Posted on 09/02/2005 6:51:01 PM PDT by jec1ny
An assessment completed by Cardinal Ratzinger, who is now B16. Isn't this a bit disingenuous?
Why? Why is it so hard for a current Pope to admit a mistake and a mistake from his predecessor? Pius XII had no problem admitting he was wrong regarding Padre Pio. John XXII recanted of his errors on his deathbed.
But then again, neither of those Popes were hell-bent on changing the Catholic Church.
Regrettably, it is this spirit of arrogance and pride that may never be overcome, and may stand between the SSPX and the Catholic Faith forever.
You may call it a "spirit of arrogance and pride" but the rest of the world calls it the ability to put 2 and 2 together and come up with 4.
And the Catholic Faith has never been opposed to the truth. But then again, Popes are not the Catholic Faith. They are supposed to defend it.
This evil neo-Catholic Novus Ordoite will pray that it won't turn out that way.
Just pray that the truth will come out. The SSPX are correct. The papacy will not be shaken if they are validated in that. In fact, it may straighten out a lot of the ultramontanist thinking prevalant among neo-Catholics.
Is it prideful and arrogant for the unjustly convicted to proclaim their innocence and demand justice? The only arrogance and pride here I see is someone presuming that there is anything standing between the Catholic faith and the SSPX.
The dismissive tone toward the SSPX is well-earned by their minions on FR.
Actually, it's a defense mechanism when people don't want to engage in a civil debate. The SSPX are Catholic and they know the faith generally much better than their neo-Catholic attackers who have a non-doctrinal understanding of the papacy.
It's the unmitigated arrogance that brings it on.
That's just an excuse. First because there is nothing arrogant about telling the truth. It's denial of the truth on the part of the neos that brings it on. You see it all over the place. Catholic Answers, Envoy, EWTN. They avoid debate at all costs. They prefer to filter everything the SSPX and traditionalists say through their own lense. It's part and parcel of the strategy of the "conspiracy of silence" that Pope St. Pius X describes in Pascendi whenever a Catholic defends the faith against a modernist.
And yes, oftentimes I believe the same of the Orthodox, or at least their patriarchs. Very snide, petty, little men.
This is because the Vatican and the Bishops and the self appointed lay Magisterium are incapable of being snide or petty. You didn't know that they were exempt from these failings? It's the Holy Ghost (I mean Holy Spirit) protecting them. Yet another charism that the Church never knew she had prior to Vatican II.
Not only that Murph, It's the unjust accusation against the SSPX that has prevented many many Catholics from getting the truths of the faith given to them. Instead they are lied to, deceived and taught something other than Catholicism. So, those prelates who have unjustly accused and punished the SSPX are going to have to answer to God himself not only for their malfeasance in office and the injustice to the SSPX, they also have to answer for the souls that have been harmed or lost because of their foul deeds.
Who's left on FR from the SSPX? I thought they were all kicked out of here.
Dittos.
Good point.
Dear murphE,
"Is it prideful and arrogant for the unjustly convicted to proclaim their innocence and demand justice?"
If they were innocent, it would be a little less so.
However, even if innocent, what I gather is that those who are unjustly persecuted by their superior in the Church (and if Bishop Fellay wishes to continue to pretend that he is Catholic, he must acknowledge that Pope John Paul II was his superior, and now Pope Benedict is his superior), should bear the injustice patiently, and submit in obedience to the disciplines named against them, while humbly asking for review of their case.
I don't remember Padre Pio disobeying the disciplines laid on him.
In any event, one does not demand lifting one's excommunication as a precondition to engage in talks with the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church.
"The only arrogance and pride here I see is someone presuming that there is anything standing between the Catholic faith and the SSPX."
Well, then, I suppose that you are naming Pope Benedict as that arrogant person, as he has not seen fit to lift the excommunications. And excommunication does usually stand between someone and Catholic faith. Sorta by definition.
