Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

EWTN: A Network Gone Bad- OVERVIEW page 10-15
Book -: EWTN: A Network Gone Bad ISBN: 0-9663046-7-5 | 2006 | Christopher Ferrara

Posted on 04/07/2011 9:45:42 PM PDT by verdugo

In this discussion I will not employ such terms as "traditionalist," "conservative" or "neo Catholic" to distinguish different "strains" of Catholicism in the post conciliar Church. As useful as such terms may have been in the past, the ecclesial crisis has advanced to the point where one must speak frankly of who is, and who is not, adhering to the Roman Catholic religion in its integrity. This is also necessary because the proponents of New Church have not hesitated to render judgments on the Catholicity of those who have held fast to Tradition during this crisis, denouncing these faithful Catholics simply because they will not embrace the unheard of novelties of the past forty years.

For the good of the Church, this absurd situation must be corrected. As Holy Scripture warns us: "Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter." For too long EWTN and other "mainstream" aiders and abettors of the post conciliar revolution have been allowed to adorn themselves with the cloak of respectability, while they impugn faithful Catholics who defend Tradition and refuse to follow them down the path of compromise. The cloak must come off so that the truth about these people can be revealed not for their disgrace, but for their own good and, above all else, for the good of the Church.

For as I will demonstrate here, whether or not they understand subjectively that they are Modernists, this is what EWTN and the other post conciliar purveyors of novelty are, objectively speaking. It is, therefore, they, not traditional Roman Catholics, who are theologically suspect. It is they, as the evidence to be presented here will prove, who are advancing novelties that are objectively contrary to the Faith, sacrilegious, scandalous and even offensive to good morals. It is their "new" version of Catholicism, not the perennial practice of the Faith, that ought to be condemned. It is the proponents of New Church, not the adherents of the Catholic Church of all time, who should be examined for their views.

Let me emphasize at the outset that this entire discussion presumes, for the sake of charity, that those responsible for EWTN's Modernist content do not subjectively intend to depart from the Faith. They may even think in their distorted view of the situation – a view which leads them to condemn faithful Roman Catholics as I extreme traditionalists" that they are actually defending the Faith. Some may even possess that state of mind Our Lord warned His disciples would be that of the Pharisees: "yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doth a service to God." (John 16:2) But if they are acting in good faith or out of blindness at present, they will have no excuse for continuing in their course of conduct once they consider (or if they refuse to consider) with an open mind the evidence presented here in this book; and they will no longer be entitled to the presumption that they do not understand that they are promoting Modernism.

In any case, justice, the good of the Church and the good of souls demand that Catholics who are only endeavoring to practice the Faith without alteration not allow themselves to be framed by the accusation, so often leveled by EWTN and other New Church organs, that they are "extreme traditionalists," "disobedient" and even "schismatic." It is time for the accusers, not the accused, to stand trial. For as the evidence will show, it is the accusers, not the accused, who are implicated in the collapse of faith and discipline in the Church since Vatican II.

This book is divided into three parts. In Part I, I lay the groundwork for an understanding of the current crisis in the Church, which the late John Paul II described as "a silent apostasy." I show that this crisis is essentially a resurgence of the Modernist heresy condemned by Pope St. Pius X early in the twentieth century a heresy that seeks to alter the very meaning of Catholic doctrine and dogma according to a process of "evolution," to overturn the Church's dogmatic faith and liturgical tradition, to attack the very identity of the Church, and indeed to destroy the very concept of objective truth itself. Others have referred to this process as a "creeping apostasy," which by slow degrees induces Catholics to accept corruptions of the true Faith under the pretense of authentic Catholic teaching "updated" for the times. This, we will see, is the dominant tendency of EWTN's content. In Part II, I discuss in considerable detail EWTN's role in contributing to this Modernist crisis since Mother Angelica's coerced departure. The evidence will show:

First, that EWTN promotes, defends and advances the "New Mass" and all the other "officially" approved reforms" of the liturgy which have broken with Tradition in precisely the ways demanded by the Protestant rebels of the sixteenth century, and practically destroyed Catholic worship and Eucharistic faith over the past forty years, as even high ranking Cardinals have admitted;

