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 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 701-705 next last
To: Arguss
Well, I see I've brought you to an impass, and exposed you for the Marxist tool (useful idiot) that you are.

LOL! So now, anyone who thinks conspiracists are "out there" is a Marxist?

Be careful Arguss. Don't eat dinner tonight.

The fork you use might have been made by a Mason.

451 posted on 08/02/2004 2:51:58 PM PDT by sinkspur (It is time to breed the dangerous Pit Bull Terrier out of existence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | 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.

Well, I'm not going to argue with the first part of your comment. As one of his classmates, I warned him against taking up Huels' position -- especially against the well-known conservative canonist Fr. William Woestman.

Unfortunately, Vere was convinced that Huels was right in asserting that Ecclesia Dei applied to all seven sacraments, and that Woestman (who argued it only applied to the Mass) was wrong. The reason I advised Vere not to side with Woestman was two-fold: 1) I thought Woestman was right, and 2) Traditionalists are a cranky lot who would reject any association with Huels, even when he was advancing their position. Of course, neither of us had any knowledge of Huels' past at the time, but I just sensed that traddyland would be ungrateful for what Huels did to help his traditionalist students like Vere to advance the indult.

Although Huels has now been vindicated with regards to #1, as even Woestman has come over to Huels' side of the debate, my warning concerning #2 has more than come to pass. Had I been Vere, rather than defend an expanded use of the indult, I simply would have switched sides and backed Woestman and the conservatives.
452 posted on 08/02/2004 3:04:33 PM PDT by GratianGasparri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 434 | View Replies]

To: GratianGasparri
Well, when y'all get done goofing off, maybe you could knock some heads together and get the traditional Latin Mass back into the parishes and get rid of this burden called the Novus Ordo Missae. That is, assuming that the prelates are going to keep doing nothing like they have been, and leaving the fate of the Church in your hands.

At any rate, don't forget to bring the Deposit of Faith with you when you go to work fixing everything for us. =)
453 posted on 08/02/2004 3:17:12 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
We must assume that Vere didn't know about the sexual attacks on novice seminarians...

None of us did. We all held Huels in high esteem, even though we did not always agree with him. Huels was a great teacher who treated everyone fairly. The traditionalists (and keep in mind that Vere was one of about four or five in his class) all shared Vere's respect for Huels because he treated them with respect, was objective in terms of grading, and traditionalists tended to rank at the top of his class. In time, the other profs came to appreciate the traditionalists in the programme, but Huels was the first to really reach out to them. So pretty much everyone from the class will say the same thing -- they are very disappointed by what it turns out Huels had done, but they continue to respect him as a professor of canon law.

Is this supposed to be a good thing?

No. And you won't get any argument from me here. As I mentioned in another response, I warned Vere and the other traditionalists at the time that allowing the liturgical libertarians to defend the traditionalist cause would later come back to haunt traditionalists. (Although admittedly, I never envisioned it would happen like this.) While it would have taken much longer for the indult to gain footing (think Europe), it would not have raised as many eyebrows.
454 posted on 08/02/2004 3:18:19 PM PDT by GratianGasparri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
Do you think the book will include Fr. Huels argument that an inudlt is required to celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass?
455 posted on 08/02/2004 3:20:36 PM PDT by Bellarmine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: pascendi
Well, when y'all get done goofing off, maybe you could knock some heads together and get the traditional Latin Mass back into the parishes and get rid of this burden called the Novus Ordo Missae.

Not being a traditionalist, it's not my problem. And seeing how Vere, who happens to be one of the biggest promoters of the indult within the canon law world, often gets traddy knickers in knots, I have no intention of making it my problem.
456 posted on 08/02/2004 3:22:28 PM PDT by GratianGasparri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: pascendi
Judica me,

Et discerne causa mea de gente non sancta

That means the excommunicandi...

Where's the documentation? YOU claim that the entire Hierarchy "has strayed." You mean they are apostate?

457 posted on 08/02/2004 3:31:40 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: Arguss
Don't take my word for it, rather read the words of Cardinal Ottoviani

I've read it. Ottaviani NEVER said that the Sacrifice was 'flawed' in the proposed NO, nor would he EVER state that it IS "flawed" in the current NO.