When the Holy Father says he's not excommunicated, I'll go with that. And rejoice. I fear that the intransigence of the SSPX will make permanent this schism.
However, until the time that the Supreme Pontiff lifts the excommunications, it would be arrogant and prideful of me, a layperson, to substitute my judgment in matters of Church discipline for that of Pope John Paul II. And now, Pope Benedict XVI.
sitetest
If they were innocent, it would be a little less so.
And since they are innocent, they are not arrogant or prideful.
However, even if innocent, what I gather is that those who are unjustly persecuted by their superior in the Church (and if Bishop Fellay wishes to continue to pretend that he is Catholic, he must acknowledge that Pope John Paul II was his superior, and now Pope Benedict is his superior), should bear the injustice patiently, and submit in obedience to the disciplines named against them, while humbly asking for review of their case.
A few things: If an excommunication is unjust, the person accused is supposed to bear it under obedience. But if it is invalid, they are not obligated to pay it any attention. And the excommunications mentioned by JPII did not happen. Factually, the Pope was wrong.
LeFebvre, Fellay and all the other bishops acknowledged that JPII was Pope and now the 4 bishops all acknowledge B16 as Pope and their superior. But that doesn't mean they have to go along with his errors.
I don't remember Padre Pio disobeying the disciplines laid on him.
Padre Pio was a monastic with a different state in life. His bearing the unjustful burden was a part of the charism of his monasticism. But a bishop has a different charge. He has the same charge as the Apostles and LeFebvre acted no differently than St. Paul, St. Patrick or St. Athanasius in regards to his circumstances.
In any event, one does not demand lifting one's excommunication as a precondition to engage in talks with the Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church.
Not lifting the excommunications. Declaring them null.
"The only arrogance and pride here I see is someone presuming that there is anything standing between the Catholic faith and the SSPX."
Well, then, I suppose that you are naming Pope Benedict as that arrogant person, as he has not seen fit to lift the excommunications. And excommunication does usually stand between someone and Catholic faith. Sorta by definition.
Where in Catholicism are Popes exempted from being arrogant?
When the Holy Father says he's not excommunicated, I'll go with that.
Regardless of the facts, go with the Pope. Right or wrong.
I fear that the intransigence of the SSPX will make permanent this schism.
What point of truth should the SSPX give up on? What do they believe that they should now deny?
However, until the time that the Supreme Pontiff lifts the excommunications,
Not lifts. Declares that they never were.
it would be arrogant and prideful of me, a layperson, to substitute my judgment in matters of Church discipline for that of Pope John Paul II. And now, Pope Benedict XVI.
No it's not. It's just common sense. There is no promise of Christ that prevents a Pope from doing something stupid or even evil. And there is nothing sinful about someone pointing it out.
Actually, by definition of being excommunicated, they really aren't.
Actually since the excommunications are intrinsically invalid, they aren't separated from the Church. Unless you can point out where excommunications are infallible. And the facts of the matter show plainly that they aren't excommunicated no matter what Ecclesia Dei says.
The beauty of things is that the Catholic Church itself gets to decide what is Catholic, not malcontents that were thrown out of the Church.
Again, here we have the retreat language of the neo Catholic. There are multiple uses of the word, "Church". The confusion between the Church (meaning the organizational structure) and the Mystical Body of Christ that has no spot or wrinkle is often an issue of confusion. It's actually the malcontents that pretended to throw out the SSPX.
The real beauty of the Church is that the heirarchy is bound by tradition and the doctrines of the Church. They can't just jettison the unity of faith for political dreams. Though they can try. Secondly, the Church (as in the offices that exercise the magisterium of the Church) don't decide what is Catholic. They define (as in clarify) what is Catholic. Why else would St. Paul warn the faithful "If WE or an Angel of light preach any other gospel..." He must've had trust in the faithful to discern what he taught from things like false ecumenism or humanism, indifferentism, syncretism, modernism etc. And he also thought (infallibly) that the Church heirarchy might preach another gospel.