Second, that EWTN has, under the guise of a "new understanding" of Catholic dogma since Vatican II, helped to undermine Catholic adherence to (a) the infallibly defined dogma that outside the Roman Catholic Church no one can be saved; (b) the closely related constant teaching of the Roman Pontiffs that the only means of achieving Christian unity is the return of the Protestant and schismatic dissidents to the Catholic Church; and (c) the abolition of the Old Covenant in favor of the New Covenant in Christ Jesus, and the consequent objective necessity of Jewish conversion for the salvation of the Jews; Third, that EWTN has promoted and encouraged a Judaizing tendency in the Church not unlike that which confronted the original Jewish Apostles in the first century;

Fourth, that EWTN has excused, defended and promoted sacrilege in Catholic holy places in the name of "interreligious dialogue";

Fifth, that EWTN is contributing to a tendency to replace Roman Catholicism with a common denominator natural religion that deemphasizes adherence to revealed truth as necessary for salvation;

Sixth, that EWTN has advocated a senseless and unCatholic quasi idolatry of the Pope's person that does a grave disservice to the Pope, his office and the Faith;

Seventh, that EWTN is leading the destruction of the traditional Rosary;

Eighth, that EWTN promotes a cult of sexual Gnosticism and "Natural Family Planning" (NFP);

Ninth, that EWTN has generally corrupted the Faith by trying to combine it with rock music and show business in a vain effort to make Catholicism "cool" (EWTN's own word) and appealing to the base instincts of a mass audience;

Tenth, that EWTN attacks and attempts to ostracize from the Church the defenders of Roman Catholic Tradition, and especially those, such as Father Nicholas Gruner, who defend the traditional Catholic understanding of the Message of Fatima and its prophetic relation to the crisis in the Church.

In short, I will show that post Mother Angelica EWTN has become a "moderate" (and therefore more dangerous) Modernist enterprise that presents a corruption of authentic Roman Catholicism passed off as solid orthodoxy, and that as such EWTN is now a serious and highly insidious threat to the integrity of the Faith and a major obstacle to the restoration of the Catholic Church.

In Part III, I will sum up the case against EWTN and New Church in general, in the context of the death of John Paul II and the election of Benedict XVI as his successor. And, to conclude, I will suggest ways in which we members of the lay faithful can, with the Message of Fatima in view, work according to our stations in life for an end to the ecclesial crisis over which New Church (including EWTN) presides.


TOPICS: Catholic; Theology
KEYWORDS: ewtn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-81 next last

1 posted on 04/07/2011 9:45:45 PM PDT by verdugo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: verdugo

WARNING:

You might like to see what has gone on before.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2697701/posts


2 posted on 04/07/2011 9:52:58 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

I am Catholic, and IMHO, ANY religion on TV is going to be corrupted. With most, it’s about money. With some, it’s about doctrine. But with all, it’s about control.


3 posted on 04/07/2011 9:58:12 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon; Natural Law; Cronos; MarkBsnr

Need your input.


4 posted on 04/07/2011 10:00:05 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
But the Catholic Church isn't on TV. This is a television network about Catholicism, but it isn't Catholicism. So, I have to disagree with your point here.
As for the post, it isn't whether EWTN is good, bad, or ugly. It is about putting facts to the libel.

In this the poster is all hat and no cattle.

5 posted on 04/07/2011 10:04:11 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: verdugo

I love rock music, but not in church. I always hated the folk masses back in the ‘70s. I was an altar boy and always tried to avoid serving at folk masses.
Church was for worship; I happily went home to listen to Pink Floyd and Boston.


6 posted on 04/07/2011 10:04:24 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic

IMO, it was about Catholicism until Mother Angelica hung it up.


7 posted on 04/07/2011 10:07:19 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
Warning: This thread is posted by someone who has written on Free Republic that all post-Vatican II popes would be anathematized by a "real pope." That makes him a sedevacantist, and as such, a Protestant slandering the Catholic Church.
8 posted on 04/07/2011 10:09:41 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: verdugo

BWAHAAAHAAAHAA!!!

Did try to at least read this, but there’s so much wrong with it, I lost it at objection eight.

