Criticizing Pope John Paul II

The Wanderer Press ^ | May 10, 2003 | JOHN YOUNG

[ultima ratio]

Of course it is scandal--but small beer in today's scandal market. It would have caused a furor in the old days. But today it merits a shrug. It is not like raping an altar boy in the sanctuary or teaching parochial schoolchildren how to put condums on bananas. That's what we are getting nowadays from the conciliar Church--routinely.

[ultima ratio]

This is simply an untrue statement. I do not defend all SSPX clerics and oppose any whom you call "Catholic". (SSPX clerics are also Catholic. Your use of language is as offensive as your false claims.) Anyone who has read my posts in the past would know I have been critical of Bishop Williamson. I don't mean in recent days when he has been the focus of discussion. But from the first days of my coming to this site. At the same time I have praised fulsomely clerics such as Fr. Fessio, Fr. Pavone, Msgr. Clark, Fr. Groeschel. I have met Msgr. Clark and Frs. Pavone and Groeschel and can testify to their integrity and orthodoxy. So you are making things up--drawing assumptions from what I say that have nothing to do with their context. In other words, you are stereotyping me as some radically schimatic individual--which I'm not. My thinking is fairly balanced; my faith is orthodox. I simply don't like what's going on--and don't buy Vatican excuses any longer, they've gone on too long.

[Theosis]

I am not challenging the authority of the papacy--I only want him to use it to serve Sacred Tradition instead of bizarre novelties; nor do I believe in any new doctrine that opposes what is traditionally Catholic. Neither does the SSPX. What we do is reject doctrines that have no precedence within the Church--which is legitimate; and we criticize the Pope--which I seem to do more than the SSPX, if truth be told--which people like you find intolerable, though such criticism has been common throughout the ages among Catholics.

Ah yes, doctrine-sifting. Unfortunately for you, Christ entrusted this task to St. Peter and his successors, not Bishop Williamson. Which is why the SSPX had never been able to adequately respond to criticism of the doctrine sifting arising from intellegent sedevacantists like Frs. Cekada and Gerard des Lauriers.

[Theosis]

Of course it is scandal--but small beer in today's scandal market.

Which is why few in the SSPX will stand up against it. Rather, they will simply continue to cover for their hierarchy. This is called mediocrity. It is what permits a good priest like Aulagnier to continue in reported exile. It is routinely condemned by your crowd when Catholics do it for their clergy, however, it somehow becomes a virtue when it is SSPX clergy under the microscope. I think I understand.

[Aloysius]

If you think that the Sacrifice was not sufficient to redeem ALL MANKIND, you are a heretic.

Nice way to avoid the question. I never said that the Sacrifice was not sufficient to redeem ALL MANKIND. Just wondering why Ratzinger and the other modernists have changed Christ's words.

Still waiting on an explanation.

Don't jack around with your Jesuitical lawyer-squirm, either.

Talks about Jesuitical lawyer-squirm. None of you liberals can defend why Christ is misquoted in the Novus Ordo.

[Theosis]

SSPX clerics are also Catholic.

Like it or not, they are excommunicated Catholics. This means they might be Catholic owing to baptism, but the children of those who follow them will not be.

Your use of language is as offensive as your false claims.

Their excommunication is well-established. If you find it offense, that's unfortunate, but charity requires the truth be told, no matter how unpleasant.

[ultima ratio]

Stand up agaisnt what--some priest in Canada who runs off with a woman? Give me a break. So he ran off--he hasn't so far sodomized our kids. You have to realize most of our priests travel long hours--across many states sometimes--in order to say Mass for as many of us as possible. They arrive hungry and tired, but still they soldier on. We, likewise, must travel long distances to our chapels. Communication is sporadic and even if we wanted to organize, we couldn't. We do not have churches on every corner with rectories of pampered priests at our beck and call. So to say we must organize to oppose a corruption that doesn't exist because some priest in Canada ran off with a woman is ridiculous--even hilarious--and indicates you haven't a clue about SSPX.

[Pyro7480]

Ninenot is a LIBERAL!!??? Does that mean that anyone who disagrees with you is a liberal??? While I often agree with your points, I can't let this one go away unanswered. I also have an issue with the change in the words. In fact, I didn't even realize it until someone on here brought it up! There does need to be a clean-up, at the very least, in the post-counciliar liturgy. But I refuse to take up some of the baggage that some of the SSPXers carry with them. I am loyal to the Pope, whoever he may be, because ultimately, I know that Jesus is in control. We can do our part, but ultimately, He is in the driver's seat.

