Posted on 07/14/2004 4:48:27 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
Here's a recent related news report:
http://www.fresnobee.com/local/v-printerfriendly/story/8855045p-9743608c.html
Even new-age "Catholic" nuns are being exposed....
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=73070&ran=98275
Thanks for the article. I watched the news last night but must have missed the segment. Bishop Steinbock is playing CYA. He did not state the problem was homosexuality but "addictive behavior". Malarkey. I hope someone is connecting the dots re his ad limina visit to Rome and his special guest, Fr. Lastiri.
Would you like to know who Mahony really is?
Read the essay published here:
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/07-97/america.html
Bernardin, Mahony, Dulles, coup d'ètat
It also points out how deceptive those cardinals and bishops and their allied miniions were and how that led to where we are now.
Sinkspur and Ultima,I have often argued that both of you hold the same dismissive position regards the authority of Peter and the obligations of Catholics to assent to his teachiings. You both have argued that he is only to be obeyed when he either says the same thing as was said whenever or wherever,you chose to stop the clock,or when he speaks ex cathedra. Then you intimate that,that has only occured twice in the last 100 years or so. I would be interested in your takes on this.
Black Elk et al,this kind of covers what we have been saying for many moons on many threads,does it not?
Such sad stories!
You may argue that I have dissented from the teachings of the Magisterium, but you are dead wrong. My arguments cannot remotely be confused with dissent from the Magisterium. Just the opposite! My complaint has always been that it is THE POPE who dissents from the Magisterium--and this is quite another thing! It is HE who disregards doctrinal teachings by introducing novelties and heterodoxies into what he does and says. It is he, for instance, who gave the pectoral cross to the Archbishop of Canterbury, though the Church had previously declared the Archbishop's prelature invalid. It is he who gave Communion publicly to Cherie Blair, a well-known pro-abortion activist and hence a notoriously immoral person--without her having ever renounced her support for abortion. It was the Pope who participated frequently in liturgies and prayers of other religions--in violation of the first commandment and the Magisterial restrictions against syncretism and indifferentism promulgated by previous popes.
What you really don't like is that I dare to criticize the Pope for all this. But it is not unCatholic to do so. In fact, it is consistent with the vigorous opposition of ordinary Catholics throughout Church history who had little patience with pontiffs who behaved badly or in some way compromised the faith. This had been true until relatively recent times. Traditionalists do so by bringing up the facts of John Paul's violations of Catholic tradition, not by opposing those doctrines he may have enunciated which are in keeping with Church teachings. It is his declaration of novelties that we deplore, and bizarre behaviors which imply what is unorthodox. It was HE, for example, who elevated to the cardinalate known heretics. That is not something we are bound to assent to. Nor must we assent to what happened at Assisi I and II. We need not agree that such syncretic and indifferentist events are illustrative of anything but the Pope's own heterodoxy. Nor need we agree that his appointments to the episcopacy of so many bad bishops have been wise or prudent at a time when there has been such a great need for serious reform. It is not improper to state any of this. All this is blameworthy and criticizable. It is certainly not a violation of the Magisterium to say so!
But since you accuse me so falsely, I challenge you to mention ONE SINGLE TEACHING OF THE MAGISTERIUM WHICH I have dissented from. One. A single Catholic doctrine that has ever been taught that I do not hold. You cannot do this, because I don't oppose the Magisterium at all, I only criticize the Pope, which you and others like Black Elk don't like one bit. Yet not only do I adhere to all that has ever been taught by the Catholic Church as binding, but I only dissent from the Pope's novelties which are humanist innovations and are not Catholic truths binding on anybody. In truth, it is the Pope who does the dissenting, not I. That is why good Catholics are forced to oppose him.
I know council documents,bulls,encyclicals and moto proprios contain authoritative teachings of the Church, and as far as I know there has been nothing in any of these documents that are at odds with the teachings of the past. If something official like the aforesaid should be published saying,for example,that future archbishops of Canterbury should always at all times,be awarded a pectoral cross,then I would worry.Along way of saying I don't know where you and the Pope disagree on most issues.
However,the Catholic Catechism is the Pope and Magisterium's presentation to the world of the official teachings of the Church;do you or do you not agree that the Catechism is what the Pope and Magisterium say that it is? As I recall,you have been pretty dismissive of the new Catechism and pronounced it worthless,in a past discussion with me on the subject. Since he directed it be written,approved it,published and introduced it as the authoritative and official teachings of the Caatholic Church and you have done nothing but denigrate it,I would say that you have shown dissent with the Pope.
