Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"More Catholic Than the Pope" New Book Responds to Arguments Raised by Extreme Traditionalists
Envoy Encore Weblog ^ | 07-30-04 | Patrick Madrid

Posted on 07/31/2004 3:18:06 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid

Catholic canon lawyer Peter Vere and I have co-authored a new book critiquing the claims and controversies of extreme traditionalism that will come out in September, published by Our Sunday Visitor Publishing.

Written in a popular and accessible style, More Catholic Than the Pope provides a detailed analysis of and response to common arguments raised by extreme traditionalist Catholics (in particular, adherents of the Society of St. Pius X) against the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II, the fact that the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre committed a schismatic act by illicitly ordaining four bishops in 1988, and more. Chapters include a history of the SSPX, a background on the controversy between the SSPX and the so-called "Conciliar Church," and answers to several standard canon-law and historical arguments often raised by extreme traditionalists.

Our hope is that, by God's grace, the evidence presented in this new 224-page book will inform, encourage, and strengthen Catholics who have been shaken or confused by the misguided arguments raised against the Catholic Church by some extreme traditionalists and, with regard to those who have adopted a schismatic mindset, that this book will help them recognize the errors of extreme traditionalist groups, help them to see why they should abandon those errors, and help them come home to the Catholic Church.

Additional details on More Catholic Than the Pope will be available soon at Envoy Encore weblog.


TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events; Ecumenism; General Discusssion; History; Ministry/Outreach; Other Christian; Religion & Culture; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholicism; christ; church; eucharist; jesus; liturgy; mass; sspx; tradition; traditionalism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 701-705 next last
To: pascendi
have unambiguously pointed out the obvious, which is that the hierarchy of the Church has from top to bottom deviated from said Deposit of Faith

C'mon, admit it. You think you are Catherine of Siena.

Just in case, though, please provide documentation that the Hierarchy, from top to bottom (inclusive, I presume) has "deviated" from the Deposit of Faith.

It is more and more evident that despite your claims to the contrary, your membership in the Church of Rome is tenuous, at best.

Checking out the minor and leaky raft of the SSPX in preference to the Barque?

401 posted on 08/02/2004 10:54:14 AM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: GratianGasparri
"Then I strongly suggest your side stick to the topic at hand. Remember, our side did not raise the issue to begin with. Rather, it was your side that kept posting this false and malicious rumor in an attempt to undermine the credibility of one of the authors."

I'll state it again. I side with anyone who sides with the Deposit of Faith and proper liturgical practice.

If you're side isn't my side, this should indicate something. That is the topic, and I am sticking to it.
402 posted on 08/02/2004 10:56:00 AM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Dominick

Wrong. If any "excommunication" were declared, it would be a nullity which I would ignore without any culpability whatsoever. You are really saying that Rome has the power to say whatever it wants to say and can declare someone schismatic who isn't. But you are wrong. It can certainly say whatever it wants to say. But it has no power to make what is right, wrong, or what is true, false. In other words, no pope is supreme against Divine Law. Justice alone can determine the reality of an excommunication--nothing else.


403 posted on 08/02/2004 11:02:36 AM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
"C'mon, admit it. You think you are Catherine of Siena. Just in case, though, please provide documentation that the Hierarchy, from top to bottom (inclusive, I presume) has "deviated" from the Deposit of Faith."

You mean, you want me to provide documentation that the Church has deviated from the Deposit of Faith, in case I might think I'm Catherine of Siena? I don't get it.

"It is more and more evident that despite your claims to the contrary, your membership in the Church of Rome is tenuous, at best."

Judica me, ninenot. Tell you what. You provide evidence for this, and I'll provide you evidence that the hierarchy, from top to bottom, has been deviating in word and deed from the Deposit of Faith. In the great meantime, I'll just keep attending my Indult.

Deal?
404 posted on 08/02/2004 11:07:49 AM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: ninenot

"Prithee"?


405 posted on 08/02/2004 11:08:41 AM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Wrong. If any "excommunication" were declared, it would be a nullity which I would ignore without any culpability whatsoever. You are really saying that Rome has the power to say whatever it wants to say and can declare someone schismatic who isn't. But you are wrong. It can certainly say whatever it wants to say. But it has no power to make what is right, wrong, or what is true, false.

In other words, the Pope can say I am in Schism, but since I know better I am not. You get the prize for the weakest argument since Henry VIII said, "I really really really need this divorce!"

