those who are running well, We said that We hoped truly suitable men worthy of so important an office would be recommended to avoid the necessity of Our ever having to appoint to a vacant See someone apart from those recommended. This was provided for also in the procedure We established in 1853[48] for exactly the same purpose. We have heard that some have interpreted these otherwise mild words to mean that We would disregard and even deride the recommendations of the synod. Others have gone even further and developed a theory that a proposal to entrust the care of the Armenians to Latin bishops is veiled in these words. Such foolish accusations indeed deserve no answer: for only fearful and foolish men could utter such statements. But We considered that We should not keep silence on Our right to elect a bishop apart from the three recommended candidates, in case the Apostolic See should be compelled to exercise this right in the future. But even if We had remained silent, this right and duty of the See of blessed Peter would have remained unimpaired. (Bl. Pius IX, Quartus Supra)
It's the same principle as stated here, and the SSPXers act just like the Armenian "neo-schismatics" in twisting the words of the Catholics.
One can become more radicalized as time passes. Mr. Drolesky is an example of that. Cardinal Ratzinger is an example of one who became less radicalized. He was one of the experts advising one of the most liberal prelates at the council and in subsequent years backed away from those views.
It would appear from your voluminous posts - which cause the eyes of even those like myself who have been through graduate school to glaze over - that you like to conuse the issue at hand, and to posit as good priests and theologians who are heretics...........like Scheelebeex, etc....
Defending the indefensible.
Well, man, if Fr. Schillebeeckx was a public heretic during the Council, produce the evidence. We've seen nothing so far.
Dr. Drolesky is not radicalized at all. He has had the scales drop from his eyes.
Keep on defending the partisans of error.
Rahner, Von Balthasar, Kung, Courtney Murray, Scheelebex, and a bevy of others are all part of that club.
Prior to the council, some of them were known for heresy/error......or teetering on the edge of it. But also prior to the council those who did make a public spectacle of their errors - like Teihard de Chardin - were shot down like so many ducks .
Those who were smart, operated in silence........or at least very discreetly.
We are in agreement. People change.
Look I refuse to dialogue in this way. You keep posting irrelevancies. Anybody can cut and paste. That is not appropriate on these forums to the extent you indulge that technique. It bogs one down--and loses the forest for the trees. Besides, you're starting to get nasty. You've begun to use the charge of schism--which is scurrilous. If pressed, you will cite the canon originally intended for the CPA--all of which would be irrelevant, given the exception allowed by canon 1323. Until you concede that point, that the Archbishop had a perfect right to evoke that canon, there's no use in continuing to debate the issue since you will be denying both law and reason. You deny an emergency exists. I don't--I believe such a systemic collapse of the Church not only happened, but it was intended at the very top. I also believe the true Church survives not in Rome which is largely apostate, but in traditionalist communities of Catholic faithful around the globe.
Perhaps you will. Maybe it will take open denial of the tenets of faith--but the modernists are more clever than to do that. They just undermine the tenets--they cut out genuflections and rip out communion rails. Eventually the tenets fade--and the Pope watches silently from the sidelines and lets it all happen.
So what happened to Schillebeeckx? Were his books censured and put on the Index of Forbidden books? Was he sent off to a monastery to work on cleansing his soul? Or was he burned at the stake in order to prevent the spread of his ideas that were at variance with Church teaching?
It must have been a damning condemnation.
Just keep remembering Schillebeeckx would be no problem at all if it weren't for the SSPX. They stopped JPII cold from really coming down on him.
Just remember, it's LeFebvre that caused all the damage after Vatican II. LeFebvre caused the "spirit of Vatican II" LeFebvre is the father of false ecumenism, LeFebvre insisted on Kaspar and Mahoney to get the red hat.
And It's still LeFebvre from beyond that grave, that is twisting JPII's arm preventing him from disciplining the liberals.
It really was devastating what LeFebvre did.
Actually, Fr. Schillebeeckx retained his teaching position.
I'll be there. Look in your mailbox.
The sedevacantist priest was quoted by gbcdoj (see post #31), who was using the words of someone he does not agree with as if to demonstrate what his opponent must be saying. It's easy to get confused when you jump into one of these threads cold. If only we all had sufficent resources to read all the posts and answer the ones we are interested in!
You are correct in presuming that a mature Catholic attitude rightly acknowledges the office of pope and its current occupant. This is basic diplomacy. Even non-Catholic leaders are correctly addressed by their official titles. St. Anthony of Padua was known to face pagan kings and bow to them acknowledging thereby their royal dignity. In return, the kings respected him and what he had to say.
Today, even if someone does not believe JPII to be the real pope (I'm not one of them), he ought to say, "Holy Father," if he wants to be respected. But today, he also has to keep in mind that if he is wont to defend traditional Catholicism, he will find it most difficult to be the recipient of respect from JPII, whereas every form of non-Catholicism is apparently grounds for no end to JPII's gracious sympathies.
Go figure...
St.Chuck, as usual, gets it wrong concerning the spelling of Mr. Droleskey's name.
Got your attention? Excuse me, but where do you come up with what Mr. Droleskey's errors are on this topic? Do you have a list of how many times he "gets it wrong?" Or are you somehow sympathetic to the other guy's agenda, the guy who denies dogma and gets away with it?
You want evidence of the errors espoused by Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx before he became a peritus at Vatican II?
Am I wrong to presume that therefore you are opposed to the Pope? Do you reject the papacy of Pope Pius XII?
There are slime balls and then there are Modernists. The club of "Fr. S." was the worst of the worst who slipped in under the radar. We are supposed to honor the Church's heros, not her enemies.
The question we should be asking is why the sanctions rightly meeted out by Pope Pius XII against this club was reversed by Pope John XXIII! Could it be that in choosing the name "John" in seemingly obstinate opposition to the very theme he proclaimed of his own papacy, he was setting off on an abrupt change from the established course set by his predecessors of happy memory, off into the wandering in the desert that has ensued since? The question we should be asking ought to be in line with the thread: wandering in the desert is a state of necessity, the last time I checked with anyone who's been there.
Have you been there? If not, where are you coming from?
Fr. S's ideas are not posted on this forum on a regular basis. Apparently, they are so unorthodox they they don't even need mention. On the other hand, Mr. Drochesky's views are posted quite frequently, indicating some sort of credibilility given him by those who post his articles, despite his denials of dogma. I'll continue to focus on Mr. Drovesky, thank you very much.
Please list the dogmas that you claim Mr. Droleskey denies.
Mr. Droleskey denies the primacy of the pope, rejects the teaching authority of the Church, and encourages and lauds priests who break their vows.
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.