To do so, of course, is heresy.P>Further, as you should know, Bugger Bugnini was banished--and his friend, Rembert Weakland was banished, too, causing white martyrdom for a whole LOTTA Catholics in Baghdad and Milwaukee.

So what?

THEIR banishment has nothing whatever to do with the liceity OR the validity of a Canonized Rite.

458 posted on 08/02/2004 3:35:38 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: sitetest; sinkspur
it's time to resort to psychotropic drugs.

Usually at that point, I resort to a quart or two of Black Jack. Cheaper, and better results.

459 posted on 08/02/2004 3:37:49 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: GratianGasparri
Let me ask you a very simple question.

Why is so much effort being put into this?

The seeds of the solution to all problems are so simple. It's so unbelievably simple.

The pope simply needs to use the Chair and say: Hey, this isn't working. We've strayed from the Deposit of Faith. We've allowed our liturgy to be trashed. My bishops have, in all likely, simply lost the Faith. Others scandalize the world. My flock knows virtually nothing about their Faith, and they believe even less. We're courting false religions who in turn defile our own House. Today, this all stops, because I'm the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church, and enough is enough.

But no, we have to have people debate over the size of the scraps thrown from the discussion table to the dog traditionalists.

You do realize how stupid this all really is, don't you?
460 posted on 08/02/2004 3:38:04 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: GratianGasparri
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.

VERY interesting. Do you have a cc. of the opinion?

461 posted on 08/02/2004 3:41:58 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: GratianGasparri
Huels was a great teacher who treated everyone fairly.

Your explanation seems fair and reasonable. It should serve as an object lesson regarding being fooled by charismatic personalities and allowing them to overcome one's principles. Or as an object lesson regarding an even greater problem, not knowing the principles in the first place, so you don't realize that this charming character has just charmed your pants off.

For example, Bill Clinton is supposedly a very winning person. If one had him for a professor, I'm sure even many hardened traditionalists would be won over. My Dad met Ted Kennedy one time, and he said that he could easily get Eskimoes to buy iceboxes from him.

We see the world-wide spectacle of a cult of personality revolving around the current pontiff. But is he really upholding Catholic principles, or has he charmed the pants right off the Catholic population?

And to get back to Huels, at the same time that he was winning over the enthusiasm of his students, he was teaching liturgical functionaries in virtually every diocese of the US and Canada how they could overcome any pesky canonical restrictions that stood in the way of liturgical wreckovation. He was clearly an agent of the revolution, even if he was fair in his grading. These are the most dangerous of all characters. I'm sure that one would have found Kim Philby to be an outstanding teacher if one happened to take a course from him.

And the hardest thing of all is to take a stand against a popular and charming person because you recognize that his principles are fundamentally flawed. Everyone will look askance at your "attacks" on this wonderful person. My own wife used to be shocked by the things I would say about the pope -- namely that his principles are fundamentally not Catholic. And to take an example that's even more controversial here on FR, try saying that George Bush is not really pro-life, he's only marginally less pro-death than Al Gore or John Kerry.

John Huels was an evil double agent working within the Church for its own destruction. Someone with Catholic principles would have recognized that before he was exposed as a homosexual rapist of novice seminarians. This post-conciliar revolution has been a learning experience for all of us, and I know that I've been fooled before by those who claimed they were fixing the problems in the Church when really they were undermining Catholic doctrine and practice. But at least I hope I've learned enough from that experience to avoid writing books that accuse others of being "More Catholic than the Pope."

462 posted on 08/02/2004 3:42:15 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian

Personally, I don't care if Vere is CURRENTLY a Satanist.

However, your logic is sadly lacking.

If Vere presents a solidly-documented TRUTH, it is the TRUTH we must pay attention to; not Vere.

Your line of argumentation is used by FutureChurch: 'since the Bishops played hide-the-boy-rapist, the Bishops are incapable of moral judgments in all affairs.'

Ridiculous.


463 posted on 08/02/2004 3:46:08 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian; ArrogantBustard; drstevej; BlackElk; CAtholic Family Association; GirlShortstop; ...