[ultima ratio]

This is nonsense again. Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops he consecrated were excommunicated latae sententiae--which means automatically. This excommunicated has been played by the Vatican for all it's worth--which is not very much. But the Pope has made much of it just the same.

In point of fact, according to the Pope's own Canon Law, such automatic excommunications--which differ from excommunications by papal tribunals--are conditional and depend on the intention of the subjects involved. If there is no culpability or malice, there can be no penalty.

Canon Law also provides a canon for disobedience to a superior--including a pope--in a state of necessity. This is precisely what Archbishop Lefebvre claimed was the case for his own act of disobedience. And remember, a state of necessity need not have been real for no penalty to have been incurred. The subject need only have honestly believed it was real.

Archbishop Lefebvre was convinced that the present Church was in major crisis as a result of modernism and that this Pope was intent on destroying the traditional priesthood. To preserve the Econe and traditional Catholicism, he disobeyed--but did so without challenging the authority of the papacy. The claim that he did otherwise was false and continues to be false. He set up no parallel church nor usurped any jurisdictions. He taught no new doctrines--but rather sought to protect the old faith. He was, in point of fact, a hero to the faith, not an apostate to it.

It is the Pope rather who needs to reconsider his ill-advised jihad against traditional Catholicism--an opposition that was improper from its inception--as was the letter he wrote after the latae sententiae "excommunication" accusing the Archbishop of "schism." This letter--the notorious "Ecclesia Dei adflicta"--was not only not infallible, it was wrong on many levels. It certainly contradicted the Pope's own Canon Law, though it gave fuel to those like you who wish to persecute the good priests of SSPX who hold onto the ancient faith and will not go along with the present fiasco.

[ultima ratio]

this excommunicated=this excommunication

[pascendi]

"This is why you have lost the Catholic mindset in my opinion and imbided the schismatic mindset of the SSPX."

How would your new and improved mindset reconcile, say, the ecumenist movement with the following:

"If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended." --III Council of Constantinople

How about this one:

"Some people hope that nations, in spite of their differing religious viewpoints, may unite as brothers in the profession of certain doctrines as a common foundation. Certainly, efforts such as these cannot receive the approbation of Catholics, for they rest on the false opinion that any religion whatever is more-or-less praiseworthy and good. Those who hold this opinion are in gross error! Is it permitted for Catholics to be present at conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate everyone who in any way lays claim to the name of Christian? In the negative! This Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics." --Pope Pius XI

This mindset thing... what is it? Is it Catholic doctrine?

A mindset is a mindset an opinion. My question is, who has the mindset? The post conciliar Church is, of course...

Find out what schism really consists of. A dangerous trajectory isn't going to cut it when you are talking about people who desire to cling to the unchangeble. Seriously, who is it that is actually imbibing a mindset?

Hey look; the dock is floating away... lol.

[Aloysius]

Ninenot is a LIBERAL!!???

Well, I ask a simple question regarding the mistranslation of Christ's very words and he shoots back a post throwing out the heretic label. If the shoe fits......

[Theosis]

Stand up agaisnt what--some priest in Canada who runs off with a woman?

Perhaps I don't know my American geography as well as others on this board, however, the last time I checked CT was one of the 50 states that make up the USA (I think in the New England area) -- not a Canadian province. And why would I ask you to stand up for him? No, the priest you need to stand up for (who is currently just outside of Quebec city) is Fr. Aulagnier.

So he ran off--he hasn't so far sodomized our kids.

Ergo, it is no big deal in your opinion since the SSPX is not held to any higher standard. This is called "minimization".

You have to realize most of our priests travel long hours--across many states sometimes--in order to say Mass for as many of us as possible.

Uh ultima, I was with the SSPX when their mass circuit was much longer than it is today. Guess what? It still does not justify the scandalous behaviour I've described and you're attempting to minimalize. And this is part of the problem, just as you will always make excuses for it because you're comfortable in the SSPX, so too will the great majority of their followers make excuses for not being in communion with Rome because they're comfortable with the schism. And while you will continue to protest that you are still Catholic, your grandchildren will be indifferent in the knowledge that they are not.