I strongly recommend that the author acquaint himself with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.


9 posted on 04/07/2011 10:09:47 PM PDT by mockingbyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: verdugo; Religion Moderator

Surely, it violates copyright law to publish an entire book, still under copyright, section by section.


10 posted on 04/07/2011 10:11:21 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81; verdugo

I dunno about EWTN, but fwiw, verdugo is either a sedevacantist, sspxer, or something of that sort.


11 posted on 04/07/2011 10:13:13 PM PDT by WPaCon (Obama: pansy progressive, mad Mohammedan, or totalitarian tyrant? Or all three?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: verdugo
EWTN, Modernist? By whose standards? Lefebvrists? Sedevecantists?

Not by any traditional Catholics I know!

12 posted on 04/07/2011 10:15:35 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon; dangus

Thanks for the heads up.


13 posted on 04/07/2011 10:19:43 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

Not sure what you mean, since I can’t imagine EWTN would ever have rock music in a church or other liturgical setting.


14 posted on 04/07/2011 10:21:38 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WPaCon

Please don’t trash the SSPX like that. I strongly disagree with them, and recognize a high portion of them to be nutjobs, but there are some sincere Catholics among them, who do not deserve to be lumped in with the sedevacantists.

SSPX recognizes the legitimacy of Pope john Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, unlike Verdugo.


15 posted on 04/07/2011 10:25:34 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: verdugo

So, when does your line of Popes end? 1958 or 1963?


16 posted on 04/07/2011 10:30:39 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: verdugo

Relatively new on FR and alien to your bono fidis, I can say that my own first impression is that your tone is one of pomp and very little circumstance. You are I take it hawking sections of your book? EWTN is a marvelous purveyor of conversions. My own for sure, but somewhere in your piece of work I missed your own fruits of harvest, given your fine perch, I was surprised, as well as left wondering that in my life time will you produce a point.


17 posted on 04/07/2011 10:36:57 PM PDT by RitaOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus; verdugo

I’m not aware of how I was trashing the SSPX. I was simply saying that a particular poster may be a member of it. If I remember correctly, verdugo said on another thread that he was married in an SSPX chapel.


18 posted on 04/07/2011 10:45:06 PM PDT by WPaCon (Obama: pansy progressive, mad Mohammedan, or totalitarian tyrant? Or all three?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: verdugo

I just don’t accept the charges being made. I often listen to EWTN in the car. Half of the time they are praying the rosary on the air. How much more Catholic do you want?

Promoting gnosticism? Really????


19 posted on 04/07/2011 10:45:44 PM PDT by PGR88 (I'm so open-minded my brains fell out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Just posting my experiences from the Age of Aquarius.


20 posted on 04/07/2011 10:53:27 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: verdugo

Thank you for reminding us to watch EWTN during Lent.

http://www.ewtn.com/

Streaming at:
http://www.ewtn.com/audiovideo/index.asp


21 posted on 04/08/2011 12:03:31 AM PDT by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Unsurprising...


22 posted on 04/08/2011 12:54:17 AM PDT by BenKenobi (Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong. - Silent Cal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: verdugo
Since we're recommending books. Here's one for the author of this attack on EWTN to read:

More Catholic Than The Pope: An Inside Look At Extreme Traditionalism

23 posted on 04/08/2011 1:07:11 AM PDT by AHerald ("Behold, your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his home -- John 19:27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

>>Warning: This thread is posted by someone who has written on Free Republic that all post-Vatican II popes would be anathematized by a “real pope.” That makes him a sedevacantist, and as such, a Protestant slandering the Catholic Church. <<

So, we have a conundrum. The Post-Conciliar church is Modernist - condemned by Pope St. Pius X as heresy - but we can’t say so. Yet, a “sedevacantist” is a Protestant and has no standing.

As one who has fought this war and have the battle scars to show for it, looking at the history of the Catholic Church over the last 50 years is like watching our country devolve into tyranny.


24 posted on 04/08/2011 1:47:14 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: verdugo

More baseless allegations.......


25 posted on 04/08/2011 4:30:49 AM PDT by surroundedbyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RitaOK

Oh, snap! I wish I’d produced those rhythmically rolling clauses myself ;-).