I don't know what kind of a mystical,magical Magisterium you are talking about. All documents since and including those from Vatican I,look to me like the Pope can speak alone. The Magisterium can never speak if not in union with the Pope,the Magisterium is led by and under Peter.These teachings are not novelty since they are direct from scrripture and are found throughout the writings of the Patristic Fathers as well as in many of the writings of the Doctors of the Church.I know not this headless Magisterium you reference,I know only the one from the three legged stool of Catholicism. Those legs being Scripture,Tradition and the Pope and Magisterium. You can't unhinge the Magisterium from the Pope,no matter,how reasonable and right it seems to you to be.
BTWI was answering your comment of Redemptor Hominis last night when JR and co.went off line and the response went with it. I will try again later.
You bring up the Catechism as if it were the last word on the truths of the Catholic Church. Sadly, it's not--but reflects only part of the truth. This is because it is full of the same ambiguities and lack of clarity that compromise the documents of Vatican II. I therefore would deny it is in full agreement with the Magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. Here's one example of why. Take the following citation: "103. For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body."
This is the Catechism repeating almost word-for-word a passage from Dei Verbum. The problem is it isn't true. The Church has never venerated Scriptures and the Lord's Body in the same way. She has always revered the one, but has ADORED the Other. These are two different modes of showing respect. One is reverence for the Word of God in which Christ is virtually present, the other is worship of Christ Himself in the Real Presence. The two are not the same--though the semantical structure of the Catechetical statement suggests they are, an equation having been set up between Scripture and the bread of life--the latter being in lower case, by the way, deliberately not capitalized. I suggest to you this is a sop to Protestantism, an attempt to minimalize the doctrine of the Real Presence and another example of the many ways in which Catholic belief itself is made ambiguous and unclear for the sake of ecumenical unity. I say that is wrong--it is deceitful. If we hold something to be true, it should be clearly stated loud and clear for all the world to understand--especially a Catechism statement.
Something you should appreciate, and apparently do not, is that NO NEW DOCTRINE can be magisterial, not even if it is an official papal statement. You seem to think that whatever the pope declares is magisterial. This is not true. The Magisterium is not the pope per se. It is the teaching authority of the Church and includes what has been taught as binding by past popes and councils. Only those doctrines of this Pope which align with what has always been taught by the Church through previous popes and councils are therefore infallible and magisterial. All NOVEL theories, therefore, are open to dispute and discussion. Nor can anything novel ever be declared binding if it directly contradicts a Magisterial doctrine already clearly established. This is especially pertinent, for instance, when so many of this Pope's words and actions contradict past papal teachings, as if what had been true before could ever be changed to its opposite. But such actions--for instance, those papal declarations which are syncretic and indifferentist and which you ascribe to mere errors of judgment--are actually a violation of the Magisterium, insofar as they are part of a deliberate papal agenda. These are directly confrontational and show a determined opposition to past Church doctrines. No wonder they shock even Protestants. There is no way to finesse the fact of this just because the Pope is the pope.
But to return to your original charge: you have accused me of denying the Magisterium. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what doctrine I have denied specifically. If you cannot cite an instance, then you owe me an apology. Not that I expect one. Like others on this site, you confuse my telling the truth about this pontificate with denial of Catholicism. It is just the opposite--I am defending the Catholic faith, not denying it.
With regards to you waiting for the specifics of what I charged,you are going to have to wait til the cows come home. I would not have accused you of denying the Maagisterium (whatever that may mean) because I don't see you in particular disagreement with the Magisterium as you define it,which of course seems to lack the leadership of the Pope. To me,it is your contempt for the Pope that I see as a serious obstacle to the health of the One,Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church.
As I have said before,the m.o. of those on either end of the Catholic spectrum (progressive to radical traditionalist) is exactly the same. Neither serves Jesus Christ or His Church and this is very sad,if it is not deliberate,in which case------.
Here's what you said: "The article linked in post #24,is the finest,most accurate description of Catholic teaching vis a vis the Pope and Magisterium and those things to which Catholics must assent...Sinkspur and Ultima,I have often argued that both of you hold the same dismissive position regards the authority of Peter and the obligations of Catholics to assent to his teachiings."
It was you who linked the teachings of the Magisterium to myself. This is simply false. I have never dismissed the Pope's teachings--except when they have conflicted with the teachings of the Magisterium. In such a case, I am not obliged in any way to assent to papal novelties. Nor am I obliged to admire a pontiff who has done much to harm the Church.
