Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lawyers eye former pope's blueprint to shield clergy
Boston Herald.com ^ | Wednesday, July 30, 2003 | Robin Washington

Posted on 07/31/2003 8:21:16 PM PDT by Land of the Irish

A Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII outlined a 1962 Vatican procedure for shielding sexually abusive priests, two lawyers for plaintiffs in cases against the church maintain.

The ``Crimine Solicitationis,'' translated as ``Instructions on proceeding in cases of solicitation,'' states abuse cases are subject to the ``papal secret'' and threatens excommunication against victims who do not come forward within 30 days, according to the document given to authorities by Carmen Durso of Boston and Daniel J. Shea of Houston.

On Monday, Durso presented an English translation to U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan.

``We gave it to the U.S. Attorney because we wanted him to understand what we mean when we say this has been an ongoing conspiracy,'' he said.

Added Shea, ``It's an instruction manual for a rigged trial for a priest accused of sexual crimes, including crimes against children.''

The document, which Shea said he had been trying to uncover for more than a year and recently received from canon lawyer the Rev. Thomas Doyle, allows victims one month to make their claim known to the supervising bishop.

``The penitent must denounce the accused priest . . . within a month to the (bishop) . . . and the confessor must, burdened seriously in conscience, warn the penitent of this duty,'' the document states.

``The confessor is the accused priest,'' Shea said.

``They're giving the priest the responsibility to tell his victim that the victim has to turn the priest in to the bishop within 30 days. If not, the victim is automatically excommunicated,'' he said, citing another passage.

A Boston Archdiocese spokesman could not be reached for comment and the Herald could not verify yesterday if the document was indeed genuine.

But both lawyers said they believed the Latin original to be authentic.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: catch22; catholiclist; popejohnxxiii; sexabuse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-319 next last
``The confessor is the accused priest,'' Shea said.

``They're giving the priest the responsibility to tell his victim that the victim has to turn the priest in to the bishop within 30 days. If not, the victim is automatically excommunicated,''

1 posted on 07/31/2003 8:21:16 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child; Aloysius; AniGrrl; Bellarmine; Dajjal; Canticle_of_Deborah; Domestic Church; ...
I've heard of Catch-22. Is this Catch-666?
2 posted on 07/31/2003 8:24:39 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish; GatorGirl; maryz; *Catholic_list; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; ..
The article is a tad confusing, but Rome does not look good here.
3 posted on 07/31/2003 8:30:48 PM PDT by narses ("The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace" Francis Carindal Arinze of Nigeria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
More proof that satan is the foundation of this nefarious institution?
4 posted on 07/31/2003 8:46:03 PM PDT by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses; NYer; Chancellor Palpatine; ninenot; BlackElk
``They're giving the priest the responsibility to tell his victim that the victim has to turn the priest in to the bishop within 30 days. If not, the victim is automatically excommunicated,'' he said, citing another passage.

Further evidence that the cover-up of sexual abuse goes back before Vatican II. It's a shame that this is John XXIII devising this kind of hideous practice.

Can you imagine, excommunicating a victim because they don't come forward with a claim of sexual abuse by a priest within 30 days?

If this is true, popes and bishops have much to answer for.

How many precious souls have been condemned to suffering in this life because of the callousness of popes and bishops?

One turns one's eyes away from such coldness.

Millstones, aplenty.

5 posted on 07/31/2003 8:51:56 PM PDT by sinkspur ("Boy, watch that knife!'" Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton in "The Searchers")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PFKEY
More proof that satan is the foundation of this nefarious institution?

Nope. It's the One, True Church. It has it's enemies both within and without.

6 posted on 07/31/2003 8:52:30 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PFKEY
More proof that satan is the foundation of this nefarious institution?

No. Satan is not the foundation. But selfishness and the need to preserve appearances overwhelmed papal and episcopal hearts, to the detriment of little people, the abused children, who were ignored, condemned, and thrown away.

Christ was not in these people, in these actions.

The Church deserves the condemnations it is receiving.

Vatican II was not the cause of abuse, but merely a catalyst for more of the same.

7 posted on 07/31/2003 8:56:43 PM PDT by sinkspur ("Boy, watch that knife!'" Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton in "The Searchers")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
There is something about this in the new canon law, but it only applies to penitents confessing under the 6th and 9th commandments and within the sacrament of confession. If the penitent believes the priest was out of line, he is to seek out another confessor and follow his counsel on whether or not to report to the bishop.