I'll ignore the general inanity
defense mechanism again.
of your repeated and easily refuted claims
Yet strangely, never attempted to refute by neo-Catholics....
that no "neo-Catholic" could possibly have an understanding of the Catholic faith on the level of the SSPX protestants.
Yes. That is a good strategy. The alternative would be to engage in real debate. But it's better to just say that something is "easily-refuted" and throw in some name-calling. Ignoring the challenge that you under the virtues of justice and charity would be bound to correct me on if you had a leg to stand on is just too much to ask for.
Neo Catholic: (i.e., a real Catholic...by definition, one who is not a SSPX member)
Nonsense, there are plenty of independent traditionalists, traditional Eastern riters, closet trads and others that haven't been influenced by modernism and have a solid doctrinal understanding. Most of them ignore the nonsense of Vatican II and stick with what they were taught. Neo Catholics are generally the same as political conservatives. As Chesterton described them "the job of conservatives is to prevent them [the mistakes of the progressives] from being corrected."
I myself, after having gone to confession to some "non-trad" priests in the last few weeksm have been told to stay with the SSPX because of the good they are doing. They have commended the SSPX to me because of the great guidance and spiritual formation that they have inculcated in me.
Dear Gerard.P,
"A few things: If an excommunication is unjust, the person accused is supposed to bear it under obedience. But if it is invalid, they are not obligated to pay it any attention. And the excommunications mentioned by JPII did not happen. Factually, the Pope was wrong."
This is your opinion, and the opinion of a few other folks around the world. As the United States is a free country, you are entitled to hold your opinion unmolested.
I've seen how you arrive at your belief, and I don't view it as at all persuasive (not that I want to rehash arguments that have been argued more times than I can count at FreeRepublic, thank you very much).
Pope John Paul II had, and Pope Benedict has a different opinion. There viewpoint, to the best of my own ability to form an opinion, seems, at the absolute very least, very reasonable.
If I were inclined to take upon myself this judgment, I would certainly at the absolute very least give the benefit of the doubt to the Supreme Pontiffs of the Holy Catholic Church, as their opinions seem quite reasonable, and I would continue to hold the opinion that the four bishops of the SSPX are excommunicated, and thus, are currently separated from the Catholic Church.
However, as an actual Catholic, I try to avoid making pronouncements that aren't mine to make. I recognize that it is the Supreme Pontiff who is competent in matters of Church discipline, not sitetest, or Gerard.P.
If I disagreed with the Popes through my own intellectual inquiry, I would nonetheless accept as binding their discipline.
As a Catholic who tries to be faithful, I follow their lead.
You are free to follow around after Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson.
You have Fellay and Williamson.
I have Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.
I'll stick with the Popes.
Good day.
sitetest
Sure, I have no problem seeing popes retract previous disciplinary decisions, or erroneous theological opinions given in a personal capacity, provided that these decisions are objectively wrong.
You should be open to the obvious alternative: that the SSPX excommunications were objectively right, and live with that fact, and pray to overcome that fact, in accordance to the very discipline you claim to defend.
-Theo
This is your opinion, and the opinion of a few other folks around the world. As the United States is a free country, you are entitled to hold your opinion unmolested. I've seen how you arrive at your belief, and I don't view it as at all persuasive (not that I want to rehash arguments that have been argued more times than I can count at FreeRepublic, thank you very much).
My opinion? Hardly.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
Effects of Invalid or Unjust Excommunication
An excommunication is said to be null when it is invalid because of some intrinsic or essential defect, e.g. when the person inflicting it has no jurisdiction, when the motive of the excommunication is manifestly incorrect and inconsistent, or when the excommunication is essentially defective in form.
Excommunication is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty. Here, of course, it is not a question of excommunication latæ sententiæ and in foro interno, but only of one imposed or declared by judicial sentence.