I have no qualms whatsoever with the prospect of burning heretics while admitting sins. Keeps the confessional warm during the winter.


464 posted on 08/02/2004 3:49:01 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: ninenot; Maximilian
"Personally, I don't care if Vere is CURRENTLY a Satanist."

lol! Now I've heard it all. Wait... maybe I shouldn't say that just yet.
465 posted on 08/02/2004 3:50:14 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian

An outstanding post, outstanding! You fight the good fight well, and there's no doubt about that.


466 posted on 08/02/2004 3:51:02 PM PDT by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian; GratianGasparri

A perfect post.


467 posted on 08/02/2004 3:53:10 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: pascendi

See if I have this straight. I offhandedly set up a logic discussion by stating that I don't care if X is a satanist, as long as his documentation and case is irrefutable.

OTOH, YOU claim that the entire Hierarchy is [apostate.]

And you think MY post is ridiculous.

Hmmmmm...


468 posted on 08/02/2004 3:57:20 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian

I do hope you're not placing the saintly Pope John Paul II in the same category as Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy...


469 posted on 08/02/2004 4:00:39 PM PDT by mattcabbott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: ninenot

Yes, I do think your post was ridiculous.

Apostasy is the complete and total repudiation of the Catholic Faith.

Now is this what was put forth, or was the idea put forth that the hierarchy, from top to bottom, has deviated in varying degrees from the Deposit of Faith and proper liturgical practice?


470 posted on 08/02/2004 4:06:14 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 468 | View Replies]

To: ninenot; maximillian
Your line of argumentation is used by FutureChurch: 'since the Bishops played hide-the-boy-rapist, the Bishops are incapable of moral judgments in all affairs.'

Whether or not the enemy futurechurch believes this, it is how I was taught... you're either credible or you're not.

A broker I worked with, who was also a pastor (who had a great deal of influence over me in business) told me a story once.

They were getting ready to put together a deal that was worth at that time (around 1992) several millions dollars, and they decided to go to lunch to discuss some of the details.

The one who was to be on the receiving end of the several million ordered a piece of pie and later discovered the waitress had forgotten to put it on his bill. He told the others how he had gotten away with paying for the pie (around $1.50).

The other party to the transaction informed my broker that the $1.50 piece of pie had just cost the guy who ate it several million dollars. If you can't trust someone to not rip-off a shop owner for a buck fifty, how are you going to trust them with the big bucks.

That was a very expensive piece of pie.

If you can't trust a supposed man of God to protect big things such as the protecting the lives of children against criminal homosexual predators, how on earth can you trust him with anything at any time ever?

They deserve millstones around their necks, never trust.

471 posted on 08/02/2004 4:07:30 PM PDT by AAABEST (Lord have mercy on us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: pascendi
Why is so much effort being put into this?

Truth be told, that's my question as well. The traditionalists represent such a small minority, and they aren't growing nearly as quickly as the conservatives. And while the canon law establishment was initially suspicious of having Vere aboard, especially given his SSPX past and his enthusiasm toward the indult, it's not like they haven't warmed up to him since then. Heck, he gets away with stuff that even a lot of conservative canonists don't, like his support for Marc Balestrieri's action to have John Kerry excommunicated. So his future prospects would be quite good if he crossed over to the conservatives. But I think he believes that the traditionalist movement has a future in the Church, so he sticks it out with them...
472 posted on 08/02/2004 4:10:51 PM PDT by GratianGasparri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
If Vere presents a solidly-documented TRUTH, it is the TRUTH we must pay attention to; not Vere.

You miss the point that this thread is a reaction to the self-promotion of the book, "More Catholic than the Pope." Madrid and Vere have started the argument by making it a matter of personalities. They are directly attacking traditional Catholics. That is the purpose of their book. So it's only fair that we look at these people who are setting themselves up as arbiters of others qualifications to be considered "Catholic."

473 posted on 08/02/2004 4:11:22 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
VERY interesting. Do you have a cc. of the opinion?

Not on me, no. While the debate continues in Europe, it has long since been concluded on this side of the Atlantic. But I think it culminated in The Jurist or Roman Replies and CLSA Advisory Opinions if I am not mistaken. My guess would be somewhere between 1993 and 1997.
474 posted on 08/02/2004 4:16:12 PM PDT by GratianGasparri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: GratianGasparri
Your post is a spin to make Vere look like a traditional Catholic.