Outside the boundaries of sacramental confession, I don't know if canon law specifically addresses the situation or not.

Somewhere else canon law specifies that if you have been involved in a sexual indiscretion with a priest, that priest cannot absolve you; you must seek out another confessor.

The situation in the article doesn't seem to fall within the purview of either of these canons, so it is not impossible that appropriate directives be issued from on high. If subject directive is genuine, the wrong person is subject to excommunication imo, although it would serve as a protection against false denunciation which would be very serious.

8 posted on 07/31/2003 8:59:48 PM PDT by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Further evidence that the cover-up of sexual abuse goes back before Vatican II. It's a shame that this is John XXIII devising this kind of hideous practice.

Excuse me, but John XXIII, who devised "this kind of hideous practice" is the one who convened VC II.

By their fruits, you shall know them.

You're 0 for 2 tonight.

9 posted on 07/31/2003 9:00:00 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish; sinkspur
The reason for my rather harsh wording is the claim that the Pope is the vicar of Christ.

I do not in any manner see how this could be truth.
10 posted on 07/31/2003 9:02:48 PM PDT by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
Excuse me, but John XXIII, who devised "this kind of hideous practice" is the one who convened VC II.

If you think this "practice" is a novelty with John XXIII, you're truly dense.

Sexual abuse was rampant under Pius XII, and, likely under prior popes, but victims were treated just as shabbily.

Clerical abuse of children is the sin in the Church that dare not speak its name.

11 posted on 07/31/2003 9:03:35 PM PDT by sinkspur ("Boy, watch that knife!'" Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton in "The Searchers")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
How many things don't add up here?

"``The penitent must denounce the accused priest . . . within a month to the (bishop) . . . and the confessor must, burdened seriously in conscience, warn the penitent of this duty,'' the document states.

``The confessor is the accused priest,'' Shea said."

Says who? Where does the text say that the confessor is the accused priest? For that matter, where is the text?

"Added Shea, ``It's an instruction manual for a rigged trial for a priest accused of sexual crimes, including crimes against children.'' "

Evidence in the text? It directs sanctions against victims who refuse to help bring down the abusing priests. How is that a rigged trial in favor of sexual predators?

Someone's anti-Catholicism is showing. You want to pillory the bishops, go right ahead. There are plenty who deserve it. But this doesn't cut it.



12 posted on 07/31/2003 9:04:16 PM PDT by jmc159 (Never seen a bluer sky.../ I can feel it reaching out and moving closer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"Can you imagine, excommunicating a victim because they don't come forward with a claim of sexual abuse by a priest within 30 days?"

Yes, I can. MANY rapists, in and out of the Church, get away with their crimes because the victims are afraid to face them. Thereby more people are victimized as the first ones to suffer slough off their responsibilities to others and hide. If this had been enforced then the crisis would have been rooted out years ago. It acts AGAINST the corrutpion by FORCING people to speak out or face consequences for complicity by silence.
13 posted on 07/31/2003 9:06:26 PM PDT by jmc159 (Never seen a bluer sky.../ I can feel it reaching out and moving closer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PFKEY
I do not in any manner see how this could be truth.

Popes are human beings, and products of their culture.

Is it possible that men like Pius X, now a saint, knew of clerical abuse and did nothing? Absolutely, but he was simply ignorant of the hideousness of the act and its effect on the victims.

But, that was a different time, when the Church crushed common people under the burden of anathemas that, today, make no sense and have no applicability.

It also exalted clerics to positions of pre-eminence that they did not deserve, and should not have had, given that they were to be followers of Him who had nowhere to lay His Head.

Understand, my Church has much to answer for. But, men are fallible, which is why we fix our eyes on the Christ who pulls every man to grow outside of himself, to get out of his comfort zone, to become Christ himself.

The Church is being put through fire because it deserves it.

Christ, however, is constant, and His Word that He will be with His Church is reassuring.

14 posted on 07/31/2003 9:11:55 PM PDT by sinkspur ("Boy, watch that knife!'" Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton in "The Searchers")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Can you quote Pius XII's, and prior popes', instructions on how to dance around sexual crimes?

Just because abuses occurred during reigns of prior popes, doesn't mean those popes gave "hideoous (your word, not mine) " instructions such as "Blessed" John XXIII did.