It is admitted by all that a null excommunication produces no effect whatever, and may be ignored without sin (cap. ii, de const., in VI). But a case of unjust excommunication brings out in a much more general way the possibility of conflict between the forum internum and the forum externum, between legal justice and the real facts. In chapter xxviii, de sent. excomm. (Lib. V, tit. xxxix), Innocent III formally admits the possibility of this conflict. Some persons, he says, may be free in the eyes of God but bound in the eyes of the Church; vice versa, some may be free in the eyes of the Church but bound in the eyes of God: for God's judgment is based on the very truth itself, whereas that of the Church is based on arguments and presumptions which are sometimes erroneous. He concludes that the chain by which the sinner is bound in the sight of God is loosed by remission of the fault committed, whereas that which binds him in the sight of the Church is severed only by removal of the sentence. Consequently, a person unjustly excommunicated is in the same state as the justly excommunicated sinner who has repented and recovered the grace of God; he has not forfeited internal communion with the Church, and God can bestow upon him all necessary spiritual help. However, while seeking to prove his innocence, the censured person is meanwhile bound to obey legitimate authority and to behave as one under the ban of excommunication, until he is rehabilitated or absolved. Such a case seems practically impossible nowadays.
Pope John Paul II had, and Pope Benedict has a different opinion.
But what do you do when they have differing opinions? Cardinal Ratzinger differed with JPII on many issues.
There viewpoint, to the best of my own ability to form an opinion, seems, at the absolute very least, very reasonable.
But when viewed in the light of history and the trends, archbishop LeFebvre and the SSPX have been consistent in their opinions and have been proven right against the opinions of John XXIII, about half the opinions of the rather schizophrenic Paul VI and against the never correct opinions of JPII whether B16 will come down on the truth irregularly as he has in the past remains to be seen.
If I were inclined to take upon myself this judgment, I would certainly at the absolute very least give the benefit of the doubt to the Supreme Pontiffs of the Holy Catholic Church, as their opinions seem quite reasonable,
But what do you do when the opinions of the Popes contradict those of their predecessors? At what point do you pass from legitimate obedience to sinful servility?
and I would continue to hold the opinion that the four bishops of the SSPX are excommunicated, and thus, are currently separated from the Catholic Church.
And would you be willing to admit that a Pope (JPII ) was wrong in his opinion if a later Pope states he was wrong? And then if the successor after that says JPII was right, do you change your mind again? At what point do the objective facts of reality matter?
However, as an actual Catholic, I try to avoid making pronouncements that aren't mine to make.
Questions of fact are always open to make. God doesn't ask you to deny reality. In fact you are culpable for seeking the truth.
I recognize that it is the Supreme Pontiff who is competent in matters of Church discipline, not sitetest, or Gerard.P.
But do Gerard.P or sitetest have the right to publicly rebuke their superiors in Church matters? Answer carefully.
If I disagreed with the Popes through my own intellectual inquiry, I would nonetheless accept as binding their discipline.
So, if a Pope tells you to murder someone, you'll do it? If not, what about something more subtle yet dangerous to the faith?
As a Catholic who tries to be faithful, I follow their lead.
Under "normal" circumstances this would be commendable within reason but it gives way to a lazy Catholicism of "pray, pay and obey" Today's situation is not "normal" by any means. The fruit of Vatican II has spread poison throughout the tree.
You are free to follow around after Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson. You have Fellay and Williamson.
Fellay and Williamson do nothing but parrot the views of the Magisterium of the Church based on natural law, divine law, right reason and Thomistic philosophy. To have Williamson and Fellay is to have the patrimony of the Church handed on. Something that the last few Popes have not been eager to do. To have Fellay and Williamson is to have Popes Pius IX, Gregory the Great, Leo the Great, St. Pius X, Gregory the VII, Innocent III, Pius XII and all the other greats as well as the bad ones like Alexander VI, Stephen VI, John XXII, XXIII, Paul VI and JPII.
I have Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. I'll stick with the Popes.
Again, will you stick with them when they won't stick with the mission of the papacy and the teaching of the Church?
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.