Well, well,
It seems you are a disciple of Dulles, that is, Cardinal Dulles. You know that there are two kinds of dissenters, overt (liberals) and covert ones (so-called conservatives). You are of the last kind.
Do you know what your sin is, since so eloquently to ask someone to dare rebuke you? Your sin is Dissent from the Pope and the Councils, Vatican II, that is. You are just like Dulles, a rhetorical dissenter. Your kind is not for the simple minds, as the preaching Bernardin and Mahony scatter through the fields. Your kind is the Freemason style. That is your sin, dissent from the Magisterium and the Traditio, by denying the Pope and the Power of the Holy Spirit within the Church and over the Pope..
We all know what Mahony, Bernardin and their kind say. However, few can discern the evil rhetorics of Dulles. He is the "American Ratzinger", but in our case, he is the Anti-Ratzinger. His kind criticizes Vatican II and its flaws. However, he fails to mention the truth. The truth is that what has failed is the INTERPRETATION of Vatican II by some. The ones like Dulles are the rhetorical dissenters, as I call them. Those are the intellectuals, the illuminati, the ones that claim the "Papacy must be moved to America”.
A bit of history
France, in its glorious days did the same. Remember Avignon? Well, my dear friend, that is the plan, the so-called coup these dissenting bishops have been planning for so long. Arroyo called it a "defacto seism" when he interviewed Ratzinger in American Television (EWTN). The arrogance of a few American Masonic bishops wants to kidnap the Papacy and "bring it to America”, or at least get an "American Pope" elected. Why? Because of pure arrogance on behalf of these new breed of illuminati that have infiltrated the Church.
If you want to learn more, I invite you to visit the first page of a website that makes evident the issue at hand. www.alvear.us
Who is the real enemy of the American Catholic Church? Masons of the so-called "hidden pillar" order.
Sincerely Yours,
Eduardo Alvear
Rome will not help. It approves of Mahony.
Give me a freakin break. I have never said we must be dismissive of the Pope. I have said the Pope doesn't give a damn about what's going on with Mahony et al.--and I am right. I have said the Pope does and says heterodox things--and I am right. I have to laugh when people like yourself confuse infallibility with every hiccup and sneeze emitted by this Pontiff. Get something straight--this Pope has damaged his Church in ways which are impossible to measure. Many many people have quit the Church in utter disgust as a result--and who can blame them? This little tidbit in the news is but a small inkling of the corruption of the whole--none of which the Pope has ever shown any sign of caring about. He has appointed these corrupt men--and still appoints them--and not only these, but apostates as well. People like you encourage what is happening by an overestimation--even worship--of papal authority and an underestimation of Catholic Tradition, applauding every papal aberration and defending these to the hilt. The result is the mess we're living in. You and people like Sinkspur, from whom you separate yourself ideologically, are the true soulmates. Neither of you makes any distinction whatsoever between what is utterly novel and unheard of in the history of the Catholic Church, and the espousal of authentic Catholic teachings. I do.
See my post below--it applies to your dumb charge.
See my post below=see post #34. It's late and I'm getting groggy. That post was meant for you, not saradippity.
Post #34 was not meant for you--but for religiosumobsequium.
Your response is, I believe, what He expects each of us to do, when we become aware of blasphemy and heresy within His Church.
May His wisdom and strength enlighten and make easy your righteous effort......an exercise each of us need to emulate. A post to FR is much like preaching to the choir, with a few exceptions. Reaching out to the mass of American Roman Catholics who have been intentionally made ignorant about the direction of The One True Church is our task.
That really reads as utter nonsense and is representative of the type of non-specific platitudes that defenders of the Revolution like to employ in their arguments. You state that ultima's sin is "dissent," but you fail to mention any particulars about this "sin," instead choosing to paint with a broad brush by accusing him of denying the pope and the charism of infallibility given to the Church by the Holy Ghost under specific circumstances. Neither of these accusations stand up to scrutiny. Would you care to elaborate on your thesis and point out exactly where he has dissented from the true Magisterium of the Church and the Traditions we must hold "whether by word or epistle?"
The answer is here:
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/07-97/america.html
American Catholics have arrived at a crossroads. Those, who stall in the middle of the road by endlessly politicking over the teachings of Vatican II under the guise of "dialogue," risk being left behind in some synthetic national American Catholic Church. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened after a council. No matter how small and poorly financed, the true Church is moving on to the Third Christian Millennium by applying "the teachings of Vatican II to the life of every individual and of the whole Church"-with or without American Catholics.
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.