26 posted on 04/08/2011 4:58:08 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Buy me a Land Shark and take me to Anguilla.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

.>> So, we have a conundrum. The Post-Conciliar church is Modernist - condemned by Pope St. Pius X as heresy - but we can’t say so. Yet, a “sedevacantist” is a Protestant and has no standing. <<

Are there modernists in the Post-Conciliar church? Yes. But to declare that the post-Conciliar church itself is beyond scandalous.

I say this intending the utmost respect: If you feel like you’re in a catch-22 by the fact that sedevacantists are apostates, then the way out of the conundrum is to reconsider any notions that lead you sedevacantism.

There’s something that’s VERY uncomfortable for we who live in a society dominated by modernism, but which I believe is necessary to being a Christian: When a modernist is confronted by two statements which appear contradictory, he rejects one statement, and keeps the one he prefers, or finds easier to rationalize. Thus, the bible becomes to modernist a veritable minefield, posing all sorts of false dilemmas, most famously Faith v. works. To the ancients, such apparent contradictions were instead enigmas to help them grow beyond their present understanding, as they challenged their notions of what seemed to be contradictions.

So you have the Council of Trent anathematize Protestants. Then you have Vatican II refer to them as part of the Church. Isn’t Vatican II being modernist?

But is it really?

Some traditionalists assert that Vatican iI simply isn’t authoritative, and therefore may be in error, without violating the notion of approved ecumenical councils being infallible. That’s actually well-founded, and it means that John XXIII recognition of Vatican II as a *pastoral* council doesn’t represent a break from infallibility.

Personally, I think the better tack to take (and I won’t call you a sedevacantist if you disagree) is that Trent doesn’t mean what it sounds like it means to the modern ear: A “Protestant,” in the usage of Trent is not someone brought up in the protestant tradition, since there was no Protestant tradition yet established. A Protestant was an apostate who cast his lot among people who were making war on the Catholic Church; notion central to 16th century Protestantism: the very person of the pope was not the anti-Christ; there was no imminent rapture; the New Testament deuterocanonicals were returned to the bible. And frankly, while clinging to the name “Sola Fides” most Lutherans’ notion of sanctifying grace is almost identical to that which Luther had rebelled against. They’d be horrified at his notion that indulging your most evil desires was the pathway to salvation.

But the big thing is that many Protestants now are obedient to the authorities they recognize; many worship in the church, tradition and doctrines of their fathers; and some are sincerely seeking Christ, but are restrained by the ignorance which is made more invinceable by such obedience and faithfulness.

Does that mean it’s fine for a Protestant to remain a Protestant? No, because that which is unchallenged can hardly be called invinceable. Does it mean that they are not anathematized? Well, they can hardly be included into the ordinary form of Catholic prayer, the mass, and therefore are excluded from the ordinary means of salvific grace, the sacraments.

But if they are saved, Christ acting through the Catholic Church is the font of their salvation, even if not through the ordinary means. Without the Catholic Church, Luther’s notion of “do evil, that ye may have faith” would have won the day. The Southern Baptists’ acceptance of abortion, birth control, divorce and masturbation would never have been reversed. And so the notion that individual Protestants may be saved through extraordinary means does not contradict Augustine’s assertion that “Apart from the Church, there is no salvation.”

So, yeah, I do mean “respectfully,” because I have given such notions enough respect to have wrestled with them myself at considerable length, as I hope you find these words show. And I tell you, had I not discovered all the ways in which Vatican II had been misrepresented to me, I’d’ve certainly felt trapped by that catch - 22, as well.


27 posted on 04/08/2011 5:49:41 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: surroundedbyblue
re: More baseless allegations.......

The book substantiates every allegation pointed out in the OVERVIEW that I posted. The author shows the striking contrast between unbroken totality of the perennial doctrines of the Church, tradition, and some of what EWTN teaches. At the conclusion of reading the book, any Catholic that still has the sensus fidelius will see.