It's a decent try, but it didn't work. Grab something else and see if it'll convince anyone. Don't give up on the first couple tries.
475 posted on 08/02/2004 4:24:48 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 472 | View Replies]

To: pascendi
Your post is a spin to make Vere look like a traditional Catholic.

Um, if you say so. I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage since ecclesiastical conspiracy theories are not my forte.
476 posted on 08/02/2004 4:35:10 PM PDT by GratianGasparri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: GratianGasparri

It's just common sense, that's all.


477 posted on 08/02/2004 4:43:50 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Over the past year and one half Cardinal Ratzinger and the Pope have both said something like this: "To those Jews who are waiting for the Messiah,He will come and they will recognize Him for the first time,it is Jesus. Christian's will see Him too. But for them it will be the second coming. The Jewish Messiah and Jesus are one and the same".

Cardinal Arinze,at the end of Ted Turner's Milliniel One World Religion Jubilee in the year 2000 which was timed to coincide and support some U.N. sponsored conference's announcement about the new age and who rules the one world said something very interesting then.

He and the Catholic contingent sat through three days of listening to every little cult leader in the world advocate for universal brotherhood,more spirituality and more yada,blah.,he finally rose to speak.

It was very short and to the point.He said: "I have listened to all of you talk about the wonders of this beautiful spirituality and peace that this one world religion will bring to earth. The Catholic Church is very much iin favor of this,as long as that one religion is Catholicism." I understand there was utter silence and the convocation broke up immediately. I thought it was so funny. I was following these events closely for several personal reasons. The religious celebration as well as the big U.N. sponsored one,fizzled with little fanfare.

478 posted on 08/02/2004 5:18:30 PM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: GratianGasparri

Looks to me like your forte is trying to win debates by discrediting the opposition ("cranky lot," traddy," "traddy knickers," "traddyland," "conspiracy theories") rather than on the merits.

I don't know who you are in real life, or what you may have accomplished, but your contemptuous writing style in this thread is obnoxious.


479 posted on 08/02/2004 5:37:48 PM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: pascendi
Where are we going?

At this time,the Church,led by Peter,under Peter,never not united with Peter is going where Christ told him to lead us.IMHO.It also includes the reason we all should be listening very closely and watching which Bishops are with the Pope. We should be there together with him/them.

Read John:Chapter 21:Verses 15 to 23.

480 posted on 08/02/2004 5:48:54 PM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: ninenot

Your post 458 makes no sense, I doubt if you read Cardinal Ottaviani's letter, or the accumulated findings. The cover letter alone speaks volumes. And I don't think Bugnini was buggering Weakland - or maybe he was - can you prove it? FYI Bugnini the mason wrote the NO.

The Letter:

Rome
25 September 1969

Most Holy Father:
Having carefully examined and presented for the scrutiny of others the New Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae) prepared by the experts of the Committee for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel obliged before God and Your Holiness to set forth the following considerations:

1. The accompanying Critical Study is the work of a select group of bishops, theologians, liturgists, and pastors of souls. Despite its brevity, the study shows quite clearly that the Novus Ordo Missae--considering the new elements widely susceptible to widely different interpretations which are implied or taken for granted--represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.

The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which might attack the integrity of the Mystery.

2. The pastoral reasons put forth to justify such a grave break, even if such reasons could still hold good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem sufficient.

The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place--if it subsists at all--could well turn into a certainty the suspicion, already prevalent, alas in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound forever.

The recent reforms have amply demonstrated that new changes in the liturgy could not be made without leading to complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful, who already show signs of restiveness and an indubitable lessening of their faith.

Among the best of the clergy, the result is an agonizing crisis of conscience, numberless instances of which come to us daily.

3. We are certain that these considerations, prompted by what we hear from the living voice of shepherds and the flock, cannot but find an echo in the heart of Your Holiness, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. The subjects for whose benefit a law is made have always had the right, nay the duty, to ask the legislator to abrogate the law, should it prove to be harmful.