The point is if you recognize it or not, it is real. The Divine Law that is operative is that the Pope has the power to bind and loose, and the Pope has mad it clear the SSPX is not Catholic.
406 posted on 08/02/2004 11:10:33 AM PDT by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: Dominick; ultima ratio
"The Divine Law that is operative is that the Pope has the power to bind and loose, and the Pope has mad it clear the SSPX traditional Catholicism is not Catholic."

Is this what you really mean to say?
407 posted on 08/02/2004 11:14:23 AM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: ninenot; sinkspur
"You discern a "flaw" in the Sacrifice? Prithee, demonstrate."

Don't take my word for it, rather read the words of Cardinal Ottoviani, in his much quoted 'intervention'. And that was against the much more pious Mass than the one we finally ended up with. If you two think the clown Masses we see today are as perfect as the Tridentine Mass, then even talking to you is a waste of time.

Bugnini was banished because of his ties to masonry, and your bringing up the conspiracy bugaboo doesn't change that. If you can't refute, then ridicule?

And Paul VI was 'banished' by Pius XII to a plum See because of his involvement, in secret, with communists, against strict orders not to. Pius never gave him his red hat, despite the importance of the See. He only got it because he had made friends with John XXIII. (This all happened before they were made Pope, obviously, but I just can't recall their pre Pope names at the moment)

So if you want to ridicule the conspiracy theory thing, you just show your own ignorance - or your true colors.

408 posted on 08/02/2004 11:18:53 AM PDT by Arguss (Take the narrow road)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: Arguss
So if you want to ridicule the conspiracy theory thing, you just show your own ignorance - or your true colors.

You just continue to get further out there, Arguss.

Ottaviani rebuked his "intervention." Now, you'll come back and say somebody made him sign something against his will, but, see, I can always predict what a conspiracist will say.

One can never beat a conspiracist in an argument, because there's always another boogey man around the corner.

409 posted on 08/02/2004 11:25:38 AM PDT by sinkspur (It is time to breed the dangerous Pit Bull Terrier out of existence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: Dominick

"In other words, the Pope can say I am in Schism, but since I know better I am not."

OF COURSE I know better! Who knows my heart better than myself? This is exactly what the Pope was trying to claim regarding the SSPX--"I know better than Archbishop Lefebvre what was in Archbishop Lefebvre's heart." That is impossible on the surface. He COULD NOT know the Archbishop's heart better than the Archbishop who insisted he was not consecrating in order to deny the Pope's legitimacy, but to defend the traditional faith. If the Pope wanted to proclaim such a thing, he had a moral obligation to call a tribunal to air the issue openly. Instead he relied on a latae sententiae decree that was by its nature a matter of the individual's own conscience. The Pope has no access to the human heart in actions which are not inherently evil.


410 posted on 08/02/2004 11:26:33 AM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

Dear sinkspur,

"One can never beat a conspiracist in an argument, because there's always another boogey man around the corner."

Actually, the technical term for this is the non-falsifiability of a hypothesis.

Evidence for the conspiracy is taken as just that: evidence for the conspiracy. Evidence that tells against the conspiracy is re-interpreted as evidence that the conspiracy is all the more effective; the conspiracy is even able to produce "counter-factual evidence" ostensibly disproving the conspiracy.

When you've reached that point regarding any topic, it's time to resort to psychotropic drugs.


sitetest


411 posted on 08/02/2004 11:31:25 AM PDT by sitetest (That, and a whole lot of therapy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: Dominick

Let me give you an analogy. Breaking and entering a private house is unlawful in most circumstances. But if the house is on fire and some people are trapped inside, and if I break and enter in order to save those people, I am NOT guilty of any offense. If I am nevertheless accused by authorities of breaking and entering, whereas in fact I was entering to save the lives of people trapped inside, it would be the authorities who would be morally wrong, not I. They would be acting unjustly.

You are saying the Pope is right simply because he is the lawful authority, not because there is justice in his claims against SSPX. That is a narrow and unjust perception--the essence of Pharisaic thinking. Technically, there is an offense--but morally there is none.


412 posted on 08/02/2004 11:35:49 AM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; Arguss
Sinkspur... are you still trying to use references to conspiracy theory to distract from the real issues of bad prelates, suppression of Catholic Doctrine, and suppression of the traditional Latin Mass?
413 posted on 08/02/2004 12:06:04 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"One can never beat a conspiracist in an argument, because there's always another boogey man around the corner."

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't following me.

