Posted on 12/23/2001 4:30:08 PM PST by ELS
Who are you referring to as "the author"? If you mean me, then why did you think I would find that idea tendentious? Do you think that because I posted an article from a particular publication that I have the same viewpoint as that publication? Do you assume that every FReeper who posts an article from the New York Times or Washington Post speaks for those publications? You accuse me of potentially causing scandal, but you show no concern in spreading false assumptions about me. You don't know me, yet you somehow "knew" I would find a basic truth of the Catholic faith tendentious.
How would I know? Do you assume that I belong to the SSPX?
First, the term 'scandal' was not used in any of my posts, I think that you are confusing me with someone else in this area. My use of 'One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic' was in a rather poor paraphrase of GreatOne in post #11 -- 'However, I've developed a better way of putting this - you are either plain old "Catholic", in that you ascribe to all of the teachings of the Catholic Church, or YOU ARE NOT CATHOLIC. The Church is not a political party, where her position on such issues such as abortion, homosexuality, women priests, contraception, etc., depends upon who the pope is at a given time. The Holy Bible and 2000 years of Sacred Tradition have essentially nailed down the Church's position on every issue imaginable, and WILL NOT BE CHANGED.' The point I was trying to make was that if I had posted something like that, I thought you would consider it tendentious. If you do not consider that tendentious, I apologize again.
A statement that certainly makes Mr. Ferrara’s statement in this article seem a bit disingenuous, no?
I'm sure you inadvertently left off the sentence immediately following what you quoted:
What traditionalists have prescinded from are novel practices, notions, attitudes and ecclesial policies of the post-conciliar epoch, none of which are properly the objects of Catholic faith.It appears to me that Mr. Ferrara is saying that he doesn't object to the council, but rather to the ways in which the council was implemented. Then, in the following paragraph, Mr. Ferrara mentions
Pope John Paul's own teaching that traditionalist objections to the ecumenical venture have their place in the Church, even if the Pope does not agree with those objections.and then quotes from the encyclical Redemptor Hominis. If the Pope himself doesn't have a problem with expression of opinions different than his, why do those who condemn the traditionalists have a problem with it?
I have not read We Resist You to the Face and it doesn't appear to be online. As I understand from reading what I can find about it online, they are "resisting" John Paul II, not the council. From the link provided by Proud2bRC
Their resistance is specifically addressed to the Holy Father, in the spirit and example of St. Paul who "resisted St. Peter to his face," because it is the duty of Peter to correct abuses.This description bears little resemblance to the characterization of the work by those who have an axe to grind with respect to the traditionalists.But there is a resistance aimed at inviting the Holy Father to consider the objections presented in Part 1 of this book.
This is an invitation for a respectful dialogue with Church authorities which, it is hoped, will lead to a deceleration of the thrust of the Church that is hurtling toward a pan-christian universal church of man.
Regarding Bishop Fellay's interview, what you read as arrogance I read as exasperation.
We desire a rapprochement on principle, with wide agreement among the Roman hierarchy, not as pawns in a Roman power play during the nadir of an ailing Pontiff.Cardinal Neves calling the SSPX fossils wasn't very charitable, either. I don't know if Mr. Ferrara is a member of the SSPX. I wouldn't equate labelling with arrogance. It is painting with a broad brush which always encompasses many to whom the label does not apply. Although, it seems to be part of human nature to categorize people. It may be shorthand when the parties to the discussion know each other or agree to the categories, but otherwise I see it as laziness and a lack of seriousness.He [Cardinal Hoyos] then gave some examples of how he attacked liberalism in the Church. With these examples I realized that he meant moral liberalism. But he offered no examples of doctrinal liberalism to which he was opposed.
We want to address the roots of our present estrangement. We're not interested in a practical solution that is nothing more than a political game.
My view on it is that people have/are attempting to make the Church like a political party, and attempting to change her teachings. Theologians, bishops, lay organizations, lay people, et. al. can spew all they want, and attempt to create and define opposing "sects" within the Church, when there really are none. That's the nice thing about infalible teachings - they're not going to be changed. Ever. These idiots can try and try and try again, but they're just wasting their time. Not that we shouldn't rise up and defeat them at every turn, but there's a better chance of the Bill of Rights being repealed before the Catholic Church condones homosexuality, abortion, women priests, and all the other little liberal b.s.
This is true of course, which is a satisfaction to us in the Church. This is not an election which can be lost or stolen, thank heaven (literally).
I apologize for my previous reply. Upon reflection, I think Bishop Fellay summed up a more appropriate response - "Truth is not a matter of politics and concessions." Politics is of this world. The (physical) Church is in this world, but should not be of this world. The Church should be proclaiming the Truth, not playing politics. I personally think the official policy of the Church regarding the CPA comes from members of the Curia and not John Paul II. I have no doubt that JPII proclaims the Truth.
I apologize for my previous reply. Upon reflection, I think Bishop Fellay summed up a more appropriate response - "Truth is not a matter of politics and concessions." Politics is of this world. The (physical) Church is in this world, but should not be of this world. The Church should be proclaiming the Truth, not playing politics. I personally think the official policy of the Church regarding the CPA comes from members of the Curia and not John Paul II. I have no doubt that JPII proclaims the Truth.
I was actually referring to the content of the article when I asked if the SSPX thought that the two circumstances regarding schism were similar. They are not. Mr. Ferrara's conclusion is invalid because he uses false premises to reach that conclusion; I believe his arguement, boiled down, is similar to an insolent juvenile asking why his punishment is more severe than his brother's; " It's not fair." I didn't assume you were an SSPXer, just trying to make a point in my usually confusing manner. Mea culpa.
Yes, I did read the interview with Bishop Fellay, soon after "Latin Mass" arrived in my mailbox. I was pleased to see that the pope and Ratzinger ( not surprisingly ) and others supported the Latin mass. I don't view the pope as a hostage to the curia. I believe the decision is his, and I am in no position to doubt his judgement. I have absolute respect for the person and his position. Members of the SSPX obviously don't. It used to be the mass that was the issue. It has grown into much more, as Fellay has noted. Ecumenism, theological doctrine, etc. Now he doesn't want to be a pawn in the political struggle in the nadir of a pontificate. Just another barrier. I don't think that they can ever reach an accord with the Vatican. Simply, they cannot. It would be akin to a Jew accepting Jesus Christ as the messiah. It would be a conversion and why would they convert when they possess the complete truth.
You brought up politics and the church in your latest post. "Truth is not a matter of politics and concessions", says the bishop. Yes, but perhaps its (truth) dissemination in this world is best achieved through that means. I suspect the Vatican has learned that. The SSPX would probably like to issue a Syllabus of Errors and publicly excommunicate pro abortion government officials and other things like that. Yet that kind of blind implementation of the doctrine of the church did nothing to save souls or prevent the great schism of the 16th century. Again, I would have to defer to the pope's decisions concerning how the church is run, how decisions are made, who does what where, when.
It is unrealistic to suggest that politics be removed from the church. You would have to remove humanity itself to accomplish that.
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.