Posted on 03/29/2006 12:18:14 PM PST by pravknight
Anything a schismatic has to say about the matter isn't worth the pixels it's posted on.
Put your hands on your ears, right?
Card. Mahoney isn't a schismatic, so are you going to worship every word out of his mouth, or Bishop Thomas Gumbleton for that matter?
Should it be any wonder that since Vatican II, John Paul II and his modernist clergy have publicly gathered together for worship in common with the leaders of these false religions and a multitude of other religions, including Animism, Voodooism, Shintoism, etc.?
Ping to watch the fireworks later. It promises to be a good show!
I've read all these arguments and these non sequiturs before - and the recommended remedy is always: commit the mortal sin of schism!
No sale.
Card. Mahoney isn't a schismatic, so are you going to worship every word out of his mouth, or Bishop Thomas Gumbleton for that matter?
As a Roman Catholic, the only word I worship is the Incarnate Word.
Gumbleton and Mahony will pay the price for their misrule in due time and this fake bishop will pay the price for his as well.
Both Mahony and Pivarunas assault the Body of Christ even though they both know that what they are doing is evil.
One is no better than the other.
How about St. Athanasius or St. Maximos the Confessor who stood up against the heresies of the church of their day?
A pope can become a schismatic if he falls into manifest heretic? What about the so-called Papal Schism of the 14th century? Who was the schismatic then because there were rival claimants to the papacy?
Sometimes, resistance to heresy is preferable to submission to heterodox bishops and clergy.
Besides, your argument is one of an ad hominem attack that doesn't rebut the substance of Bishop Pivaruas's arguments.
Sometimes schism is a necessary evil if it preserves the faith of the faithful.
That necessity, thus mitigates the mortal sin of schism.
He is a valid, but illicit bishop.
Where the bishop is there is the Catholic Church. (St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Symrneans.)
Are you aware the Catholic Church venerates saints who were also schismatics?
St. Meletius of Antioch of the 4th century, not to mention the fact the Vatican has approved Byzantine Catholics adding St. Gregory Palamas, St. Photius of Constantinople and St. Seraphim of Sarov to our liturgical calendars: all of whom were Eastern Orthodox saints.
My Melkite parish has several icons of post-schism Orthodox saints.
This actually was one of the strangest documents to come out of VatII. While the principle is not particularly remarkable - even virtuous pagans born before Christ were deemed to have been seekers after the true God (which one could tell from their virtuous lives)- never before was so much praise heaped on the religions themselves. And it does indeed seem in that fatal footnote that Catholics are being told that everything's groovy, I'm OK, you're OK, and what is Truth, after all?
I think he does make an interesting point, which is that we need to examine whether all of the bad things that came out of VatII were a result of its "misinterpretation" or whether some of them were actually supported by the documents themselves.
I think in general most of the documents are harmless, that is, vague and wordy and open to misinterpretation but not fundamentally wrong. However, it could be that it's time to review some of them.
Vatican II has made chances of reunification with Eastern Orthodoxy less likely, not more.
It would be a cold day in hell before the Eastern Orthodox hierarchs would accept Vatican II.
You mean two great saints who stuck with the Holy See through thick and thin? What do these great saints have to do with self-serving schismatics like Pivarunas?
A pope can become a schismatic if he falls into manifest heretic?
You confuse schism and heresy - one has to do with the Church's organizational authority and the other has to do with the Church's teaching authority.
No Pope has ever taught heresy ex cathedra and no Pope can do so, by definition.
What about the so-called Papal Schism of the 14th century?
It was not a schism, as you yourself acknowledge by labelling it "so-called."
Who was the schismatic then because there were rival claimants to the papacy?
In each case there was a legitimate claimant and an illegitimate claimant or sometimes two.
The illegitimate claimants were, of course, in schism.
Sometimes, resistance to heresy is preferable to submission to heterodox bishops and clergy.
One can resist heresy without committing the mortal sin of schism. You yourself provided signal examples: Athanasius and Maximus.
Besides, your argument is one of an ad hominem attack that doesn't rebut the substance of Bishop Pivaruas's arguments.