Just responded to your assertion that there were no Masonists. That's of course ridiculous. Haven't you ever seen all those clowns tumbling out of a volkswagon? ;^)

Just for the record, are you saying Bugnini wasn't a Mason? That Bishop Montini wasn't censured by Pius for conspiring secretly with communists? That these two facts might not account for something? That you are not a total socialist, trying to appear orthodox, denying that the true Church did not appear until 1962?

414 posted on 08/02/2004 12:26:02 PM PDT by Arguss (Take the narrow road)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: pascendi; Arguss
Sinkspur... are you still trying to use references to conspiracy theory to distract...

No. That would be Arguss.

415 posted on 08/02/2004 12:26:43 PM PDT by sinkspur (It is time to breed the dangerous Pit Bull Terrier out of existence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: Arguss
Just for the record, are you saying Bugnini wasn't a Mason? That Bishop Montini wasn't censured by Pius for conspiring secretly with communists? That these two facts might not account for something?

No. They account for nothing to thinking Catholics.

But, to conspiracists, ah, they are the explanation for all evil.

416 posted on 08/02/2004 12:29:03 PM PDT by sinkspur (It is time to breed the dangerous Pit Bull Terrier out of existence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Let me give you an analogy. Breaking and entering a private house is unlawful in most circumstances. But if the house is on fire and some people are trapped inside, and if I break and enter in order to save those people, I am NOT guilty of any offense.

Except the owner of the house says there is no fire., he was BBQing out back. The fire department came out on a false alarm.

There is a crisis in the Church, people pick and choose. The Mass isn't the problem, it is people not believing that the Church is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic. If people really understood that as the Church is Unified in God's Grace, for all men everywhere, from the time of Christ, we would all act differently.

The SSPX is trying to run off with the property of the Church claiming it is no longer Holy, and that only the 1962 Missal is a Holy Mass. In that analogy the SSPX broke in thinking there was a fire and took property not belonging to it, then claiming it was destroyed in the fire.

You are saying the Pope is right simply because he is the lawful authority, not because there is justice in his claims against SSPX.

On the face, the SSPX is claiming something it isn't entitled to claim. You must have to Pope's consent to be in union with him. Only Christians in Union with the Pope can call themselves Catholic, that is, with the Church of Christ started by Christ for all mankind. Being in Union with the Pope requires not just lip service, but actual service.

Furthermore, the SSPX commits a fraud against frightened Catholic lay people, telling them the Church is no longer following Christ's plan, the Novus Ordo is flawed, and that the Pope is committing acts of paganism, without a shred of real proof. People are scared, and the SSPX depends on this fear, just like Satan depends on fear.
417 posted on 08/02/2004 12:43:40 PM PDT by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; Arguss
I guess St. Maximilian Kolbe was one of these "conspiracists" too, since he believed Freemasonry was the origin of many of the evils of modernism....

From the Militia Immaculatae's website: TEN REASONS CATHOLICS CANNOT BE MASONS

418 posted on 08/02/2004 12:47:03 PM PDT by Pyro7480 (Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, sancta Dei Genitrix.... sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Well, Mother Teresa didn't like communion in the hand either.

Saints are models for their exemplary spirituality, not their personal opinions.

There is a difference between saying that Catholics should not belong to an organization that's anti-Catholic, and saying that the Masons took over the the Congregation for Divine Worship.

Surely you see the difference.

419 posted on 08/02/2004 12:51:05 PM PDT by sinkspur (It is time to breed the dangerous Pit Bull Terrier out of existence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; Pyro7480
"Well, Mother Teresa didn't like communion in the hand either. Saints are models for their exemplary spirituality, not their personal opinions."

Here's another example of bait-and-switch. Mother Teresa is consistantly paraded out as an example of the pending saint of the new liturgy and theology. If any traditionalist dares ask a question or two concerning her, they would have experienced less of a backlash sticking their face into a hornet's nest.

But when it comes to Mother Teresa standing against Communion in the Hand, a stand in complete alignment with any traditionalist's litany of grievances... it's just her personal opiiiinion. Nothing to immitate, of course.
420 posted on 08/02/2004 1:17:40 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Sounds like the good professor is storing his treasure for Heaven. "Yeah. All that trashing of John Paul II is gonna look good when he meets St. Peter."

As will yours, of the professor.

421 posted on 08/02/2004 1:32:24 PM PDT by Pio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Can you tell me more about peter vere? I've never heard of him.

Peter Vere is a very ambitious self promoter. He is an ex-Satanist and also former SSPX adherent. On his weblog he says that he spends his free time reading horror novels, playing drinking games and watching professional wrestling. I think I will take a pass on any spiritual direction he has to offer.