I have however posted specifics in prior threads of EWTN: a Network Gone Bad, and no one on FR was able to refute them. Rather than bringing forward evidence and Catholic doctrine supporting EWTN’s actions, all that has come from FR Catholics is short complaints with personal opinions, BUT mostly what has come from FR Catholics, is unreasoned hatred, blind disgust, aroused against the persons (calling the author or I - sedevacantes, SSPXer, schismatic, heretic, excommunicated, not Catholic). This can be seen in all the postings generated by this thread so far. I can't read minds, I can only judge from what people write, and from the responses that I've been getting, it appears that the Catholics on FR do not know the faith, nor how to defend it.

Bishop Sheen once said that if you want to convince a pagan you use philosophy, if you want to convince a Protestant you use scripture, and if you want to convince a Catholic you use doctrine. Not only in this thread but in all the postings I have ever posted, it is a rare thing indeed to find an FR Catholic that posts doctrine in response to all the doctrine that I post.

from page 210
As I noted in the Overview, by Tradition is meant the totality of the perennial doctrine, dogma, liturgy and practice of the Faith, just as it existed with unbroken continuity at the start of the Second Vatican Council the way Catholics always believed and the way they always worshipped. As our experience since the Council has shown us, the so-called post conciliar revolution is nothing but an attack on Tradition.

The Progressivist Cardinal Suenens observed that Vatican II was “the French Revolution in the Church,” while the equally liberal Cardinal Congar likened it to the Russian Revolution of 1917. When an organization like EWTN partakes of the postconciliar revolution and its revolutionary spirit, and not only refuses to condemn its evils but actively promotes many of them, it will tend inevitably to regard as “enemies of the People” faithful Catholics, commonly known today as “traditionalists”, who have refused to embrace the revolution. And, indeed, the faithful Roman Catholic is a natural adversary of the post conciliar revolutionaries in the Church. For the Catholic, animated by love of the Faith, charity and a zeal for souls, instinctively opposes unheard of novelties that undermine Tradition and thus the integrity and mission of the Church, which is the salvation of souls. He does so because, as St. Pius X taught in Pascendi, he must do so if he is to be worthy of the name Catholic.

In an almost incredible reversal of the proper order of things, however, Catholics who adhere to this perennial Catholic attitude who conserve with devotion the heritage, doctrine, and practices of the Church, as they are enjoined to do by all Popes, Councils, Fathers and Doctors of the Church are now painted as ecclesiastical outlaws and even “schismatics,” while the revolutionaries and those who defend them hold themselves out as the guardians of sound orthodoxy. As in the world, now in the New Church of EWTN, evil is called good, and good evil.

This tactic of the unsubstantiated smear, so typical of revolutionary movements in political society, has now found its way into the Catholic Church. As Professor Philip Davidson observed in his monumental study of the use of propaganda in the American Revolution, the most effective way to attack the established order and justify rebellion is not “reason, or justice or even self interest, but hate. An unreasoning hatred, a blind disgust, is aroused not against policies but against people.” That is precisely what EWTN has done in the case of Father Gruner and other prominent defenders of the Church's doctrine, dogma, liturgy and traditional practice.

28 posted on 04/08/2011 6:38:54 AM PDT by verdugo ("You can't lie, even to save the World")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AHerald
Why don't use your book to refute the author of this tread? Just posting a book with a title like that "extreme traditionalism", a smearing tactic that raises unreasoned hatred against people, is not Catholic. Likely you have not read the book. ST. VINCENT OF LERINS (400-450 AD) CONFESSOR OF THE CHURCH

"What then should a Catholic do if some part of the Church were to separate itself from communion with the universal Faith? What other choice can he make but to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted member the whole of the body that is sound. And if some new contagion were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of the Church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty." (Commonitorium)

29 posted on 04/08/2011 6:45:45 AM PDT by verdugo ("You can't lie, even to save the World")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mockingbyrd
re: I strongly recommend that the author acquaint himself with the Catechism of the Catholic Church

The CCC is the Catholic basics, a brief teaching, for new converts to the faith. Telling a Catholic that they should read their catechism is like telling a senior in college studying engineering, that they should read on the subject in the encyclopedia. Mr. Ferrara is likely reading the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Here are the credentials of the author:

Christopher A. Ferrara

Born New York, New York 1952

BA Fordham University, 1973

JD Fordham University School of Law, 1977.