At a time, therefore, when the purity of the faith and the unity of the Church suffer cruel lacerations and still greater peril, daily and sorrowfully echoed in the words of You, our common Father, we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the integral and fruitful Missal of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness, and so deeply venerated by the whole Catholic world.

A. Card. Ottaviani A. Card. Bacci


481 posted on 08/02/2004 5:57:11 PM PDT by Arguss (Take the narrow road)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: Dominick

There is no fire? Why then did Paul VI himself describe the situation of the Church following Vatican II as a process of "auto-demolition." Why then did he worry that "the smoke of Satan" had entered the sancturary? Where have all these scandals come from? Why is there a vocations crisis, a seminary crisis, a catechesis crisis, a liturgical crisis, a church attendance crisis? Is everybody but the Pope hallucinating? And just to extend the analogy a bit--if the owner of the house says there was no emergency, but if he's in the backyard writing poetry while his house is on fire and his children are screaming at the top of their lungs--is his testimony trustworthy? Even if he's the chief of police?

But let's say you're right for a moment. Let's say the Pope was absolutely correct, that there was no emergency. But suppose the law also said if you break and enter because you sincerely believed there was an emergency, and that if this was the case, whether you were actually right or not, you would not be guilty of any crime-- how then could you afterwards be justly accused of any crime? In effect, this is exactly what happened with the SSPX. The Pope ignored the caveat Canon Law itself provided Archbishop Lefebvre. The Pope couldn't pretend canon 1323 didn't exist--it certainly did; nor could he revise the law itself after the fact--his own Canon Law prohibits such an injustice. So he did what he does frequently, especially when he can't answer his critics reasonably--he simply ignored the canon and rejected out of hand the Archbishop's sincere concern for the faith in a crisis. This was simply an act of injustice on the part of the Pope. No Vatican spin on earth can make it just.

And he compounded this with a false charge of schism besides. Yet a schism must actually exist for such a charge to have any validity. It cannot be unilaterally imposed or predicated on a supposition that disobedience of a papal command is in itself a denial of the papacy itself. Such an assumption violates logic--especially where the evidence shows that the SSPX was acting in defense of Catholic Tradition. Besides, many many times the Archbishop had publicly asserted that his struggle was based on his fear that there was an ongoing effort by Rome to destroy Traditional Catholicism, beginning with the elimination of the ancient Mass. This is all on the record. To imagine such opposition was based on hostility to the office of the pope is bizarre in its assumption. There is simply no evidence that shows this at all.


482 posted on 08/02/2004 6:01:02 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

Wow, you're reduced to catcalls. You are sunk, sink. Kabooom


483 posted on 08/02/2004 6:05:32 PM PDT by Arguss (Take the narrow road)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

To: Arguss
I think Bugnini did have ties to Masonry. However,the story is that the event that sealed his fate in the Church involved he and Weakland. Bugnini was exiled at the same time Weakland was sent packing to remain forever in Milwaukee as an archbishop because the two of them were caought en flagrante,in a very embarrassing tryst by the Italian police.

I read this in two books written originally in Italy and then one,possibly sourced by the same books I read,written in English.

484 posted on 08/02/2004 6:10:09 PM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: Dominick

"You must have the Pope's consent to be in union with him."

Since when is this a doctrine of the Church? Do you just sort of make this all up as you go along? Do you actually believe a pope can state someone is in schism who is really not--and make it a fact? What if the pope doesn't like blonds--can he refuse union with them, even if they affirm allegiance? Your thinking is not only ridiculous--it shows you will argue any extreme to make the Pope appear correct.

Having said this, I will add that of course a pope may STATE somebody is in schism. No one denies that. But his statement would be a nullity if it were not so in fact. Truth must be the basis for any papal denunciation. No pope can CREATE a schism--it abides in another's heart. He can announce it, but his announcement must be based on something real, there must be ample evidence, it can't be simply based on a papal whim.


485 posted on 08/02/2004 6:15:20 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: Arguss
Excellent post, Arguss, excellent, and this particular passage here is as salient as salient gets:

The recent reforms have amply demonstrated that new changes in the liturgy could not be made without leading to complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful, who already show signs of restiveness and an indubitable lessening of their faith.