422 posted on 08/02/2004 1:37:00 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish

This is outright libel, sir. Pete Vere, who is a friend of mine, says that his wife, Sonya, has never had an abortion.

You made the same accusation in a previous post, but failed to provide a link to prove it.

I will (once again) complain to the moderator about your posts on this matter.


423 posted on 08/02/2004 1:39:15 PM PDT by mattcabbott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Viva Christo Rey; Coleus; Land of the Irish
Along the way he studied in Canada at the most liberal canon law factory in the entire disgusting novus ordo swamp.

Oh yes, that's correct. Vere has written repeatedly about his debt to his mentor who has now been defrocked as an admitted homosexual abuser. "Adoremus" wrote about how Vere's ex-priest homosexual mentor was a one-man wrecking crew destroying the Catholic liturgy all across the United States from his base in Canada.

424 posted on 08/02/2004 1:41:46 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mattcabbott; Land of the Irish

After that, could we then talk about how his book may be seeking to pour gasoline on a fire in the Church that's already well out of control?


425 posted on 08/02/2004 1:42:37 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: pascendi

It's one thing to take issue with someone's position(s) on certain matters; but such a libelous statement crosses the line - big time.


426 posted on 08/02/2004 1:47:44 PM PDT by mattcabbott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 425 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
"Adoremus" wrote about how Vere's ex-priest homosexual mentor was a one-man wrecking crew destroying the Catholic liturgy all across the United States from his base in Canada.

Perhaps a little context is in order. 1) Vere wrote these comments before the details about his mentor's past became general knowledge. Vere was as surprised as anyone else. 2) As most North American canonists are aware, his mentor was more of a liturgical libertarian than a liturgical liberal. Back in the late 80's and early 90's when most canonists were arguing that Ecclesia Dei adflicta applied only to the Mass, Vere's mentor was the only canonist of any stature who argued that this position was incorrect and that the Holy Father had now expanded the indult to include the six other sacraments. Subsequently, he equipped Vere and about a half dozen other traditionalist canonists to argue their case within the canon law world. They were successful, and today the expanded permissions is taken for granted by most in the Church.
427 posted on 08/02/2004 1:53:49 PM PDT by GratianGasparri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

What I like about these forums is that people are free to ignore the stcky points, and answer instead that which they can easily dismiss.

There are, of course, logistically implausible and just plain silly conspiracy theories. Yet, as the widespread homosexual infiltration of the postconciliar Church attests, the idea that evil men never seek each other out to work together is sillier still.

Moreover, the insistence of liberal propagandists that there is no Masonic conspiracy (aided and abetted by fellow-travellers like themselves) is doubtless the greatest conspiracy of all.

As so many of our Shepherds have themselves embraced Modernity, it might be said that all these conspiracy theories are now superfluous. Their job is finished.

With the secular liberal mindset so entrenched within the Church the whole infiltration/subversion thesis has become purely academic.
Everybody thinks the Holy Ghost thought of all this stuff.

The Communists and Masons have all died or gone home, and left the useful idiots to carry on - and write books. Carry on!


428 posted on 08/02/2004 1:55:43 PM PDT by Arguss (Take the narrow road)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Look, NYer, you are attacking a fellow freeper for simply repeating public knowledge. Self-promoters like Vere are always ready to tell you all about their past life. Several times in the past I have posted links to Vere's blog where he talks about his current lifestyle that is far from saintly. He has written many times about the debt he owes to the homosexual ex-priest who perhaps did more than anyone else to destroy the Catholic Mass.

Here is a concrete example: homosexual rapist ex-priest Fr. Huels not only taught Peter Vere everything he knows about canon law, he also pioneered the canon law practice of "making a path by walking on it." That means that you do something first, and get permission later. If everyone in the US and/or Canada is using altar girls and distributing communion in the hand, then sooner or later canon law will catch up with the practice and approve of what's being done. Huels travelled around the United States as the single most influential "liturgist" promoting precisely these practices. Meanwhile back at the rectory, he was perpetrating homosexual attacks on innocent young novices to his Servite order.

So this is the background and training that Vere represents when he writes a book like "More Catholic than the Pope." This is the factual history. Your attacks on a fellow freeper like Land of the Irish are not going to change the reality of that history.

429 posted on 08/02/2004 2:00:15 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: GratianGasparri
Vere hasn't had anything to do with satanism for almost fifteen years now.