15 posted on 07/31/2003 9:12:36 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PFKEY
The reason for my rather harsh wording is the claim that the Pope is the vicar of Christ.

It's not a claim, it's a fact. Get over it.

16 posted on 07/31/2003 9:15:37 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Sinkspur, You are to be commended. It is rare to find a person of your caliber.
17 posted on 07/31/2003 9:16:49 PM PDT by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jmc159
If this had been enforced then the crisis would have been rooted out years ago. It acts AGAINST the corrutpion by FORCING people to speak out or face consequences for complicity by silence.

So, a 15 year old kid, scared to death and really not comprehending of what's happening to him because "Father" is someone he trusts and likes, is going to be put out of the Church because he doesn't come forward with an accusation that, in the pre-Vatican II Church, nobody would have believed anyway? Not even his parents?

I don't think you've really thought this through. Rape victims sometimes take YEARS to come forward, because of the shame and the FACT that they feel they will not be believed.

If the Church's radar on moral issues is as clouded as it was on this issue, no wonder most Catholics have gone their own way in deciding sexual morality for themselves.

This kind of callousness is inexcusable.

18 posted on 07/31/2003 9:18:00 PM PDT by sinkspur ("Boy, watch that knife!'" Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton in "The Searchers")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
It's not a claim, it's a fact.

We all believe as we will.

19 posted on 07/31/2003 9:18:25 PM PDT by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
Can you quote Pius XII's, and prior popes', instructions on how to dance around sexual crimes?

They were too smart to codify it.

But, if you doubt they were less condemnatory, you're delusional.

After all, who would have believed that "Father" would abuse a child?

20 posted on 07/31/2003 9:20:02 PM PDT by sinkspur ("Boy, watch that knife!'" Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton in "The Searchers")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
Sorry
hideoous=hideous
21 posted on 07/31/2003 9:20:26 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Sexual abuse was rampant under Pius XII, and, likely under prior popes

W#hat objective data do you have to substantiate this claim, Sink?

22 posted on 07/31/2003 9:20:34 PM PDT by Polycarp (How can you say there are too many children, it is like saying there are too many flowers-MthrTeresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PFKEY
Sinkspur, You are to be commended. It is rare to find a person of your caliber.

Thank You. However, I'm considered a "liberal" around this place, and not in the "mainstream", since most here yearn for the Church of the 1950s.

God help us if we return to that triumphalistic, clericalist Church. Ritual, and ceremony, and codas were not the mark of The Nazarene.

My Church has often been a Church of "bending down" to the little people, rather than a community of "lifting up" all men in prayer to Jesus.

I appreciate your kind words, and invite your participation here. I've got as many questions as you do.

23 posted on 07/31/2003 9:30:06 PM PDT by sinkspur ("Boy, watch that knife!'" Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton in "The Searchers")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
W#hat objective data do you have to substantiate this claim, Sink?

Nothing objective. Just the consideration of human nature.

Clerical abuse of young men and the protection of it by bishops didn't just spring up, overnight, in 1965.

Even the figures from Boston indicate that there were abuse cases extending back as far as the 1930s.

Remember, the likelihood of a victim coming forward in the days of the imperial priesthood was remote. Who would believe them?

There was no sunlight on clerical sin, then. There is now, and that is a very good thing.

24 posted on 07/31/2003 9:34:43 PM PDT by sinkspur ("Boy, watch that knife!'" Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton in "The Searchers")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
In turn I appreciate and welcome your participation.

...do all to the glory of God.
25 posted on 07/31/2003 9:41:37 PM PDT by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; Antoninus; narses
Sink: Why in God's name would a "rare [Catholic deacon] person of your caliber" ping a rabidly anti-Catholic pervert troll like One_Particular_Harbour (now known as Chancellor Palpatine as you so kindly confirmed for me recently) to a thread such as this?

Its sadomasochistic to ping such pervert trolls to a thread like this.

Do you loathe the Faith so much that you must ping others who loathe it even more and denigrate it in such a demonic fashion to make you feel better by comparison?

26 posted on 07/31/2003 9:41:37 PM PDT by Polycarp (How can you say there are too many children, it is like saying there are too many flowers-MthrTeresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Akron Al; Alberta's Child; Aloysius; AniGrrl; Antoninus; As you well know...; BBarcaro; ...
The end game is becoming clearer now.
27 posted on 07/31/2003 9:47:24 PM PDT by Loyalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Do you loathe the Faith so much that you must ping others who loathe it even more and denigrate it in such a demonic fashion to make you feel better by comparison?