I'm reading a book on the Doctrine of Infallibility right now, and it's just fascinating, and always beacons us to look to the 'Ancient Tradition.' I learn so much from you guys, you're an erudite bunch, all of you. But I fear that the lovers of the Ancient Tradition will soon be 'playing outlawed tunes on outlawed pipes.'

486 posted on 08/02/2004 6:18:05 PM PDT by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Why is there a vocations crisis, a seminary crisis, a catechesis crisis, a liturgical crisis, a church attendance crisis? Is everybody but the Pope hallucinating?

Why indeed. Well I can tell you it isn't because of the Novus Ordo Mass. People have been torn away from any semblance of universal truth. Anything goes in secular life, except holding to Faith. It isn't because we use the vernacular in Mass.

But suppose the law also said if you break and enter because you sincerely believed there was an emergency, and that if this was the case, whether you were actually right or not, you would not be guilty of any crime-- how then could you afterwards be justly accused of any crime?

As long as we are playing the intention game, perhaps Lefebvre had the intention of seizing the reins of the Church away from the Pope? Not actually, but by being able to dictate a "return" to the Tridentine Mass? Lets say the person breaking in took items and refused to return them, like the SSPX continues to claim the Church has lost it's sanctity? Even if there was a perceived emergency, a crime was still committed. How about at a burning house where the flames are rising you steal before the flames engulf the house and not return the items, that too is theft.

And he compounded this with a false charge of schism besides. Yet a schism must actually exist for such a charge to have any validity.

Once again the Pope picks the people who are in union with him, and he can Judge who is doing what he thinks is right, and is in Union with the Church. The Vatican II council did what it thought was needed to combat secularism, and save all of Catholicism. There is a Schism because the SSPX will not agree to generous and reasonable terms of agreement, like admitted the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass, and saying at least one Mass. They can even say it in Latin, because that is wholly permitted in that rite.
487 posted on 08/02/2004 6:19:19 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 482 | View Replies]

To: pascendi
the hierarchy, from top to bottom, has deviated in varying degrees from the Deposit of Faith

That's your quote. As He said: "Thou sayest it."

488 posted on 08/02/2004 6:19:29 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
"Where are we going? At this time,the Church,led by Peter,under Peter,never not united with Peter is going where Christ has told him to lead us.IMHO.It also includes the reason we all should be listening very closely and watching which Bishops are with the Pope. We should be there together with him/them. Read John:Chapter 21:Verses 15 to 23."

First of all, there's no doubt on this end regarding the Vicar of Christ being who he is, and that his flock is under his guidance.

But where is where? In all honesty, you seem to leave it more nebulous than ever. This where you propose sort of implies that Christ told the Holy Father something very specific. We don't have a shred of evidence of this unique where it is we're going destination the pope is privy to. John Chapter 21 15-23 solves no riddles as to any special where. It's as if we should feel compelled to accord to the Holy Father gifts which are not necessarily intrinsic to the office of the papacy, such as visions or locutions, in order to solve the riddle of the times in which we live. Do we have to assume this? No. It's speculative at best, but the things of Faith aren't speculative but are well known. We already know what the Faith is and what it requires of us. It's no mystery!
489 posted on 08/02/2004 6:21:50 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST

You didn't get the gist of my post.

I don't trust Rembert Weakland, for example. Not in the least. No how. No way. He's screwed me personally, viciously, and wilfully.

Having said that, if Weakland says 'thou shalt NOT commit adultery,' I'd still believe it.

The point is that if an individual speaks the truth, regardless of their personal character, it is the TRUTH that we respect and observe.


490 posted on 08/02/2004 6:22:32 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 471 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
They are directly attacking traditional Catholics

I don't think you have read the book; it's not yet available, right?

I would hope that the book addresses the truth issues, not personalities, just as we do on this forum, religiously (cough) all the time.

If Vere/Madrid present the facts and their argumentation is irrefutable, then it's a question of true/not true.

You know, 0 or 1.

People will take it personally--but that's their problem. Christ wasn't concerned about hurt feelings, either.

491 posted on 08/02/2004 6:25:42 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Do you actually believe a pope can state someone is in schism who is really not--and make it a fact?