In 1990 Mr. Ferrara founded the American Catholic Lawyers Association and, since approximately 1991, has concentrated his practice on the pro-bono (that means for free) representation of Catholics in religious and civil liberties cases, both civil and criminal, both plaintiff and defense.

Mr. Ferrara has a number of significant appellate victories to his credit including the recent decision of the Second Circuit in Spitzer v. Operation Rescue, striking down an expanded injunction against pro-life activists under FACE, and narrowing the grounds for liability under FACE for the alleged making of threats.

Mr. Ferrara has also won a number of acquittals and dismissals of pro-life activists at the trial level and obtained an appellate court reversal of a $109 million verdict against pro-life activists in Portland, Oregon, whose reinstatement by a sharply divided (6-5) en banc panel is now the subject of continued proceedings in the federal district court.

Mr. Ferrara is a widely published author on Catholic Church affairs and co-authored The Great Facade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church (Remnant Press, 2002).

30 posted on 04/08/2011 7:04:20 AM PDT by verdugo ("You can't lie, even to save the World")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dangus; NTHockey
Dear Dangus and all Catholics like him,

Everything that you post is wholely your opinions. You are wasting your time here. Go and learn and get Catholic doctrine to defend your position. We are not like the Protestants that only have "opinions". We are Catholics, we look to antiquity, the perenial unbroken tradition, for truth. Let antiquity speak what you are trying to make up. If you can't find your thoughts in antiquity, then it's not Catholic.

ST. VINCENT OF LERINS (400-450 AD) CONFESSOR OF THE CHURCH

"What then should a Catholic do if some part of the Church were to separate itself from communion with the universal Faith? What other choice can he make but to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted member the whole of the body that is sound. And if some new contagion were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of the Church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty." (Commonitorium)

31 posted on 04/08/2011 7:14:14 AM PDT by verdugo ("You can't lie, even to save the World")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Putting aside the name-calling (”sedevacantist” which I find as offensive a term as “teabagger” OR “modernist” which most people misunderstand) for the moment, my problem is exactly that Vatican II was called as a pastoral council and NOT a dogmatic council. The difference being that a dogmatic Council is called specifically to answer doctrinal issues. Yet, Catholics are told they MUST accept the teachings as dogmatic. No less a figure than the late Jihn Cardinal Krol wrote me once to say that all councils are dogmatic.

Taking him at his word, he never answered why the Mass promulgated in perpetuity by Pope St. Pius V is replaced by the Novus Ordo. Something promulgated in perpetuity cannot be replaced. So, the conundrum remains. Do you go against the Church and accept the Modernist heresy (see Lamentabili Sane Exitu) or do you remain with the teachings of the Church up to Vatican II?

Do you accept that the Church needed “hope and change” (there they go again!)to fundamentally alter the Church? Where did that notion come from? Are the results of hope and change positive?

Most people who are called “sedevacantist” did not start out that way. They are deemed unacceptable and thus labeled/libeled into a position they did not choose.


32 posted on 04/08/2011 7:18:06 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: verdugo

Do you have permission from the author, Christopher A. Ferrara, to put his book or chapters of his book - on the internet?


33 posted on 04/08/2011 7:55:50 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: verdugo

All the education in the world is pointless if you don’t comprehend the basics.


34 posted on 04/08/2011 7:57:51 AM PDT by mockingbyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: verdugo
Perhaps you missed my question on the other thread, so I'll ask it again:

verdugo, do you consider the papacy of Pope Benedict to be a valid one?

Is he your pope?

A simple yes or no to each question would be appreciated.

35 posted on 04/08/2011 8:12:31 AM PDT by Lorica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey
Putting aside the name-calling (”sedevacantist” which I find as offensive a term as “teabagger”

I don't consider using the term sedevacantist as namecalling, since I've observed their own use of the term. Sedes have been very outspoken in their contention that the chair of Peter is vacant, so I'm not sure that they would find offensive this way of clarifying their belief. Also - "teabagger" has a sexual connotation, so I'm at a loss as to how you can even compare the two terms.