That's probably true about actual hard-core Satanism. But his own blog says that his current lifestyle includes playing drinking games and being a very big fan of horror fiction and professional wrestling. And what about his apprenticeship under Huels, the man who was sexually attacking young seminarians while travelling the country to teach various dioceses how to deconstruct the Catholic Mass? To me that sounds worse than Satanism, because its more real and more directly aimed at the heart of the Catholic faith.

430 posted on 08/02/2004 2:10:33 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: mattcabbott; Land of the Irish
This is outright libel, sir. Pete Vere, who is a friend of mine, says that his wife, Sonya, has never had an abortion.

Is this where I say it sounded like a lie?
431 posted on 08/02/2004 2:12:32 PM PDT by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: Arguss
I have a further question for you?

Is George W. Bush in on this Masonic conspiracy because he used the same Bible for his inauguration as George Washington did (and, of course, Washington was a Mason)?

432 posted on 08/02/2004 2:13:55 PM PDT by sinkspur (It is time to breed the dangerous Pit Bull Terrier out of existence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
My God, these people would have me burned and cast away as dross probably - even if I've repented and gone and sinned no more.

You've missed the point. Hopefully you don't go around writing books that accuse other Catholics of being "More Catholic than the Pope." But if you do, then your own credentials would be fair game.

Peter Vere could go to church every Sunday and repent of his past life, and be a good Catholic, and no one is going to criticize him for it. But when someone with his past -- and his present -- publicly accuses OTHERS of not being good Catholics, then the hypocrisy meter has just swung all the way off the chart.

433 posted on 08/02/2004 2:16:02 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian; NYer
"Here is a concrete example: homosexual rapist ex-priest Fr. Huels not only taught Peter Vere everything he knows about canon law..."

But now Vere, not the magisterium of the Church, mind you, is going to tell traditional Catholics his take on things. And people are supposed to soak all this up as the answer to modernism's unparalled reign of terror against Holy Mother Church.

Well if he was wrong about Fr. Huels, then it's more than possible he may be wrong in his book about the good people called traditional Catholics as well. It just stands to reason; guess we'll just have to wait and read it.

Here's your lay magisterium. The lay magisterium made of of lay Catholic apologists like Vere and Madrid and Keating and all the rest, who have no Holy Order, and therefore no authority or grace of office. Yet all the good Neo's of the world look to these laypeople as magisterium, while the real magisterium does nothing but turn their backs on the flock. This lay-magisterium is elected by popular vote of the so-called conservative Catholic population; here's your democratized Catholic Church coming in from an angle probably no one may have suspected.
434 posted on 08/02/2004 2:24:20 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: Bead

Should we refer to you as "Venerable Bead"?


435 posted on 08/02/2004 2:25:27 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: pascendi
Well if he was wrong about Fr. Huels, then it's more than possible he may be wrong in his book about the good people called traditional Catholics as well.

The book is not about traditional Catholics.

It is about schismatics and sedevacantists.

You continue to blur the difference.

436 posted on 08/02/2004 2:30:20 PM PDT by sinkspur (It is time to breed the dangerous Pit Bull Terrier out of existence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

Hey, I could tell you what the difference actually is.


437 posted on 08/02/2004 2:33:38 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; pascendi
It is about schismatics and sedevacantists.

Written in a popular and accessible style, More Catholic Than the Pope provides a detailed analysis of and response to common arguments raised by extreme traditionalist Catholics (in particular, adherents of the Society of St. Pius X) against the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II, the fact that the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre committed a schismatic act by illicitly ordaining four bishops in 1988, and more. Chapters include a history of the SSPX, a background on the controversy between the SSPX and the so-called "Conciliar Church," and answers to several standard canon-law and historical arguments often raised by extreme traditionalists.

We'll see how he defines "extreme traditionalist." I have a feeling it's going to be more than those you name.

438 posted on 08/02/2004 2:33:47 PM PDT by Pyro7480 (Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, sancta Dei Genitrix.... sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: GratianGasparri; Bai Mac.
Because while he personally doesn't mind engaging in a little public controversy, he doesn't want his family dragged into it on his account.

Hypocrisy typical of all these neo-Catholic "apostalates." He is more than happy to use his family in his efforts at self promotion when it suits his purpose. But if someone points out the hypocrisy in this project, he tries to act like a wounded victim.

Just like Bai MacFarland who came on this forum to promote her own neo-Catholic apostolate of "saving marriage." She was more than happy to publish the story of her own impending divorce on the front page of the Cleveland Plain Dealer when it served her own interests. But when someone pointed out the beam in her own eye that she ought to remove before she started removing the specks in others' eyes, she got defensive and complained about invasion of privacy.