He's working out his anger against the Church for something that happened to him in his youth, as a former Catholic, courtesy of Holy Mother Church. He can work it off on this threads, since they're really harmless. I'd rather he do that than take it out on his wife or kids.

So, you think I loathe the Faith, do you?

Dr. Brian Kopp, I think you've lost your perspective of late. Lashing out at people is a sign of someone who's also got some anger he needs to deal with.

So, deal with it. Get some counseling. Or, keep beating me up, if you must. I can take it.

This is not the first time you've questioned my Faith, nor will it be the last, in all likelihood.

Why do you feel the need to put yourself on some kind of pedestal as a "defender of the Faith"? And why do you insist on doing it by tearing down other people?

This is pharasaical behavior, Brian, and beneath you.

Get a handle on it.

28 posted on 07/31/2003 9:52:11 PM PDT by sinkspur ("Boy, watch that knife!'" Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton in "The Searchers")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
He's working out his anger against the Church for something that happened to him in his youth, as a former Catholic, courtesy of Holy Mother Church. He can work it off on this threads, since they're really harmless.

Regardless of his abuse victimhood status, there is simply no excuse for CP/OPH's behavior, willful deceptions, and slanders of Catholics and Catholicism on this forum. Having been a victim confers no right upon him to victimize others and denigrate and publicly undermine the Roman Catholic Faith.

Your pinging him to this thread and encouraging him to continue his rhetoric against Catholics and Catholicism is reprehensible.

Sorry, Sink, but you've played the rest of these cards before, and the gig is up. This isn't about me. Its about a Catholic deacon publicly inviting a rabid anti-Catholic bigot pervert to pile on the Church. I'm not the one who needs counseling.

29 posted on 07/31/2003 10:08:45 PM PDT by Polycarp (How can you say there are too many children, it is like saying there are too many flowers-MthrTeresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Sexual abuse was rampant under Pius XII, and, likely under prior popes

What objective data do you have to substantiate this claim, Sink?

Nothing objective.

You should have stopped there. You have no objective evidence whatsoever that Sexual abuse was rampant under Pius XII, and, likely under prior popes.

30 posted on 07/31/2003 10:11:24 PM PDT by Polycarp (How can you say there are too many children, it is like saying there are too many flowers-MthrTeresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Its about a Catholic deacon publicly inviting a rabid anti-Catholic bigot pervert to pile on the Church. I'm not the one who needs counseling.

He has every reason to be anti-Catholic. And I'm not inviting him to "pile-on." He needs to understand the history of this whole sordid business.

Brian, your gig is carrying your banner into battle, against homosexuals, against those who use contraceptives, against your "enemies" like Stephen Hand.

I'll work with people on a personal level.

I know you think little of me, as do most Catholics on this forum. That matters to me not one bit.

How many times are you going to condemn other people here, Doctor? How many times? Do you think your stridency is effective?

Heal thyself.

31 posted on 07/31/2003 10:21:44 PM PDT by sinkspur ("Boy, watch that knife!'" Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton in "The Searchers")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
You have no objective evidence whatsoever that Sexual abuse was rampant under Pius XII, and, likely under prior popes.

Like I said, if you think clerical abuse of minors began, suddenly, in 1965, then you're very naive.

Martin Luther complained of pederasty by clerics in the 16th century, for heaven's sake.

32 posted on 07/31/2003 10:24:26 PM PDT by sinkspur ("Boy, watch that knife!'" Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton in "The Searchers")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jmc159
Thanks for the touch of sanity on this thread. The posters seem absolutely wiggy and dense,to boot.

No one has a copy of the text,nonetheless,they seriously contend this is proof of something sinister and nefarious. What they are saying makes absolutely no sense and everyone is joining in the discusssion and agreeing that this is awful and doesn't look good.What doesn't look good? What does it say?I can't figure it out what in the world it means and it is quite clear no one else does either.

It seems that catholics are eager to believe anything bad about the Pope,whomsoever,he was or is. If someone knows what the documents actually say and mean would you clue in the rest of us.

33 posted on 07/31/2003 11:02:30 PM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
Like most "news" these days the details and fact are scarce.