Your argument boils to, "Its not so because I say it is not so."

Nope it is a fact because the Pope is the Supreme Legislator, and the conditions of Union include acceptance of the Novus Ordo, and the Pope could, if he wanted, withdraw the Indult at a date that pleases him. He has the power to demand discipline of the Priests and Bishops, as the Head of the Church, precisely because he has the confidence of the Holy Spirit, and you don't.

The Schism was created when Lefebvre in full knowledge of the Law installed Bishops without permission from the Pope. His actions deride your argument.

Bishop Fellay in wiring has stated a Schism exists, and you say it doesn't. I think you are not making it up, you just have your head in the sand.
492 posted on 08/02/2004 6:28:21 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 485 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
"...even if they affirm allegiance?"

The first time I read that, I thought it said "affirm intelligence".
493 posted on 08/02/2004 6:31:59 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies]

To: GratianGasparri

The only conspiracy theory I buy is the one which starts with Satan, and doesn't work too well.

The poor fool relies on humans...but he tries.


494 posted on 08/02/2004 6:34:41 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: dsc

Oh, I don't know. I vaguely recall some others being 'cranky' on these threads. So much so that some of them were tossed from FR.

OTOH, the Tomas Torquemada Gentlemen's Club consists solely of good-humored individuals who only ACT cranky just to maintain credibility on FR.


495 posted on 08/02/2004 6:38:44 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 479 | View Replies]

To: Dominick

"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."

Once again you are wrong. First of all, you confuse Rome with the Church. The SSPX doesn't say "the Church is no longer following Christ's plan", it says Rome is no longer following Catholic Tradition--which had been the way of the Church for two thousand years. It says this because this is simply the fact, Rome is at war with its own past. Nor is it the SSPX alone who says these things. Cardinal Ratzinger has said it over and over. Cardinal Ratzinger also criticizes the New Mass with almost as much intensity as the SSPX. It is he who called the new liturgy a mere "fabrication" by a committee, not something that had evolved under the aegis of the Holy Spirit. And the great theologian Klaus Gamber himself called the Novus Ordo a disaster.

As for your third point--that the SSPX charges the Pope with committing acts of paganism--Assisi I and II speak for themselves, as does the Pope's admission in his own diary that he actually prayed animist prayers with animists. Bishop Fellay in his letters mentions the Pope's having poured out libations in the Togo Forest. Rome has never denied any of this--though it doesn't like to publicize these issues either. One can understand why since these acts are highly scandalizing. So are the so-called inculturations that involve syncretic actions--invocations to false gods. But do you think if the SSPX had been spreading false rumors and acting irresponsibly, the Pope would have entered into negotiations with the Society in an attempt to resolve differences? And never once did his papal representative, Cardinal Hoyos, argue the SSPX was speaking falsely or even bring these issues up, though he brought up many other points of disagreement. In fact, these pagan events took place and may be tracked down in newspapers.


496 posted on 08/02/2004 6:39:02 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
That's your quote. As He said: "Thou sayest it."

First it's Catherine of Siena, but now it's Pilate.

What if you're just wrong and not everyone you want is outside the Church like you want them to be?
497 posted on 08/02/2004 6:42:17 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies]

To: Arguss
FYI Bugnini the mason wrote the NO.

No--REALLY??

Mein Herz!

Here's another real secret: Weakland was the "celebrant" at the trial run in PaulVI's chapel.

As to the cover letter you indicate "speaks volumes:" no it does not.

It says that O. and Co. would REALLY prefer that the NO not be implemented.

ANOTHER Shock to my delicate system!!!

Next you'll tell me that Quo Primum prevents the Supreme Legislator (that's the Pope) from changing one jot, or one tittle, in the Mass.

Yup.

FYI, I think that the NO is a disaster.

But it IS the Perfect Sacrifice.

No "flaws"--kapische?

498 posted on 08/02/2004 6:44:50 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
Weakland was sent packing to remain forever in Milwaukee as an archbishop and Affliction

Edited for the WHOLE truth.

499 posted on 08/02/2004 6:47:09 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 484 | View Replies]

Comment #500 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 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