You are confused as to the meaning of the term ad hominem - if I call a Communist a Communist in a economic discussion, it can be considered ad hominem because being a Communist is a pretty bad thing to be. However, "Communist" is also descriptive - it indicates precisely the set of flawed economic assumptions the Communist holds.
Likewise calling a schismatic a schismatic in a theological discussion is not just an epithet but a descriptor.
Sometimes schism is a necessary evil if it preserves the faith of the faithful.
If you think that it is ever "necessary" to do evil - that is, to commit the mortal sin of schism - then you have much to learn about orthodox moral theology.
That necessity, thus mitigates the mortal sin of schism.
There is no demonstrated necessity whatever. This is special pleading.
He is a valid, but illicit bishop.
What proof have we that he is a valid bishop? The word of another schismatic or two?
I certainly don't take his word for it.
Where the bishop is there is the Catholic Church. (St. Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Symrneans.)
Ignatius was clearly referring to a validly and licitly consecrated bishop accepted by his brother bishops - not renegade schismatics.
Try reading the Fathers in context, instead of prooftexting them Protestant-style.
St. Maximos and St. Athanasius were NOT in communion with their bishops. St. Athansius was NOT in communion with Pope Liberius who arguably was an Arian.
Address the content of his arguments. Pivarunas is a Thuc bishop.
My Melkite parish has several icons of post-schism Orthodox saints.
So you went ELCA to Melkite, fascinating, I bet you have a very interesting conversion story.
You should ask NYER to be put on her ping list, she posts some good stuff about Eastern Catholicism...it's also a bit short on Melkite articles so maybe you could add a few to the pot.
I went to church with the famous Deacon Paul Weyrich.
They were in communion with the Holy See, and they did not break communion with their bishops - their bishops excommunicated them.
Trying to parallel Pivarunas who is in schism with the Holy See with a saint who was unjustly disciplined by a wayward bishop is specious.
And they were still obedient - Athanasius obeyed his ordinary and then appealed to the Holy See to remedy the injustice.
St. Athansius was NOT in communion with Pope Liberius who arguably was an Arian.
Liberius was no Arian - a ridiculous claim. He wrote letters against suspected Arians and chose exile rather than approve Arian doctrine. This is slander.
And Athanasius was always in communion with Liberius - preposterous falsehood here.
Address the content of his arguments.
Pivarunas' argument: "I don't like Vatican II and I don't like the stuff John Paul II did, so I think it's OK to commit a mortal sin and I encourage everyone else to do so."
Answer: Schism is a mortal sin and it is never permissible to commit a mortal sin for any reason.
Pivarunas is a Thuc bishop.
Then he is no bishop.
A person who is raised in a schismatic Church is not necessarily committing the sin of schism - this is obvious.
Photios of Constantinople was absolved of schism, Meletios repented, Gregory Palamas was raised in a separated Church, as was Seraphim.
Two of these men were absolved of schism and two never committed the sin in the first place.
Yes, but only with difficulty!
Lest one misconstue my comment, I would like to put it in the context of pointing out that the source for this article, CMRI, is comprised of sedevacantists actively seeking to divide the Church by trolling for membership directly from mainstream ranks. They are highly active in this vein here in the Archdiocese of Boston. They may mean well, I suppose, and they seem pleasant enough as individuals, but they are hardly improved over the Seattle cult they spun off from a few years back, and should be treated like a flying bullet - avoided at all costs!
I think at least, Pivarunas's criticisms are valid for debate among Catholics.
I know a lot of RadTrads, and yes, they are really bad as individuals. I dated an ex-SSPXer once upon a time, and she made the Puritans of Massachusetts seem like hedonists.
I still think criticism of Vatican II is legitemate. If I had to be stuck with a Card. Mahoney Mass and a Pivarunas Mass and only had those two choices, I would take the latter.
But seeing as I am an Eastern Catholic, I probably would avoid both. I know a lot of Byzantine Catholics who think the Latin Church ceased to be Catholic after Vatican II. Choiced between Pivarunas and Eastern Orthodoxy, I would take Eastern Orthodoxy, besides the Orthodox have their own share of wackjobs. (HOCNA, parts of ROCOR, the Old Calendarists)
Rome isn't the only game in town, even if Roman Catholics think so.
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.