But both lawyers said they believed the Latin original to be authentic.

Does this make it so? No.

My comments are based on my beliefs and if this "blueprint" is true it would further cement those beliefs.

Not that it matters much but I did end my comment with a question mark.

34 posted on 07/31/2003 11:10:07 PM PDT by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
The statistics for sex abuse shot up after Vatican II. Look at the recently published annals of complaints for the Boston archdiocese. Prior to the late sixties there were very few complaints against priests. Immediately after the Council the numbers shot up.
35 posted on 07/31/2003 11:31:32 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Could you offer a short version of what Vatican II is all about and what the key differences/changes to the way things were prior?
36 posted on 07/31/2003 11:35:19 PM PDT by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
This is more Novus Ordo nonsense of yours. The idea that the Church "crushed the little people" in preconciliar days is bull hockey. It's just off the top of your head--with no evidence for what you say whatsoever.
37 posted on 07/31/2003 11:37:28 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
There were something like an average of 28 cases annually in Boston prior to Vatican II. Right after Vatican II the numbers shot up into the hundreds annually. Gays are the problem--and the liberals who pushed their agenda following Vatican II.
38 posted on 07/31/2003 11:43:23 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: PFKEY
"Could you offer a short version of what Vatican II is all about and what the key differences/changes to the way things were prior?"

Short? How's this: Prior to Vatican II the Church was confidently conservative, knew itself to be the Church Christ Himself had founded, and revered the Sacred Tradition which kept guard over the deposit of faith passed-down from the apostles. After Vatican II, liberal churchmen attempted to reconcile the Church to the Modern World. In the process they trashed Catholic Tradition, even suppressing important doctrines which might create barriers to closer ties with non-Catholics. The Church has since been floundering, suffering from a lost identity.
39 posted on 07/31/2003 11:58:23 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Very good. And short. Thank you.

If I may continue to ask more questions.

Did this change satify the conditions of infallibility?

As I understand these conditions they are:

Speaking ex cathedra as Supreme Pastor
Explaining a doctrine of faith or morals
To be held by the Universal Church

40 posted on 08/01/2003 12:25:10 AM PDT by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
I not asking about infalliblity to begin a debate on its merits. I ask because I'm curious if VaticanII is binding.
41 posted on 08/01/2003 12:33:05 AM PDT by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: PFKEY
Vatican II was not a dogmatic council and taught nothing that is binding--other than what had already been defined as binding by earlier popes and councils.
42 posted on 08/01/2003 12:49:14 AM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: PFKEY
Ex cathedra means "from the Chair [of Peter]". No recent pope has spoken ex cathedra.
43 posted on 08/01/2003 12:51:40 AM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Is it safe to say that VaticanII is not binding then?

Does the Chair of Peter mean the Bishop of Rome?
44 posted on 08/01/2003 1:04:50 AM PDT by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Sorry I didn't see post 41.
45 posted on 08/01/2003 1:05:49 AM PDT by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
42 I mean.
46 posted on 08/01/2003 1:06:16 AM PDT by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: PFKEY
Yes, the Chair of Peter means the Pope, the Bishop of Rome.
47 posted on 08/01/2003 1:07:21 AM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
There seems to be so much controvery surrounding VaticanII. Are there churches that function under VI and others that function under VII?

Is it possible to find one or the other depending on one's preference?
48 posted on 08/01/2003 1:13:10 AM PDT by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
I'll be back to read this thread later, but NYer had posted a link to the article on an earlier thread, which like spurred some discussion. If anyone's interested:

Look for post #20 (sorry -- I forget how to link to a specific post).

49 posted on 08/01/2003 1:39:07 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PFKEY
You have to remember PFKEY Ultimate is a traditionalist SPXXer...

And I mean no slander towards Ultimate...

But he has different take on Vatican II... He thinks the Pope is wrong and has been wrong from Vatican II until now...

Vatican II was a binding council on all Catholics...

Ultimate doesn't like Vatican II, so he refuses to follow it like a lot of Traditionalist here on FR.

Ultimate goes to SSPXer mass that is in schism with the Church...

He will deny this, but it is true ... but you don't have take my word for it, I can send you some articles...

But I am not sure if you want to get into Catholic Church debates.
50 posted on 08/01/2003 6:51:37 AM PDT by Saint Athanasius (How can there be too many children? That's like saying there are too many flowers - Mother Theresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-319 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