Is Envoy going to go the way of Catholicity and The Mary Foundation?

439 posted on 08/02/2004 2:36:12 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: mattcabbott
This is outright libel, sir. Pete Vere, who is a friend of mine, says that his wife, Sonya, has never had an abortion.

The posters on this thread, who are against the Pope, thrive on scandal. That is all they have to go on. They love scandal and distortion.

440 posted on 08/02/2004 2:38:02 PM PDT by M007
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
In your quote, he didn't name sedevacantists. He'll likely include them too.

He might also go after the "Catholic integrists," like Ferrara, and Michael Matt and his whole Remnant and "we resist you to your face" crowd.

Many of them attend SSPX Masses, but call themselves "traditionalist Catholics" and spend their lives trashing the Pope and the Church.

441 posted on 08/02/2004 2:39:40 PM PDT by sinkspur (It is time to breed the dangerous Pit Bull Terrier out of existence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian; Land of the Irish; Coleus
Oh yes, that's correct. Vere has written repeatedly about his debt to his mentor who has now been defrocked as an admitted homosexual abuser. "Adoremus" wrote about how Vere's ex-priest homosexual mentor was a one-man wrecking crew destroying the Catholic liturgy all across the United States from his base in Canada.

This same 'mentor' [COUGH] is the source of the 'SSPX is schismatic' garbage that Vere is now pushing as his own.

442 posted on 08/02/2004 2:40:12 PM PDT by Viva Christo Rey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: GratianGasparri
our side did not raise the issue to begin with.

"Your side" -- which includes Peter Vere -- decided that you felt comfortable placing yourselves in the position of attacking traditional Catholics and deciding who is really Catholic.

443 posted on 08/02/2004 2:40:27 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480; sinkspur
"We'll see how he defines "extreme traditionalist." I have a feeling it's going to be more than those you name." More than a safe bet, I'd say.
444 posted on 08/02/2004 2:41:29 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 438 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
It is more and more evident that despite your claims to the contrary, your membership in the Church of Rome is tenuous, at best.

More self-proclaimed inquisitors who are willing to excommunicate other Catholics! I see you fit in nicely with Madrid, Vere and the rest of the neo-Catholic inquisition like Karl Keating. You might think your tag line is funny, but really it is a damning indictment of your own hypocrisy and pride.

445 posted on 08/02/2004 2:43:11 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: M007

It would seem so.


446 posted on 08/02/2004 2:44:57 PM PDT by mattcabbott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: M007; mattcabbott
"The posters on this thread, who are against the Pope, thrive on scandal."

Betcha if I ask you specifically what you mean when you say "against the Pope" that you wouldn't be able to state exactly what you mean by that.

What in particular are they against? When the truth comes out, it'll be that they're simply against modernist assaults on doctrine and destruction of the liturgy.

What else could it possibly be?
447 posted on 08/02/2004 2:47:24 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

Well, I see I've brought you to an impass, and exposed you for the Marxist tool (useful idiot) that you are.

I do commend you for admitting it though.


448 posted on 08/02/2004 2:48:10 PM PDT by Arguss (Take the narrow road)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; Pyro7480
"He might also go after the "Catholic integrists," like Ferrara, and Michael Matt and his whole Remnant and "we resist you to your face" crowd."

There you go: Catholic Integrists. Another term promulgated not by the magisterium of the Catholic Church, but a concoction of the new LayMagisterium.
449 posted on 08/02/2004 2:50:28 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: GratianGasparri
Vere wrote these comments before the details about his mentor's past became general knowledge. Vere was as surprised as anyone else.

Yes, but he was still the same person. We must assume that Vere didn't know about the sexual attacks on novice seminarians, but he did take his direction from a man who was in fact committing these attacks, and who was the kind of man who would do these things, since he did in fact do them. Moreover, his liturgical destruction was public knowledge. His visits to American diocese were well-publicized events. His private life may have been unknown, but no one could claim to be unaware of his public life.

As most North American canonists are aware, his mentor was more of a liturgical libertarian than a liturgical liberal.

Is this supposed to be a good thing? Sorry, but that is not traditional Catholicism by any means. Ultimately in the long run ,"liturgical libertarianism" is bound to be just as destructive as "liturgical liberalism," even if some small quotient of traditionalism is mixed in. And it causes more intellectual confusion. Better to have a clear distinction -- and a clear choice -- between tradition and liberalism.

450 posted on 08/02/2004 2:50:58 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 351-400401-450451-500 ... 701-705 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