36 posted on 04/08/2011 8:20:20 AM PDT by Lorica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

NTHockey,

Sedevacantism isn’t merely an epithet, like “teabagger,” (which I object to entirely because it’s among the most vulgar and crude of sexual terms). It’s a term which accurately describes an actual, objectively stated belief. And as I stated, I wouldn’t call you a sedevacantist if you made a distinction between pastoral councils and doctrinal councils.

Also, I already acknowledged that I would have the gravest of difficulties with Vatican II had it actually stated what people falsely characterize it as having stated. Vatican II did not inhibit, replace or otherwise challenged the Tridentine mass. In fact. it explicitly upheld the Latin Mass.

Verdugo,

This is where I think there is heroism among the SSPX crowd, yet evil among the Sedevacantists: They have done precisely what St. Vincent commended to them, without lapsing into the apostasy and heresy of SSPV.


37 posted on 04/08/2011 8:56:45 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

Yes, I have permission from Christopher Ferrara. He owns the copyrights.


38 posted on 04/08/2011 11:51:16 AM PDT by verdugo ("You can't lie, even to save the World")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mockingbyrd

re: All the education in the world is pointless if you don’t comprehend the basics.

What exactly are these “basics” that you are speaking about?


39 posted on 04/08/2011 11:57:04 AM PDT by verdugo ("You can't lie, even to save the World")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: verdugo; Religion Moderator
Yes, I have permission from Christopher Ferrara. He owns the copyrights.

Does the religion moderator remember this whopper? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2683669/posts?page=38#38
'..I believe that Benedict XVI is the reigning pope..'

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2696557/posts?page=15#15
40 posted on 04/08/2011 12:02:36 PM PDT by Beeline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Beeline
Thanks for posting the link, I had never seen it before, since the poster didn't have the courtesy to provide me with a copy. The entire posting is an amateurish contrivance, a smearing campaign to get me removed from the Catholic caucus, because the moderate modernist EWTN Catholics on FR who contrived the scheme, are frustrated that they can't respond to all the doctrine that I post. Here's something else that in posted in case all of you moderate -modernist missed it. You people are no different than the sedevacantes (which I am not) you people keep bringing up: From a Catholic who follows antiquity/tradition to all the Papalotrist on FR

The subject of this thread is the prayer meeting at Assisi, in response I posted the condemnation of the prayer meeting (of Ecumenism) by the Catholic authorities from “Tradition”, which means the totality of the perennial doctrine, dogma, liturgy, spirituality and practice of the Catholic Faith as handed down from century to century with unbroken continuity before the start of the Second Vatican Council. Mortalium Animos reflects in every detail that unbroken constant teaching.

Now, it is ONLY to Tradition that a Catholic looks to determine whether all is right with the Church. With "Assisi", there is a PRONOUNCED departure from all of tradition, a break with ALL of the popes, in this novel sacrilege called the prayer meeting at Assisi.

ALL THE POPES (prior to the 1960's) are with Pius XI's Mortalium Animos, in this unbroken constant doctrine.

It is the modernists who are "not supportive of the Catholic Church". Pius XI's Mortalium Animos is the constant teaching of the Church. That teaching can't be changed by ANYONE, not even the pope, nor EWTN. Are you people defending the current pope's actions (JPII) that I posted, the prayer meeting at Assisi with Voodoo doctors, Muslims, Hindus, and every other false religion? If you are defending it, please advise on what basis that you do that? Where exactly in Catholic doctrine has anyone taught that we are to disregard all of 1900+ Church teaching to follow whatever personal fancies the pope has?

The people calling me all kinds of names for posting the constant teaching of the Church, have fallen into the same mistake as the sedevacantes, a conundrum (When Catholics who follow antiquity/tradition, do not even need step into debate on those two simplistic, false, conclusions.) Sedevacantesism (he is not a pope because he teaches error) or Papalolotry (he can't teach error because he is the pope).

. If a pope is opposed to 1900+ years of POPES on some opinion, then in that opinion he is separated himself from antiquity, and so have any others that follow him against 1900+ years of popes.

