Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Traditionalists, Tradition, And Private Judgement
TCR News ^ | Stephen Hand

Posted on 01/28/2003 11:27:58 AM PST by NYer

In Perspective
By Alphonse J. Matt, editor The Wanderer

Since the end of the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent promulgation by Pope Paul VI of the new rite of the Mass, there has been a growing division among those Catholics generally known as "orthodox" or "traditionalist."

The Wanderer itself suffered from the divisions and upheavals following the council.

In 1967 editor Walter Matt left the newspaper over a dispute about the meaning of Vatican II. He saw it not so much as a reform and a renewal of the Church but as a revolution that threatened to undermine the Church herself (in that same year, Walter Matt founded The Remnant). His brother, Alphonse J. Matt, Sr. (the present writer's father), took over the reins at The Wanderer and reminded its readers that the real intent of the council was a renewed evangelization of the world for Christ and a personal renewal of every individual Catholic.

For The Wanderer , the council was not a rejection or an abandonment of Tradition, but a development of that Tradition, safeguarded for 2,000 years by the Holy Spirit, to better enable the Church to bring the Gospel to all men.

Those "traditionalists" who view the council as a break with Tradition — who blame the council's teaching itself, not the subversion of, and departure from that teaching, by modernists and progressivists — are becoming increasingly hostile to the See of Peter and its present occupant.

The late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who broke with the Holy See in 1988 over the issue of appointing bishop successors from his Society of St. Pius X, tends to be the hero of these traditionalist Catholics.

This past April, an angry, aggressive statement authored by Atila Sinke Guimarães, a former member of the Brazil-based TFP (Tradition, Family, Property), titled We Resist You to the Face was published in The Remnant, Catholic Family News, and other traditionalist organs.

The statement was signed by Mr. Guimarães and Marian Horvat, both members of Tradition in Action, Inc., Michael Matt, editor of The Remnant, and John Vennari, editor of Catholic Family News.

We Resist You . . . is described by its signatories as "A Public Statement of Catholic Resistance" (in which) "Lay Catholic journalists respectfully suspend obedience to the Pope and remain inside Holy Mother Church."

A brochure promoting the statement declares:

" We Resist You to the Face analyzes the consequences of the adaptation of the Church to the modern world, and the consequences of ecumenism, as applied since the Council — including by the present Pontiff. The authors declare themselves in a state of resistance 'relative to the teachings of Vatican Council II, Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, and to your teachings [of John Paul II] that are objectively opposed to the prior ordinary and extraordinary Papal Magisterium'."

One can conclude after a careful reading of We Resist You . . . that its authors and supporters are on a schismatic trajectory that can only have tragic consequences.

We have asked Stephen Hand, no stranger to traditionalists, to examine We Resist You . . ., its premises and conclusions in order to provide some guidance and counsel to those traditionalist Catholics who are troubled and confused by current developments within the Church and the kinds of analysis of such by the likes of We Resist You. . . .

The result of his effort is: "Traditionalists," Tradition, and Private Judgment. Two important addenda are included: Pope Paul II's Credo of the People of God and Cardinal Ratzinger's remarks in 1988 to the bishops of Chile regarding the Lefebvre schism.

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln has graciously provided a preface to the work.

We recommend this commentary to every Catholic who seeks a better understanding of the controversies which continue to spread fear, doubt, and confusion within the Church. It will prove to be an effective instrument to strengthen one's faith.

— Alphonse J. Matt Jr. Editor, The Wanderer

Preface by The Most Rev. Fabian Bruskewtiz,
Bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska

Stephen Hand has done a distinct service by his fine monograph pointing out by means of careful research as well as by personal and anecdotal experience the reality of removing a cinder in one's eye when such is there, but keeping the eye intact and not removing the eye out of exasperation, because of the annoyance and sometimes serious pain the cinder can cause.

It has been an axiom for many years in historical theology that what oftentimes begins or is declared to be a "return to tradition," in other words, a reaction, ends as being an innovation, that is, a schism or a heresy. There are people who suffer from intense headaches, and find themselves utterly incapable of mastering the horrible pain that they frequently endure. In moments of frustration, such people will sometimes say, "I wish I could cut off my head to cure my headache." But they, and all who are rational and reflective in their presence, would always realize that the so-called cure would be far worse than the continuous enduring of even the most tragic pain. It takes a faith-filled and prayer-filled discerning Catholic life to distinguish liturgical abuses, doctrinal and moral aberrations, and grave disciplinary infractions occurring in the lives and practices of people within the Church, from the Church herself, which despite being composed of sinful members, remains the spotless Spouse and Bride of Christ, not a Church of Cathers or Albigensians, but a Church of those who carry within themselves the sad effects of original sin while at the same time bearing the grace of God, which is to say, the seeds of eternal happiness. St. Thomas Aquinas calls pride the queen and mother of all vices, and oftentimes those who perhaps rightly perceive grave faults and defects in people in the Church, even sometimes in people with positions of clerical authority, forget their own creatureliness and sinfulness, and the ability they themselves have to fall into serious error.

At the time of the Jansenist crisis, for instance, the archbishop of Paris, speaking of the Jansenist nuns at Port-Royal, said they were as pure as angels but as proud as devils. Down through the centuries there have been countless sects, denominations, cults, and churches which have broken off from the Catholic Church under the pretense of being "holier than thou." We are witnessing the same occurrence in our time. Ironically, these groups are most often unknowing and indeliberate allies of the bitterest enemies of Christ and His Church, in effect, denying the abiding Presence of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church and the promises that Christ bestowed on His Mystical Body from its inception.

In his masterful work, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, John Henry Newman points out how in the course of the Church's history she occasionally appears to fall into a deliquium, from which, under God's grace, she emerges victorious and stronger than ever. Many of those who defy the Church and even leave the Church in the name of "tradition," thus contradicting the very word by which they choose to define themselves, are ignorant in their despair regarding the Church's future or the realities of the Church's history through 2,000 years. This work of Stephen Hand undoubtedly will assist those who are loyal to Christ and to His Church, and to His Vicar on earth, the Bishop of Rome, to labor zealously within the boundaries of the Church herself for her growth in holiness, and willingly, even joyfully, do all possible to eliminate doctrinal, moral, liturgical, and disciplinary aberrations, but, at the same time, conceding nothing to those who wish not to remove a cinder from the eye, but to remove the eye itself and perhaps replace its empty socket with cinders and decayed matters.

The Venerable Servant of God, Abbot Joseph Columba Marmion, who is scheduled to be beatified on September 3, 2000, once reminded his readers that "God resists the proud," and he added: "Is it not terrible to be alienated from God? But how much more terrible it must be to be 'resisted' by God Himself."

May his rhetorical question echo in the minds and hearts of those who make use of this fine work of Stephen Hand.

— The Most Rev.

Fabian W. Bruskewitz,
Bishop of Lincoln, Neb

+ + +

Part 1

The Church And The Council

The most wonderful thing about being Catholic is that the Church's saving Tradition is a "given," something which we can only receive from the hands of Christ's ministers, who extend in time through the apostolic succession all the way back to the empty Tomb, and who first heard the stunning words:

"Receive the Holy Spirit
For those whose sins you forgive,
They are forgiven;
For those whose sins you retain They are retained" (John 20:22).

The Church is not some esoteric gnosis which men must try to discern, decipher, and then keep jealously under a bushel. Rather, she is, following the Incarnation itself, astonishingly visible, a "light to the world" and the "salt of the earth," the continuation through time of Him who was "made flesh and dwelt among us."

From that moment when earth's history was split into a "before" and an "after," no one has had to look or wait for another Messiah, another teaching or "Way." For He is "with us," "always," (Isaiah 9:6; Matt. 28:20) and is the God who comes, the God who seeks us out, and who offers forgiveness and reconciliation to a world which will never again have to grope to find Him. He is there, in His Church, where, until the very end of the world are heard the simple words of consecration which are the substance of the Mass. St. Paul tells us what that substance is:

"For this is what I received from the Lord, and in turn pass on to you: that on the night that He was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread, and giving thanks He broke it, and He said, 'This is my Body, which is broken for you'. In the same manner He took the cup and said:

"This is the cup of the New Covenant in my Blood. Whenever you drink it, do this in memory of me" (1 Cor. 11: 23-27).

Should she deem it necessary or good, the Church could reduce her liturgy to these words and acts, the "substance" around which all the ritual "accidents," which change through time, adhere. For only she is given to participate in and dispense the divine authority — the great and undemocratic "whatsoever" (Matt. 16:20) — until the Bridegroom returns to receive His Bride at the end of time. It is left for us to only "Hear the Church" which changes only in her "accidents" through the ebbs and flows of time, the "substance" perduring to the consummation.

FULL TEXT


TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events; Ecumenism; General Discusssion; History; Ministry/Outreach; Prayer; Religion & Culture; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last
This is too large to post in its entirety, but well worth the read!!!
1 posted on 01/28/2003 11:27:58 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: .45MAN; AKA Elena; Angelus Errare; Aquinasfan; Aristophanes; ArrogantBustard; Askel5; Barnacle; ...
In the Traditionalist literature, one is warned not to trust the Holy Father, not to even read him, because he was, to one degree or another, "infected with liberalism" which was the curse of the times. Unfortunately, many swallowed this dreadful conclusion, hook, line, and sinker, even if some of us refused to go all the way and declare him a heretic and papal imposter, as many in the same or other chapels did.

It is not easy to read such literature and not be affected in some degree. Especially if one at first does not know an epistle from an apostle. This is the problem with these "independent" chapels.

2 posted on 01/28/2003 11:31:41 AM PST by NYer (Kyrie Eleison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
This tired screed has been refuted countless times by Christopher Ferrara and Thomas Wood. In fact, they wrote a book specifically to discount the many absurdities asserted by Mr. Hand who is something of a crackpot. You ought to read their masterful work, The Great Facade, if you want to have a fair-minded perspective on where traditionalists stand. To believe that traditionalists--who follow the precepts of the traditional Catholic Church and no other--are somehow following their own private judgment, is patently absurd. How is it private judgment to insist on the same teachings which have been taught by all the saints and popes and councils of the past two thousand years, rather than the modernist novelties now in vogue?

3 posted on 01/28/2003 11:58:57 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Great find! Thank you! Bishop Bruskewtiz really sums it up in his forward.

I really don't like getting into discussions with the SSPX crowd and unfortunately I let myself be dragged into one recently. I don't know enough of the history to be able to defend the Church's position, except to fall back on Jesus Christ that He left His Church with the Holy Spirit, and the Church has been standing for 2,000 years.

I was listening to Catholic radio, an audio of an ewtn program, and one of the commentators, I believe a priest, was talking about what Vatican II was and what it wasn't. it was a fascinating talk, and I realized that all the talk about the "Spirit of Vatican II" was just that -- talk -- no substance. They took the theme of evangelization and decided that they could do whatever they want.

I haven't read Vatican II, but I've been told by people who have read all the documents that none of the abuses seen in some parishes today are condoned or allowed in any way, shape or form by Vatican II.

Anyway, NYer, THANK YOU for your post. I appreciate it!

God bless!

4 posted on 01/28/2003 12:05:05 PM PST by Gophack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
There are people who suffer from intense headaches, and find themselves utterly incapable of mastering the horrible pain that they frequently endure. In moments of frustration, such people will sometimes say, "I wish I could cut off my head to cure my headache."
LOL!!! Bruskewitz rules.
5 posted on 01/28/2003 12:20:55 PM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gophack
I haven't read Vatican II, but I've been told by people who have read all the documents that none of the abuses seen in some parishes today are condoned or allowed in any way, shape or form by Vatican II.

Like you, I had not read much on Vatican II until recently. It was interesting to learn that they encouraged continuation of the liturgy in Latin, along with Gregorian chant. As you noted, the abuses we see today come from a select group of prelates who have "interpreted" certain aspects of the documents to suit their own purposes. All of the documents are availabe on the internet and well worth the read.

6 posted on 01/28/2003 12:27:37 PM PST by NYer (Kyrie Eleison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NYer
All of the documents are availabe on the internet and well worth the read.
Link to Documents of the Second Vatican Council on the Vatican website.
7 posted on 01/28/2003 12:35:48 PM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
To believe that traditionalists--who follow the precepts of the traditional Catholic Church and no other--are somehow following their own private judgment, is patently absurd.

A widely circulated video appeared (What We Have Lost, put out by the In the Spirit of Chartres Committee) in which my editor, the paper, and some well-known acquaintances appeared. The video declared that the Catholic Church was no longer the Catholic Church, but a "new" Church and a "new" religion. Here was a reckless and even schismatic langugage. I knew nothing about such plans. The dogmatic Rubicon was crossed here. In Rome, just prior to seeing this video, I had attended a beautiful papal Mass, celebrated with the greatest — even awesome — reverence, and prayed at the spot where St. Peter was crucified upside down. This was the Church I was born in and I had no intentions of leaving it.

This video questioned the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass and other sacramental rites of the Church and referred to the Church as though it were some sect. It had gone to the extreme, where my friends said they would never go. But there they all were, in it. The video selectively showed the very worst of the Novus Ordo abuses, as if that was all that existed and asked rhetorically: "Yet there are many who persist in asking 'isn't the Mass still the Mass and the Catholic Church still the Catholic Church?' Tragically the answer is No! It is a New Church, a new religion."

* * * * *

A quick search turned up their web site. The video mentioned is prominently offered.


The Video that's made its way around the world.
"What We Have Lost
...and the Road to Restoration"

NEW EXPANDED 60-MINUTE VERSION
and
NEW SPANISH VERSION

Each at the introductory* price of...$15.00
shipping and handling included in price.

Visual Proof of the destruction of the Church

This is the widely acclaimed video documenting the destruction of Christ's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Now available in Spanish; and in a new expanded English version with an introduction and commentary by Dr. David Allen White, foremost traditional Catholic speaker, author, and educator.

See the changes in architecture, art, music, the Sacramental rites, and most especially the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Changes in the Church that have so protestantized it, it is nearly unrecognizable. Changes that are damaging to the faith of almost a billion people. See what we've lost, but more importantly, how we can get it back.

Endorsed Nationally and Internationally by Leading Tradtitionalists - Clergy and Laymen Alike.

The perfect gift for your Catholic relatives, friends, favorite priest, or bishop.

8 posted on 01/28/2003 12:47:03 PM PST by NYer (Kyrie Eleison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: sandyeggo; ultima ratio
To believe that traditionalists--who follow the precepts of the traditional Catholic Church and no other--are somehow following their own private judgment, is patently absurd.

By the divine plan, the Vicar of Christ is the only principle of unity in the Church. Thus when liberals and Integrists, each for their own reasons, join together in an unseemly union to attack him, only the culture of death can advance. And this is the great tragedy! Whether out of rebellion or lack of confidence, the end result will be the same. If we do not "hear the Church" as our Lord commanded, as she interprets her Tradition through the vicissitudes of time, we must sink into the depths of our own rebellions or fears through private judgment.

11 posted on 01/28/2003 1:10:21 PM PST by NYer (Kyrie Eleison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
How is it private judgment to insist on the same teachings which have been taught by all the saints and popes and councils of the past two thousand years, rather than the modernist novelties now in vogue?

Paul VI's unambiguous Credo of the people of God (below), together with his courageous encyclical, Humanae Vitae, provide the hermeneutical key to interpreting the documents of Vatican II. The liberals have never forgiven him for issuing either, since both preemptively undermine their "spirit" of Vatican II in favor of the Council's actual texts, which presuppose all of Catholic Tradition with respect to both theology and morals, and most specifically, according to John XXIII's opening address at the Council, the teachings of the Council of Trent and Vatican I.

Credo of the People of God

12 posted on 01/28/2003 1:26:23 PM PST by NYer (Kyrie Eleison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: ultima ratio
I have never seen an orthodox Catholic say that they knew better than the Pope.

THE FAITH OF SAINT SOPHRONIUS

     «The year was 634. For almost ten years a great pontiff, Honorius I, had reigned. A worthy emulator of Saint Gregory the Great, he successfully continued his administrative, disciplinary and missionary work. Unfortunately, however, a single act of weakness was soon to make his name the obloquy of the papacy. Here are the circumstances…»

     Our Father went on to describe the Christian Orient weakened by various heresies, the latest of which, Monophysism, along with its successor Monothelism, were still wreaking havoc at the beginning of the 7th century. At Constantinople, the Emperor Heraclius for his part was troubled by the divisions within his empire, which risked being broken up under the double pressure of the rival Persians and the Arabs from the South. Following the advice of the patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria, he undertook to rally the subjects of his immense empire around a “formula of union” which was sufficiently vague to satisfy all opposing parties, attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable, that is to say true doctrine with heresy. The vast majority of Catholics had already accepted this out of obedience to the Emperor and to their Patriarchs, when «a monk from Jerusalem called Sophronius rose up indignantly and pointed out the contradiction between the essentially political views of the Patriarchs Sergius and Cyrus and the imprescriptible requirements of the faith. Stirred by his courage, which dared defy the imperial supremacy, and disdaining the whimsical plans for reconciliation, the people of Jerusalem chose him for their Patriarch, and it was with this new authority that Sophronius solemnly denounced the offer of union as a veiled call to heresy, an execrable capitulation of the faith.»

THEOLOGIAN OF THE IMMACULATE

   In a letter to Sergius of Constantinople, written at the close of the Synod of Jerusalem in 634, Saint Sophronius declared his faith in the mystery of the Incarnation, displaying an astonishingly advanced understanding of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and thus earning himself a place in the office of the feast composed by Pius IX in 1854:

   «On the subject of the Incarnation, I believe that God the Word, the only Son of the Father, taking pity on our fallen nature, of His own free volition, through the will of God who begot him and with the divine agreement of the Spirit, humbled Himself to take on our lowly condition [...], and that, entering the radiant and virginally pure womb of Mary, the blessed, the glorious Virgin, full of divine wisdom and exempt from all stain of body, soul and spirit, He became incarnate, He who was incorporeal truly becoming man, He who is always with God wishing to become man in order to purify like through like, to save brother through brother [...]. That is why a holy Virgin was chosen; She was sanctified in Her soul and in Her body, and because She was pure, chaste and immaculate, She became the Cooperatrix in the Incarnation of the Creator.»

   (Quoted by Martin Jugie, Saint Sophrone et l’Immaculée Conception, Revue augustinienne, 1910, p. 573)

     The Patriarch of Constantinople wrote to Pope Honorius asking him to bring this turbulent monk in Jerusalem to his senses, this arrogant rebel who, by his outbursts and resistance, was compromising the work of union already well on its way to success. And the Pope, alas! took the side of the Patriarch: he wrote a letter to Sophronius to which he added this surprisingly modern directive: «We must be careful not to rekindle ancient quarrels.»

     What? The defence of the dogma of Chalcedon, defining the union of two natures in the unique and perfect Person of the Son of God become man, nothing more than an «ancient quarrel»? For a theologian of the calibre of Sophronius, such an argument was worthless.

     Our Father writes: «Honorius chose the party of the Politicians against that of the Theologian, failing thus in his supreme duty as guardian of the Word of God.» Sophronius rose up and accused the Pope not only of favouring heresy through his compromises, but of being a heretic himself. The fact that he allowed error to be freely propagated meant that he no longer adhered to orthodoxy, to correct doctrine…

     The Pope, it seems, belatedly recovered a sense of his duties, but he died without repairing the immense damage he had caused the universal Church by his fluctuating opinions. Saint Sophronius, reduced to silence in Jerusalem which had fallen into the hands of the Arabs, died a short while later. For many years, the Emperor continued to impose his false «union» throughout the East. The persecution spread, in the name of the Pope, against the very best Christians, true Catholics, who were accused of rebellion, while, for their part, the fanatical Monophysites preferred to hand their cities over to the Arabs! With the help of the holy Abbot Maximus, Pope Martin I, who succeeded Pope Honorius, attempted to clear his predecessor of all responsibility and to interpret his writings in an orthodox manner. It was in vain. Exiled to Ukraine, they both died martyrs of the persecution.

A POPE DECLARED ANATHEMA

     At last, Byzantium, weary of it useless schism and its sterile heresy, came to its senses, and it was immediately followed by the flock of Oriental bishops for whom the wishes of the Basileus were the supreme law. In 680, an ecumenical Council was held at Constantinople, under the pontificate of Pope Agathon, to proclaim the true faith, the faith of Saints Sophronius, Martin and Maximus, the faith of the martyrs and the Christian people. It anathematised those who, for various reasons, appeared to it responsible for the tragic interlude. It was only right that Honorius should be included in the condemnation, and he was. For almost a thousand years, in official Roman texts, popes had to prove their fidelity by renewing the anathema brought against their predecessor.

     «A pope who favours heresy, a pope anathematised by an ecumenical council, the condemnation being recorded and approved by the sovereign pontificate, here indeed are historical facts which demand the fullest attention of theologians…», opines the Dictionary of Catholic Theology. (art. Honorius, vol. 7, p. 94).

     Our Father adds: «… and also a serious reflection by the men constituted in dignity in the Church for the preservation of the faith. Let them ensure that they do not place their desire for unity above everything else, that they never rashly embrace the views of new political and social powers, that they give no ground to the demands of those from outside the Church and in the World, that they accept none of those murky agreements and spectacular rallyings which are proposed to them from all sides! Let them tremble lest, in a moment of weakness and error, they throw the Church and society as a whole into new convulsions and unending dissensions. Let them fear to see political powers seize upon their confused decrees in order to exterminate, in their Names, the only remaining true Catholics. And should such threats not suffice, should the fear of God’s judgements still mean so little to them, let them call to mind that far-off Vatican III, beyond a sea of misfortune, when, in the presence of a new Agathon, their definitive condemnation will be pronounced! Let them heed this threat inscribed in the principal texts of our faith, a text from the Sixth Ecumenical Council: “We agree to banish from the Holy Church of God and to anathematise along with the other heretics Honorius, formerly pope of ancient Rome, for we have found in the letters which he sent to Sergius that he followed the opinion of the latter and that he sanctioned his wicked teachings.” That was on 28 March 681. Despite some laudable efforts, no one had managed to exonerate him, and since then no one has dared to contest the sentence of the imperial edict posted at Saint Sophia, declaring him a “confirmer of heresy”. His letters were solemnly thrown on the fire along with the other writings of the heretics who had taken him as their reference.»

     Admittedly, Honorius had not used his infallibility to propagate heresy, but «his error, explains our Father, was to have clung to this ambiguous language, which, without being totally erroneous, gave formidable support to error». He had failed to acquit himself of his duty as Sovereign Pontiff, supreme guardian of the faith, charged to confirm his brothers therein; he was therefore guilty, more so than all the rest, before God and before the Church.

     One of his successors, Saint Leo II, would state this in explicit terms: «Honorius made no effort to make this apostolic Church illustrious through the teaching of the apostolic tradition, but, by an execrable betrayal, he allowed the spotless Church to be sullied. He did not, as befitted the apostolic authority, extinguish the nascent flames of heretical dogma, but by his negligence fanned them still higher.»

     One single act of negligence therefore earned him expulsion from the Church. «What a prodigious mark of truth the Church of Rome thus gives by keeping one of her Pontiffs under anathema for heresy over the centuries, at the same time as serenely declaring herself infallible.» (French CRC no 69, p. 8) For heresy! Pope Hadrian II would write in 869: «It should be known that the reason for the anathema is this: Honorius had been accused of heresy, the only grounds on which it is licit for inferiors to resist their superiors and to reject their perverted opinions.»      «We must meditate, he wrote in November 1964, on those truly dark hours of our Church, for once again we have been plunged into them.» For four centuries (4th-7th), the Church valiantly defended her faith in God made man. «Our era is drawing to a close on another great dispute: it is now a question of faith in man who makes himself God.» The means by which this ferment of apostasy has spread are identical:

     «A powerful party within the Church demands peace through negotiation, reconciliation through dialogue. Leading individuals favour formulas of union on the basis of which it should be possible to reach a broad agreement with all humanists in the world, whether believers or unbelievers. All the Authority of the Church needs to do is to take a small step in this direction, and our enemies of yesterday will then see that our disarmament is sincere. Above all, those who refuse to make concessions on the faith at any price need to be reduced to total silence. Before such formidable pressure the body of bishops puts up a weak resistance, any courage it might display being totally dependent on that of the Popes…

     «Let us suppose that they had all surrendered the faith out of obedience and a desire for unity. Let us suppose that Sophronius had submitted out of respect for Honorius and humility, that he had obeyed by standing aside in silence. Would not the return of the peoples to unity be worth this act of renunciation? Absit! No! let no one ever sink to this kind of reasoning in the Church! And first of all because we are here dealing with the divine Absolute! Never will any authority or the wishes of billions of men avid for the goods of this world be able to prevail over our Faith! Should the Credo of a single poor woman come to trouble the order of the world, her voice would still make itself heard, courageous and pure, for the honour of God. Sophronius acted well! Sophronius dictates our duty!

Brother Thomas of Our Lady of Perpetual Help

14 posted on 01/28/2003 2:01:08 PM PST by Francisco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: ultima ratio
I have never seen an orthodox Catholic say that they knew better than the Pope. Just to clarify for you, I was referring to posters of this forum, not saints.

"The Pope, it seems, belatedly recovered a sense of his duties, but he died without repairing the immense damage he had caused the universal Church by his fluctuating opinions. Saint Sophronius, reduced to silence in Jerusalem which had fallen into the hands of the Arabs, died a short while later... The persecution spread, in the name of the Pope, against the very best Christians, true Catholics, who were accused of rebellion".

17 posted on 01/28/2003 5:55:30 PM PST by Grigeo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer
There is no liberal statement in any document of Vatican II that cannot be refuted by a conservative statement in another document of Vatican II. The Council is characterized by ambiguity and imprecision. That is the essential problem. Vatican II is whatever anybody says it is. The mess we are living through is the logical consequence of so much hot air.
18 posted on 01/28/2003 5:56:25 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Oh, but it IS a new religion. The Mass is now a memorial meal--once condemned by Trent and actually a throw-back to Luther? It is no wonder the Real Presence is daily undermined. So is the doctrine of Expiation of Sins. The focus, as in a Protestant service, is on the assembly itself, rather than on God the Father. The Sacrament of Marriage has also been redefined--which accounts for the issuance of easy annulments. The Church of Christ now is said to "subside" in the Catholic Church--which is an essential change in the Church's own understanding of its own identity. Hitherto the Church had always claimed that it WAS the Church of Christ. All this is new and radically different from anything known before in the two thousand years of the Church's existence. So there's nothing at all reckless about this language--why else do you suppose Lefebvre refused to obey this Pope? Do you think such a conservative, traditional archbishop just got up on the wrong side of the bed one morning? He refused to obey an order that was designed to destroy the Tradtional Church. It was evident then, and it's evident now, that what is happening is revolutionary and has little in common with the preconciliar Church.

19 posted on 01/28/2003 9:31:47 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sandyeggo
<> Don't let Francisco intimidate you. He is a devotee of the Abbe de Nantes who;

Teaches that Mary pre-existed in Heaven - a heresy

Has charged every Pope since Pius XII with heresy ('cept John Paul I who had the good sense to die before the Abbe could slander him)

Teaches the Catholic Church is wrong in celebrating the Passion on the days it does because Spy Wednesday, Holy Thursday, Good Friday ect REALLY happened on some other days and we know this because some woman, Annie Jaubert, told him so and she, I guess, is more trustworthy than the Catholic Church

Teaches the catechism is heretical

Has been suspended a divinis since the 60's (I think it was the 60's...mebbe early 70's)

Is a constant critic and opponent of the Papacy which makes him a "reliable" and authoritatve source for those who oppose the Pope

Changed the words to the Hail Mary because he was "inspired" to do so

regularly attacks the Second Vatcian Council

Regularly attacks the Missa Normativa<>

20 posted on 01/29/2003 4:59:51 AM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sandyeggo
<> That post is supposed to get you to think that "because Honorius didn't do this....therefore Pope John Paul 23rd, and Pope Paul VI, and Pope John Paul II are heretics and I, the Abbbe de Nantes, am the only one who teaches the Apostolic Truth - you know, like Mary's pre-existence, different days for the Passion, ect<>
21 posted on 01/29/2003 5:19:16 AM PST by Catholicguy (Pope Lefebvre, Pope de Nantes, Pope Gruener, Pope Vennari....So many Popes, so little time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Teaches that Mary pre-existed in Heaven - a heresy

From the Spiritual Writings of Saint Louise de Marillac

SAINT LOUISE DE MARILLAC'S DREAM

Dream of the eve of 8 December

"On the vigil of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, after having heard the reading from the epistle for that day, I had a dream in which I saw a great darkness arise in the middle of the day. It started off small at first, but it then turned into a very dark night which astonished and terrified the whole world. My own feelings, however, were simply those of submission to divine Justice. Once the darkness had passed, I saw daylight return, and in a certain place high up in the sky I saw a figure like that represented in the scene of the Transfiguration, but the figure seemed to me to be that of a woman. I was seized with great astonishment and experienced such a sense of gratitude towards God that my body suffered as a result and, after the pain had woken me up, I continued to suffer for some while longer. Unlike the ordinary run of my dreams, that image has always remained in my mind, inspiring me to believe that this initial grace bestowed upon the Virgin marked the commencement of the light that the Son of God was to bestow upon the world.

"In my meditation on the subject of the epistle I noticed how Holy Church suggested that the Blessed Virgin possessed Her being from before the Creation of the world. My mind acquiesced in this idea, and it occurred to me that not only had She been in the mind of God from all eternity through His foreknowledge, but that She had been so to a greater degree than any other creature on account of the dignity which God destined Her for as the Mother of His Son. It (Her being) knew that it was willed before the creation of any earthly thing capable of witnessing to the sin of our fathers. God wished to make a specific act of His will in order to create the soul of the Blessed Virgin, and this may also have been an effective act. I submit such thinking entirely to Holy Church, only making use of it the better to honour the Blessed Virgin and as a means of renewing our Society’s general dependence on Her, being Her most wretched daughters who regard Her nonetheless as our most worthy and unique Mother. May Jesus and Mary be loved.

(Écrits spirituels de Louise de Marillac, ed. 1983, p. 730)

22 posted on 01/29/2003 6:12:06 AM PST by Francisco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: Francisco
<> Typical duplicity from a schismatic. He claims to submit to the Magisterium but he only agrees to submit if the Magisterium agress with his private judgement.

Look, I already provided you with a magisterial Decision condemning the pre-existence of souls in Heaven. It was a decision taken against Origen. Sheesh....One would think such an "expert" as the Abbe would know. I do...and I am not even a Pope like the Abbe.

The Magisterium does not have to restate it for this suspended priest, you, or any other whack job that rolls around in schismatic swamps.

Roma Locuta est, CAUSA FINITA EST. Rome has ALREADY CONDEMNED THE DOCTRINE THAT SOULS PRE-EXIST IN HEAVEN.<>

24 posted on 01/29/2003 7:07:20 AM PST by Catholicguy (So what if the Lving magisterium has decided? They disagree with the personal opinions of the Abbe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sandyeggo
"I have followed many, many discussions on FR, and I consistently see a pattern of traditionalists asserting that they are right, that they know better than the Pope. I truly think that they consider themselves "more Catholic than the Pope". I have never seen an orthodox Catholic [on this forum] say that they knew better than the Pope."

Your argument is bogus on the surface of it. Since by definition traditionalists follow Catholic Tradition, the problem has been that this Pope does not--and, in fact, this has been demonstrable. Instead he forces us to choose--between him and previous popes and councils and doctors of the Church. It is he who has frequently departed from his predecessors--while traditionalists follow them faithfully.

Check out the Angelus Press. It publishes classic Catholic works, not private doctrine. There is nothing we state or teach or write about publicly that is not simply traditional Catholic doctrine. You can't say this about the regime in Rome, however, which routinely pours out novelties by the truckload--which people like yourself dutifully swallow simply because it is Rome saying these new things, however odd they should seem to Catholic ears.
25 posted on 01/29/2003 7:30:37 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
<> Typical duplicity from a schismatic. He claims to submit to the Magisterium but he only agrees to submit if the Magisterium agress with his private judgement<>

Ah, but again you distort the truth. We accept the Magisterium--when it adheres to Tradition. If it contradicts the perennial teachings of the Catholic Church, however, we reject such novelty in favor of what has always been taught by previous popes and councils and doctors of the Church. That is known as keeping the faith. Magisterial teachings, after all, are not binding if they are novel.

You, on the other hand, would have no trouble believing in flying green elephants if the Vatican put out the word. It troubles you not at all that flying green elephants are not found anywhere in either Scripture or Catholic Tradition. You only worry about submitting to the Pope--without worrying about how much he departs from his predecessors. To you the Pope trumps everything--even the faith itself.

Thus, we follow St. Paul's admonition to the Galatians: if even an angel should come down from Heaven to preach a new gospel, let him be anathema. New doctrines have no divine protection--as Vatican I affirmed: "For the Holy Spirit was not given to the Successors of Peter that by His help they might disclose new revelation."
26 posted on 01/29/2003 7:52:51 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio; Catholicguy
From CG: <> Typical duplicity from a schismatic. He claims to submit to the Magisterium but he only agrees to submit if the Magisterium agress with his private judgement<>

From ultie: ...We accept the Magisterium--when it adheres to Tradition....

I'm not getting in the middle of this, but ultie, you just proved CG right.
27 posted on 01/29/2003 7:56:21 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: sandyeggo
"Please demonstrate for me where this Pope has parted from Catholic Tradition."

When was the last time a pope entered a synagogue to pray with the Jews their own prayer for the coming of their messiah--someone other than Jesus? When was the last time a papal institute declared the Jews had no need for Christ's redemption? When was the last time a pope elevated to the cardinalate a man he knew doubted the Resurrection or Christ's divinity? When was the last time a pope canonized close to five hundred so-called saints, many of them doubtful? When was the last time a pope presided at a Youth rock-concert/Mass in which the Holy Eucharist was allowed to fall in the mud to be trampled upon or elsewhere washed down with swigs of beer? When was the last time a pope refused to take the traditional papal coronation oath swearing to uphold Tradition? When was the last time a pope kissed the Koran and apologized to Islam for the Church's Crusades? When was the last time a pope allowed a buddha to be place on the holy tabernacle or poured libations to animist spirits in a sacred Togo forest?

All this is just for starters.
29 posted on 01/29/2003 8:13:37 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
How have I proved him right? Do you believe we are obliged to obey absolutely everything coming out of Rome, even when it contradicts past teachings? I hardly think so. Rome has the obligation to show where it is in line with past Catholic doctrines whenever it introduces novelties. If it cannot do this, it must be disobeyed--especially in the present crisis. For example, it is making odd noises about the Jews not needing the same redemption as other men. This is novel--and found nowhere in either Scripture nor in Tradition. It must be rejected.
30 posted on 01/29/2003 8:17:56 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Aloysius; Dajjal; Telit Likitis; ultima ratio; maximillian; Scupoli; Loyalist; Zviadist; HDMZ; ...
Francisco ... quoted me to him without pinging or responding to me. I guess I am being shunned for making an observation.

Intellectual arguments will be responded to. Posters that are notorious liars will be treated with appropriate disdain. For example, Catholicguy, insinuating that there was a theological discussion of the preexistence of souls in heaven, when it was in fact theological speculation regarding only the pre-existence of the Blessed Virgin. Perhaps Catholicguy thinks the Catholic Church erred in canonizing SAINT LOUISE DE MARILLAC? After all, the Catholic Church had her writings thoroughly studied before making the decision to canonize her.

So traditionalists post material such as:

"But Holy Church goes further : she considers that the Blessed Virgin possessed «Her being from before the Creation of the world». What does that mean? To understand it, one need only follow the liturgy for the feasts of the Blessed Virgin and repeat the inspired texts: «The Lord created me when His purpose first unfolded, before the oldest of His works.» (Pr 8.22) The Latin says possedit me, «possessed me», but the Hebrew verb qanani is translated by the Greek as «created me». Furthermore, the Book of Ecclesiasticus clearly states that «before all other things Wisdom was created» (Si 1.4). It is this personified Wisdom which the liturgy so often identifies with the Blessed Virgin, proclaiming: «He who created me fixed a place for my tent. He said, "Make your dwelling in Jacob, and receive Israel as your inheritance." From eternity, in the beginning, He created me, and for eternity I shall remain.» (Si 24.8-9)

In the Proper of the Mass for 8 December, the reading, taken from the Book of Proverbs, continues : «From everlasting I was installed, from the beginning, before the earth came into being.» (Pr 8.23) The Hebrew verb nâsak is the same as that found in Psalm 2, referring to the Messiah : «It is I who have installed my king on Zion, my holy mountain». (Ps 2.6)

«The deep was not when I was brought to birth (et ego iam concepta eram).» (Pr 8.24) The same Hebrew word hûl reappears in the following verse: «When there were no springs gushing with water, before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I was brought to birth (ego parturiebar).» (Pr 8.25)

"Applied to the «being» of the Blessed Virgin, this text read in Latin by Saint Louise expresses first Her «conception» (et ego iam concepta eram) and then Her birth (ego parturiebar). It was Saint Jerome who introduced this nuance, involving two different uses of the same Hebrew verb."

The Neo-Catholic posts "whack job". Gee, what a towering intellectual. If the Neo-Catholics choose to embarass themselves, they are free to do so. However, the thought of entering into any type of correspondence with such an individual does not appeal to me.

Additionally, posters of assertions such as "I have never seen an orthodox Catholic [on this forum] say that they knew better than the Pope", will not be responded to directly. It is a willful distortion of the traditionalist position. I have read the traditionalists here thoroughly refute this distortion 100 times. I will not waste my breath with such an individual.

31 posted on 01/29/2003 8:22:22 AM PST by Francisco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Do you believe we are obliged to obey absolutely everything coming out of Rome, even when it contradicts past teachings?

That's part of the deal. It's not like it hasn't happened before.

I hardly think so.

Personal opinion again.

Rome has the obligation to show where it is in line with past Catholic doctrines whenever it introduces novelties. If it cannot do this, it must be disobeyed--especially in the present crisis.

[big sigh] The church moves at glacial speed, you know that. Actually, in the end, in the current context, this is the biggest obstacle. The fixes and repairs aren't happening fast enough for various people. The dissent didn't set in overnight and it's going to take a while to repair the damage. Rather than drastic quick fixes, the church has opted to take the long deliberate route, which is a lot more work, takes ten times longer and lasts far better. Kind of like using carved granite for a facade rather than aluminum siding.

For example, it is making odd noises about the Jews not needing the same redemption as other men. This is novel--and found nowhere in either Scripture nor in Tradition. It must be rejected.

Last I heard, this wasn't official as you've stated it. I thought the talk was on eccumenism. That probably means that there's some discussion going on behind closed doors. We won't know till it's all over.
32 posted on 01/29/2003 8:29:19 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: Desdemona
It's part of no deal. There is no deal to deny the faith. When Bugnini, by means of a weak and unwise pope, foisted his Protestant Mass on the Catholic world, he created an earthquake. Traditionalists might have survived Vatican II with our noses out of joint, but the New Mass was a false worship and had to be rejected. It represents a new religion and a clear denial of Catholic doctrines. You may not think so--but perhaps you need to study the problem more. This is not a minor issue. It is offensive and harmful to the Catholic faith and must be rejected.

Trust in a pope is admirable. But there are limits. True, the statement on the Jews from a papal institute is not finally official--but it reflects clearly the policy and thinking of this papacy which places a heretical ecumenism before Catholic Tradition itself. That is what I find most damnable about Rome's current agenda. It goes about destroying Tradition, but doing so as Cranmer did in England--by subterfuge and suppression. Do you think it will come out and deny the Real Presence? Not on your life--but it won't defend it either and allows apostate bishops to have their way and deny kneeling before communion and the shunting aside of tabernacles. It knows what's happening--and won't lift a pinky to stop it.
34 posted on 01/29/2003 8:42:31 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: sandyeggo
The priest-noderator of Traditio.com recently wrote something I wholeheartedly agree with, especially when dealing with people like "catholic"guy who is invariably unchristian and nasty towards traditional Catholics in his posts. The level of vitriol is always high with him. Here is what this traditionalist priest said:

"The worst thing that you can do against the Novus Ordo is to speak the truth. Since it is in essence based on a lie, a 'New Order,' it hates the light of truth. Therefore, it ruthlessly attempts to suppress the truth. And this organization that likes to call itself the Church of Love barbarically puts down those who speak the traditional faith by threats and defamations.

"The New Order is basically a schoolyard bully, who backs off when you confront him. His power lies in people's fear of confrontation. That is why the Traditional Catholic Movement must confront Novus Ordoism at every turn and, in doing so, will win far more battles than it loses."

I believe this comment is right on the mark. Traditionalists are armed with the truth--and the Catholic faith.
35 posted on 01/29/2003 8:50:06 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
<> Of course, you are right, Desdemona. It is proved every day on these threads. Schismatics have usurped Divinely-Constituted Authority. They decide for themselves, using "rational" means, what is and isn't "tradtion" and they will obey the Pope only to the extent the Pope agrees with them.

Of course, that is precisely the identical orientation to the Papacy the Protestant has. The Protestant will agree with the Pope - provided the Pope agrees with what the Protestant has determined using "rational" means. Sola Scriptura and Sola Traditio are the Twin Enfant Terribles of Jejune Private Judgement.

Both the Protestant Protestant and the Protestant Schismatic have made themselves the ultimate authority. "The Pope must agree with me" before I obey him is the, unspoken, standard of Judgement. The Self,Intellectual Pride, and Will ALL come before the Divinely-Constituted Authority of the Papacy.

How hard is it to "obey" and in what way is it commendable, or even Christian, if one only "obeys" what one agrees with? Can a child said to be obedient if he only obeys that with which he agrees?

Jesus, we are told, was "obedient" to His parents, yet, schismatics refuse their obedience to the Pope. Of course, that is not a fair comparison. Jesus was humble. Kids, now-a-days, know so much more than Dad does.

Obedience is illustrated when one "obeys" when the authority decides against his personal opinion.

All the other "explanations" and rationalisations and citing this and that Saint in opposition to Divinely-Constituted Authority are just the actions of spoiled children throwing tantrums while their endless quibbling, explicating, and cavilling over ancient Bulls and Documents represent efforts to Role Play they are Dad.

Mebbe, some day, they will grow-up and act like a Christian adult, but don't hold your breath. That is what they are doing - holding their breath, thinking themselves true blue, - and thinking their schismatic tantrums will be rewarded by having Dad hand them not only the Keys to the famiy car, but the Keys to the Kingdom.

Real, adult, Catholics know that won't happen. Dad has a Boss he will NOT disobey and the Boss has sent the Holy Spirit to help Dad deal with these unruly, self-willed children.

How long with Dad's patience last? The tantrum-throwers think forever... Mebbe, mebbe Dad's patience will last...but, how about the patience of Dad's Boss?

We shall see...<>

36 posted on 01/29/2003 8:57:48 AM PST by Catholicguy (Protestantism, minus integrity and courage = Schism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Traditionalists might have survived Vatican II with our noses out of joint, but the New Mass was a false worship and had to be rejected. It represents a new religion and a clear denial of Catholic doctrines.

How? And please provide doctrinal specifics. Violations of CANON LAW. Not preferences.

That is what I find most damnable about Rome's current agenda. It goes about destroying Tradition, but doing so as Cranmer did in England--by subterfuge and suppression. Do you think it will come out and deny the Real Presence?

I don't know where you live, but you need to get out more. There has NEVER been a denial of the Real Presence in official church teaching. There are some bishops suppressing it, I suppose (not where I live). But this has never been denied in any way from the Vatican.

Not on your life--but it won't defend it either and allows apostate bishops to have their way and deny kneeling before communion and the shunting aside of tabernacles.

You haven't been paying attention. This is in the process of being fixed. Bishops have been warned. No, their heads aren't rolling, but they've been corrected, and, yes, they are resisting. It might take retirements before some dioceses change. The reversal is going to be gradual.

Now, would you kindly give us ONE, just ONE, example of an OFFICIAL piece of Canon Law, Doctrine, not Mass rubrics, either, which has been contradicted under the current Magisterium.
37 posted on 01/29/2003 9:03:01 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
The Protestant will agree with the Pope - provided the Pope agrees with what the Protestant has determined using "rational" means.

Hence why we're stuck with the protestant revolt. And since the Pope won't bend...
38 posted on 01/29/2003 9:13:14 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
For some reason your #34 brings to mind the following :

"I'm sorry Jesus Christ did not have a good public relations office because maybe he wouldn't have had the bad problem of being crucified," he told the Herald during an interview this weekend.

The speaker is Cardinal Lustiger in an interview with Paul Sheehan of the Sidney Morning Herald in 2001 (Actual date not given by mirroring source). Full text here

- Telit

39 posted on 01/29/2003 9:25:06 AM PST by Telit Likitis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sandyeggo
Intellectual arguments will be responded to. Posters that are notorious liars will be treated with appropriate disdain. For example, Catholicguy,

<> LOL I am deeply wounded. I cited the decision of the Magisterium against Origen condemning the pre-existence of souls in Heaven. I thought the pre-existennce of souls was held by Mormons, New Agers and whatnot. Who knew the poor, confused Abbe would resurrect the idea? And what in the world is the purpose of resubmitting to the Magisterium a Doctrine previously condemned?

Besides, the Abbe is already on record as identifying the Magisteriumn Heretical. So, a suspended priest asks a Heretical Magisterium if a previously condemened heresy is acceptable and the devotee of that suspended priest identifes others as liars and idiots. Makes sense to me:)

As to Saints, Good Lord...has anyone EVER thought that every opinion, idea, speculative thought ect a Saint had was true? LOL That is sub-pitiful as Catholicsm. Some of the positions held by St. Augustine, among other Saints, were condemned. Good Lord. Some Schismatics are arrogant and ignorant. That is not a good combination. They publicly display ignorance of RUDIMENTARY CATHOLICISM yet presume to Judge the Pope a heretic. Sheesh...<>

First of all, take your matters up with CatholicGuy.

<> The Bengals have a better chance against Tampa Bay:)

P.S. Note the "trads" will not attack the resurrection of that heresy. Francisco has previously posted that heresy and not a single "trad" has confronted it. That is indicative of what (well, not what, who) the real object of the attack is. It isn't heresy..it is the Papacy that disagrees with their personal opinions as to what does and does not constitute tradition.

It had to fall to little ol' neo-catholic me, a lying, idiot, to confront a heresy:)<>

40 posted on 01/29/2003 9:26:10 AM PST by Catholicguy (Protestantism, minus integrity and courage = Schism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sandyeggo
<> Let's see..the Pope can't be trusted, so, schismatics turn to "Traditio"<>

Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 20:41:18 -0400

Author: "Terrence J. Boyle"

Subject: Re: ("Fr. M. E.) Morrison

Body: Hello:

M.E. Morrison was "ordained" in California in a Protestant church (Ebenezer Lutheran Chirch) by Thaddeus Alioto, a married man claiming to be a bishop (because he had been "consecrated" a bishop by Wallace David de Ortega Maxey).

De Ortega Maxey had been "consecrated" numerous times by various North American Old Catholic bishops (whom even the Old Catholic Churches in Europe deny have valid orders). De Ortega Maxey also *claimed* to have been consecrated by Antoine Aneed.

Aneed's story is that he was consecrated a bishop by a RC Eastern Rite bishop in Syria and sent to America. Both the Vatican and the Syrian Patriarchate involved denounced the story as a fabrication.

If you have any doubts over the veracity of my statements as to where Morrison got "ordained," just ask his fellow "independent" priest, Merril Adamson. He was "ordained" in the same ceremony. I've a written statement from him confirming the fact.

This is important not because of anything Morrison states on the internet, but because he dresses up his statements as coming from a RC priest.

Even the devil can quote Scripture.

Anyone e-mailing to Morrison's list a request for the facts of his claimed ordination will be dropped.

It never ceases to amaze me how sedevacantists can be so cock-sure JP II is a fraud, yet swallow hook, line and sinker any number of bogus clerics; just because the frauds sing the music sedes like to hear.

It takes more than "right" preaching to make a priest.

Regards, Terry Boyle

41 posted on 01/29/2003 9:32:59 AM PST by Catholicguy (Protestantism, minus integrity and courage = Schism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: Desdemona
YOU haven't been paying attention. I have been posting now for months on end detailed objections to the New Mass--insofar as it is a violation of Trent. Cardinal Ratzinger himself has recognized the problem with the Novus Ordo and its violation of Trent in his speech at Fontgombault. Here is what he said about the invalidation by Trent of precisely the kind of Mass concocted by Bugnini in violation of Catholic doctrine and the whole of Catholic tradition:

"It is only by grasping that it [the hatred for the old Latin Mass by Novus Ordo bishops] results from the practical invalidation of Trent, that one can understand the exasperation that accompanies the fight against the possibility of still celebrating Mass according to the '62 Missal."

And he said this at the same venue:

"From the start, I was in favor of the freedom to continue to use the old Missal, for a very simple reason: people were already beginning to speak of a rupture with the pre-conciliar Church, and the formation of different models of churches: an 'outmoded' pre-conciliar Church, and a new, conciliar Church...It seems to me indispensable to retain the possibility of celebrating according to the former missal as a sign of the permanent identity of the Church."

This is why I speak of a new religion. There is no real permanent identity between the two, between pre-conciliar condemnations of modernism and modernism's triumph in Rome. There is, instead, a clear rupture between what went before the Council and what came after. This is why Rome itself accuses traditionalist priests of not thinking with "the conciliar Church" and makes fantastic claims of being the arbiter of what is and is not Tradition. The Pope is supposedly the bridge, the unifying force, the true decider of all things Traditional. But he ceases to be this when he himself is so enamored of radical change and has aligned himself so clearly against his predecessors. So we have two churches, the before Church and the after Church. You and others apparently accept and affirm the latter which is forty years old. I believe and affirm the former which has existed for twenty centuries and still exists among a traditional Catholic remnant.
43 posted on 01/29/2003 12:26:45 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Ummmm.....

First off, I specifically said no Mass rubrics. That's been beaten to death.

Second I asked for a change in doctrine or Canon Law. You're skirting. What, other than Mass, has changed. What specific parts of the teaching of the church has changed at the Vatican level as a result of modernism. We know the ban on birth control and in-utero infanicide is still there. What has changed?
44 posted on 01/29/2003 12:32:00 PM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
You write we only obey the Pope when the Pope agrees with us. Wrong. We will obey the Pope when he returns to tradition and agrees with his predecessors. Novelty is not tradition, even when a pope says it is.
45 posted on 01/29/2003 12:35:53 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
The sacrificial structure was dumped, to begin with, along with the Offertory in favor of the Jewish prayer of thanksgiving before a meal. Any reference to expiation for sins was eliminated. Reference to the Real Presence as the Mystery of Faith was eliminated. There are a thousand textual changes that make the new Mass more humanistic and Protestant than Catholic. I'd need to write a book to explain them all. For instance, why was "say but the word and my SOUL shall be healed" changed to "say but the word and I shall be healed?" Why is the word "soul" missing from other passages as well? There are too many of these unCatholic humanist touches to go into here. And this is not even getting into rubrics. Facing the people may seem like a minor issue to you, easily dismissable, but it is just another change that underscores the essential break with tradition, as Card. Ratzinger at Fontgombault has also stated:

"Today celebration versus populum really does look like the characteristic fruit of Vatican II's liturgical reform. In fact it is the most conspicuous consequence of a reordering that not only signifies a new arrangement of the places dedicated to the liturgy, but also brings with it a new idea of the ESSENCE of the liturgy--the liturgy as a communal meal...A common turning to the east during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of something accidental, but of what is essential. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. It is not now a question of dialogue but of common worship."

But of course the new religion wants no such common worship with anybody. It punished traditionalist priests from the outset and wished to ban the old Mass as well as facing to the east--precisely because it emphasizes what is being offered to the Father--Christ's Body and Blood in a reenactment of Cavalry. This has been anathema to modernist liturgical "experts". Not surprising. All this has happened before. Luther started by turning the priest around to face the people and by throwing out the Offertory. He wanted to underscore the communal meal, the Lord's Supper--just as Ratzinger states is happening now in the Novus Ordo. Unfortunately for those who defend the Novus Ordo--this idea of the Mass has already been banned by Trent. Not all the arguments to the contrary can make the present set-up traditional Catholicism. It is a sucking-up to Martin Luther at the expense of our own doctrinal integrity.
46 posted on 01/29/2003 1:05:04 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Not Mass. Anything else. But not Mass. I'm not asking about worship. I'm talking about modernist teaching.

One. Just ONE difference in Canon Law or Doctrine. Just one.
47 posted on 01/29/2003 1:07:30 PM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Who is Terry Boyle and why should we believe him? I've done a google search on this--but there is nothing at all on this individual. This looks like more Novus Ordo disinformation to me.
48 posted on 01/29/2003 1:20:47 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Francisco
The Neo-Catholic posts "whack job". Gee, what a towering intellectual. If the Neo-Catholics choose to embarass themselves, they are free to do so. However, the thought of entering into any type of correspondence with such an individual does not appeal to me.

The posts of that particular individual are nothing more than missives from the Darkness. Yours, however, are outstanding but at times it is like trying to teach Calculus to kindergarteners.

Thanks for the ping and the wise words.

49 posted on 01/29/2003 1:42:33 PM PST by Scupoli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Telit Likitis
Lustiger must be friends with Kasper.
50 posted on 01/29/2003 1:45:43 PM PST by Scupoli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 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