We, likewise, must travel long distances to our chapels [...] We do not have churches on every corner with rectories of pampered priests at our beck and call.

Ah yes, and we in the indult have it any easier? This is the sacrafice that most of you SSPXers are too lazy to make.

[Theosis]

Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops he consecrated were excommunicated latae sententiae--which means automatically.

So what? If the Holy Father didn't agree with it, he didn't have to declare it. (Since latae sententiae penalties must be declared by the competent authority before they can be acted upon.) The point is, the Holy Father declared it.

In point of fact, according to the Pope's own Canon Law, such automatic excommunications--which differ from excommunications by papal tribunals--are conditional and depend on the intention of the subjects involved. If there is no culpability or malice, there can be no penalty.

This excusing or diminishing cause does not apply where the action involved is the consecration of bishops without papal mandate. In fact, it was Pope Pius XII who clarified this canonically. I would have assumed that as a so-called traditionalist you would have been familiar with him. Guess not.

Oh yeah... since you will probably ask for a reference: "Episcopus, cuiusvis ritus vel dignitatis, aliquem, neque ab Apostolica Sede nominatum neque ab Eadem expresse confirmaum, consecraus in Episcopum, et qui consecrationem recipit, etsi metu gravi coacti (c. 2229 §3:3° [CIC 1917]), incurrunt ipso facto in excommunicationem Apostolicae Sedi specialissimo modo reservatam." (AAS 43 [1951] 217-218).

In the end, it is no surprise that schismatic trads latch on to the "state-of-necessity" argument to defend their unCatholic dissobedience to legitimate ecclesiastical authority like ultra-charismatics latch on to "the Holy Spirit told me" to justify theirs...

[pascendi]

What about those quotes, Theosis?

I would like you to reconcile them with ecumenism.

[Theosis]

The key sentence in Pope Pius XI's statement is the following: "Certainly, efforts such as these cannot receive the approbation of Catholics, for they rest on the false opinion that any religion whatever is more-or-less praiseworthy and good." This is false irenicism, which the Church has always condemned. The reason it is condemned is because it begins with the assumption all religions are equal, which they are not. Ecumenism, on the other hand, concerns the common search for Truth (which we on the Catholic side already know our Church possesses). Affirmation in this context of common principles and the truths we share is perfectly legitimate. As Pope St. Gregory states: "Those who sincerely desire to bring those outside the Christian religion to correct faith should be earnestly engaged in displays of courtesy, not harshness, lest hostility drive away those whose minds a clearly thought out reason could challenge." It might help if, unlike Luther, you didn't seek to go back to Biblical times but at least caught yourself up with the Middle Ages.

[Theosis]

"If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended." --III Council of Constantinople

This was obviously merely disciplinary, something you would realize if you read Holy Scripture since St. Paul visited Mars Hill while St. Peter and the early Christians often visited the Synagogue. Additionally, if this canon deserves as strict adherence as you claim, then it was subsequently contradicted by the Council of Florence where the un-reconciled Eastern Orthodox in schism with Rome were invited to participate fully -- something Pope Eugene IV refers to in the opening sessions as a blessing from the Holy Ghost. CF Tanner's collection which includes the text in Greek, Latin and English translation.

[pascendi]

"In the end, it is no surprise that schismatic trads latch on to the "state-of-necessity" argument to defend their unCatholic dissobedience to legitimate ecclesiastical authority like ultra-charismatics latch on to "the Holy Spirit told me" to justify theirs..."

Actually, no. It is the post-conciliar "mindset" that has a very warped and uneducated understanding of what obedience to the pontiff really consists of, and what it means to lend true assent to the ordinary and supreme magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

You mentioned charismatics... that brings into the picture the secondary failure of the postconciliar mindset that acts as a glue to hold the whole deviation into place. The post-conciliar mind has a completely warped sense of how it is that the Holy Spi, uh, Ghost guides His Church, or acts through His Church.

By the way, you have not the authority to determine who is in schism. Just trying to help you be consistant with your own principles.

[pascendi]

"This was obviously merely disciplinary..." Doesn't matter. Because even if it were disciplinary, it would be based upon a principle, a point of doctrine. So again, reconcile it please.