Vatican Council I: Pastor Aeternus

First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ

Chapter 4: On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

ST. VINCENT OF LERINS (400-450 AD)CONFESSOR OF THE CHURCH

"What then should a Catholic do if some part of the Church were to separate itself from communion with the universal Faith? What other choice can he make but to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted member the whole of the body that is sound. And if some new contagion were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of the Church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty." (Commonitorium)

41 posted on 04/08/2011 12:33:12 PM PDT by verdugo ("You can't lie, even to save the World")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Beeline
The people calling me all kinds of names for posting the constant teaching of the Church, have fallen into the same mistake as the sedevacantes, a conundrum (When Catholics who follow antiquity/tradition, do not even need step into debate on those two simplistic, false, conclusions.) Sedevacantesism (he is not a pope because he teaches error) or Papalolotry (he can't teach error because he is the pope).
42 posted on 04/08/2011 12:35:40 PM PDT by verdugo ("You can't lie, even to save the World")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: verdugo

I commend you for posting from tradition.

Now: do you consider Pope Benedict to be a VALID Pope? I don’t want to know if you ACKNOWLEDGE him to be the “reigning” Pope. Do you consider him to be a VALID Pope?

Is he your pope?

Unless you can answer both of these in the affirmative, you’re just spinning your wheels. There are plenty of tradition-minded Catholics at FR who, while disagreeing with the Pope, believe he is a valid Pope.

Please just answer the questions.


43 posted on 04/08/2011 12:37:58 PM PDT by Lorica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Beeline

re: Does the religion moderator remember this whopper?

Are you are calling me a liar? Be careful that you do not fall into the sin of bearing false witness. That is not Catholic.

“One can’t lie, even to save the world”.


44 posted on 04/08/2011 12:39:25 PM PDT by verdugo ("You can't lie, even to save the World")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Lorica

Lorica, your a little late to this game.
Just read the links I provided in my previous post concerning statements Verdugo has made. Additionally, probably unknown to you he has been removed from posting to the Catholic Caucus threads.


45 posted on 04/08/2011 12:47:24 PM PDT by Beeline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Beeline

Maybe so. I’d still like him to answer my questions. The fact that he doesn’t appear to want to do so is certainly not looking too promising.


46 posted on 04/08/2011 12:52:13 PM PDT by Lorica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Lorica
He is the validly elected reigning pope, I saw no others elected did you?

Sedevacantes by definition, do not believe that B16 is a valid pope. They believe that he is an imposter pope. It's that simple

The people calling me all kinds of names for posting the constant teaching of the Church, have fallen into the same mistake as the sedevacantes, a conundrum (When Catholics who follow antiquity/tradition, do not even need step into debate on those two simplistic, false, conclusions.) Sedevacantesism (he is not a pope because he teaches error) or Papalolotry (he can't teach error because he is the pope).

47 posted on 04/08/2011 12:52:13 PM PDT by verdugo ("You can't lie, even to save the World")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: verdugo
He is the validly elected reigning pope, I saw no others elected did you?

That's classic dissembling, there.

Again:

DO YOU CONSIDER HIM TO BE A VALID POPE?

IS HE YOUR POPE?

It's disingenuous for you to complain about name-calling when you're doing it yourself. (Papalotrists). Quit shouting how you're following tradition and just answer the questions.

48 posted on 04/08/2011 12:56:30 PM PDT by Lorica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Lorica

Lorica he has already answered.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2687771/posts?page=22#22

“all 5 Vatican II popes are not even Catholic. Pope St. Pius X would have excommunicated all five before they even became bishops.”

What we need in these threads is for people like you and me to confront him with his previous statements so that new readers will understand where he is coming from and the kind of bad material he posts...really simple...thanks.


49 posted on 04/08/2011 12:58:23 PM PDT by Beeline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Beeline; verdugo
His working definition of sedevacantism:

Sedevacantesism (he is not a pope because he teaches error)

is simplistic, and so perhaps he has convinced himself he's not a sede. After all, that's a hard thing to have to acknowledge. But someone who doesn't believe the pope is Catholic and won't acknowledge his validity shouldn't state that he's not a sede on his homepage.

50 posted on 04/08/2011 1:11:47 PM PDT by Lorica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-81 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson