Free Republic

The problem with the article is that it is very short on facts. The letter, which is referenced, doesn’t appear in the link.

Secondly, we don’t know what Cardinal Ouillet actually said in his meeting.

If the Archbishop is defying a specific order, then, what typically happens, is he would be called to Rome. From there, he would take a “Time Out” in an Italian monastery.

Should he not straighten himself out, then excommunication hearings could begin. See Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo.

This is why urban police need horses and dogs. Forget using bikes for riot control, a man on a horse can control 10 people.

Well played, well played.

I understand that power is what all politicians want, but how does the event promote that agenda?

Do you mean the door-to-door searches were done to condition people to 4th amendment violations?

What other tactics, particular to the Marathon, are you speaking of?

My goal isn’t argument, but better understanding of your point of view.

That is a very cryptic reply. While I am concerned about the current administration and its tactics, I am not sure how “they” want to control me.

Please provide some more details.

This is the statement that concerns me most:

“Asked if her CST unit had received any intelligence concerning a heightened risk of attack, she said “no, but if they knew about something they probably wouldn’t have told us.”

Talk about a lack of coordination!

OK, it was swept twice, but there was no on-going security?

I am not looking to point fingers, but address items that could be used in an After Action Report.

Consider how the Army, when on patrol, are constantly scanning the perimeter. If something is out of place, which that bag clearly is, action is taken. Think road-side bomb.

Maybe that is what we have to do now for major events, have somebody(s) walking the event route, scanning for unattended items.

My questions revolve around when the package was placed. Was it placed before the barricades or after?

Was anybody watching the barricades?

When I look at the pictures (before and after), one sees the bomb sitting on the street side of the crowd control rails.

That image brings up a number of questions. The first, when they put the rails up, didn’t they notice the item? If they did, why didn’t somebody toss it? If they didn’t, why not?

Secondly, this is a world-class event, why would the organizers allow a trash heap?

My gut tells me the bomb was placed before the rails went up. The reason nobody removed the bomb was because it “wasn’t their job.”

If people had noticed it, they should have said something. When you are in the airport, every third announcement is to notify authorities of unattended bags.

No problem with seeing people for being people. The last perfect man died and rose again 2000 years ago.

However, when you look at what she actually did, you will see that for decades, she took in and cared for people who an entire country (India) turned their back on.

People who would have died alone, in a gutter, were brought in, given personal attention, and cared for. Sure they died, but at least somebody showed them love.

Mother Theresa lived the Gospel everyday. She ministered to the poor, the hungry, the sick, the lame, the widow and the orphan.

What else do you want!?!

Why doesn’t the locality just raise real estate and other taxes? Why should the rest of the state have to cover the shortfall?

Of course, this begs the question, as to why the pensions are so generous to begin with?

I saw what you did there. Real classy.

Use your intellect and see that some people, like Mother Theresa, actually cared for the poor, sick and dying with her own hands.

She also believed that good does come from suffering, but never wished anyone to suffer. That’s why she was there, helping whom? The suffering. Look up salvific suffering.

It is very easy to be critical, though the criticism may be accurate.

I think the challenge Cardinal Dolan is facing is how to create a soundbite answer for a soundbite audience.

Perhaps the better answer would have been to say “All are welcome to an encounter with the Lord through the reading of Scripture and re-presenation of the Lord’s Passion.” In the same vein, all are also called to admit and atone for their sins, seeking to restore their relationship with God.”

It is difficult to express love the sinner/hate the sin, AND turn away from sin, especially mortal sin, AND the specific Church teachings on sexual morality, in one answer.

Is it impossible, no. Is it difficult to express to the low information types? Yes.

With respect to all, I don’t think this violates Canon Law. If it does, where is the appropriate citation?

Secondly, a local ordinary has pretty broad discretion on the application of various rules concerning both the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, as well as keeping/not keeping of certain feast days/fasts (e.g. St. Patrick’s Day during Lent), etc.

So, did Pope Francis take latitude in a ritual? It would appear. Is this one case the big deal others are making it? I’m not so sure, but could be wrong.

*Patting self on the back* I emailed the AP to point out that glaring error. Nice to see they actually read the email and corrected the error. Shotgun in glove compartment, sheesh.

Now back to regularly scheduled posting and commenting.

Please remove your tin-foil mitre.

You will notice I said “a” major financier, not all.

If we stick to the question, we used the means necessary to defeat a stated enemy, and have changed the global battlefield.

Has terrorism stopped? Nope. Will they ever stop? I hope so, but I am not optimistic in that regard.

In my opinion, the presence of US forces in a pincer-like posture around Iran has been worth it. This includes Afghanistan.

We eliminated Saddam Hussein, stopping a major financier of terrorism, we helped/helping reconstitute its armed forces as a defense against Iran, and have demonstrated resolve through the force of arms.

Nobody truly wins a war, due to the cost of lives and property. However, we changed the global battlefield.

Not only have we militarily stressed Iran, we have also been conducting operations against Pakistan. Though a titular ally, their government and ISI are well aware of our ability to strike with impunity.

In my opinion, our military presence gives pause to those in the region who would do us, or Israel harm. Our ability to project power and control territory are essential deterrents.

For the record, I lost 3 friends in Iraq, and another lost half an arm.

Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?

Allow me this imperfect analogy. In a discussion by parent and adult child, child asks parent if they know a certain relative. Parent knows relative and states the wife had a miscarriage. No medical record of the miscarriage was made.

Since this was an important piece of family history, the story was told and retold through the generations.

Several generations later, in writing a family history, a “modern” relative recounts the story, but admits no records exist.

In light of this circumstance, would you call the story fiction?

Actually, you fail to demonstrate the reasonability of your statements when asked.

Simply, you suggest that unless something is specifically written in the Bible, and not a “Catholic” Bible, then it is to be viewed negatively.

You do know that the word “Trinity” exists nowhere in the Bible, right? We could go on and on about what is and isn’t in the Bible, like voting, but it would be absurd. But you know that.

Since the Bible didn’t exist as a unified document until 393, it couldn’t provide instructions on how it was to be assembled. So, by your logic, we couldn’t have a Bible, as it wouldn’t be Scriptural.

If you wish to have a discussion, be prepared to explain your statements. Replies with “Read the Gospels” don’t explain what YOU think. Rather, having read the Gospels, there are different opinions, so explain yours.

Luke, you are right, and I hope, people recognize Jesus as the Christ and turn to Him for their salvation!

However, as to your pastor, the difference is how we worship. Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans, worship sacramentally. By that, a priest is required to lead the people, and administer the sacraments (there is variation amongst the denominations).

Non-sacramental worship involves praying, preaching, and fellowship, and thus no need for a sacrificing priesthood.

Allow me to close this discussion thusly:

The Roman Catholic Church has its beliefs, published in its various books.

Other Christians have their beliefs, published in its various books (Book of Concord, etc.)

Cal Thomas has expressed a point of view during a period of time Roman Catholics are electing a new leader.

So what? People of different religions disagree. What is new? One is free to believe or not believe as they choose. Once again, so what?

So, how is the leadership of your church chosen? Every non-Catholic Christian denomination uses some sort of committee to determine who their Pastor will be.

Denominations, such as Baptists, vote also, on who their leadership will be.

So..., Roman Catholics vote on who its leader will be, and use smoke to communicate that a leader has been chosen.

What does picking leadership have to do with blasphemy?

Again, I don’t see how you are connecting the two.

Only if you believe Catholics ignore the 1st Commandment.

When you ask your neighbor to pray for you, is that person acting as a mediator? No. He is merely offering his prayer as well. So why not ask your neighbors in Heaven to pray for you? Why not ask His mother? The people at the wedding feast at Cana did, and look what happened! (John 2:1-11)

Perhaps you need to recognize that the English word “pray,” has multiple meanings. If you believe that all prayer is identical, then you are constraining the definition.

Pray, as in worship due only to God, is one thing. Pray, as to petition others on our behalf, is something totally different.

Finally, are the souls in Heaven “dead?” Assuming you go to Heaven, will you be dead? NO! You will be praising God ceaselessly! As a member of the Body of Christ, you will also be petitioning Him for the souls of your brethren on Earth.

That is pretty awesome! Way to go EMC!

BTW, the Vatican Library has a great newsletter, free via email.

If you like historic manuscripts, or just curious, you will love the newsletter.

The odds aren’t in my favor. However, my take is that he is young, a polyglot, a “real” aristocrat, both an insider and outsider, and belongs to groups most in the spotlight:

Congregations: for the Doctrine of the Faith; for the Oriental Churches; for Catholic Education;

Pontifical Councils: for Culture; for Promoting New Evangelization;

Special Council for Europe of the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops.

Just to name a few things...

I am going to put a marker on Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna.

He is young, and was editor of the Catechism published in 1992.

While I know God will handle it, it is fun to make a prediction.

Here is link to his profile on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Sch%C3%B6nborn

Thank you for the title correction!

Slightly off topic, but why couldn’t the author use the verb, “give” instead of the noun, “gift?”

While I am aware of certain tax situations where gift is used as a verb, when did it enter the lexicon of contemporary language?

You are quite welcome! It is often misunderstood. It doesn’t help that English isn’t well suited when it comes to liturgical concepts.

The office of the Supreme Pontiff has the ability to infallibly on matters of faith and morals, ex cathedra teaching.

Benedict XVI is no longer Supreme Pontiff and thus is no longer responsible for teaching the universal church.

A great and detailed explanation, with scriptural references, can be found here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

No problem. I certainly don’t know who its going to be, mostly because the College is overwhelmingly European, Italian, specifically.

Ultimately, only God knows, and he isn’t telling.

He is the Archbishop of New York, not California. He was Archbishop of Milwaukee.

Good, but no Raymond Cardinal Burke!

What I think is particularly funny is they have an entry control point, with nobody performing the entry control function.

Now, of course, they are trying to get a good picture and don’t want an Airman in the picture, but the ropes and cones sans guard is pretty funny.

Wow, again, in my opinion, a lot of bickering over not that much.

It would appear that one group is mad the Council didn’t say specific things in a specific way. In that case, I don’t really care.

Also, I don’t think it was necessary for the Council to give a litany (ha ha!) of all previously mentioned heresies, and remind us they still heresies.

Finally, the return of dissidents is up to the dissidents. While Benedict XVI has made significant efforts to bring back SSPX, it is up to SSPX to make the next move.

Again, all just my personal opinion.

You make a good point, if read with proper Catholic formation, it makes sense. However, it may lead to misinterpretation by others.

Again, this just my opinion, but they may have wanted the documents to be more readable by the laity.

That said, a lack of precision will occur. For example, when a physician speaks to a patient about a medical condition, it is often done in a way that promotes general understanding only.

My personal opinion is that highly learned theologians disagreed with the Bishops and other highly learned theologians who wrote the Vatican II documents.

It is also my personal opinion that change is hard, and religious change is even harder.

For one group to complain that the other group isn’t using the “right” words or language is akin to the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Having read 6 of the 16 documents of Vatican II (still working on the rest), I can’t see any false doctrines, new pronouncements of dogma, or anything of the like. Rather, what I have read is the affirmation of Church’s teaching, an exposition of the proper relationship between the laity and the clergy, as well as stream-lining and harmonizing of rites, etc.

Can honest people disagree, of course. Should it create division in the Church, NO!

Jesus promised Peter the Gates of Hell would not prevail. We should trust in Him, follow the Scriptures, and be nourished by the Magisterium of the Church.

What is your definition of orthodox vs. non-orthodox?

Also, what is “Romanism?”

I have assumptions of what you mean, but don’t want to put words into your mouth.

OK, since you don’t want to use the Bible to understand the evolution of the Church, I encourage you to read historic accounts of the times, as well as Church history written by secular authors.

While your opinion of Peter is strictly your matter, it would be worthwhile to understand how the eleven original Apostles spread the Gospel, creating a unified entity until the first schism in around year 1054.

You ascribe a significant amount of emotion, and falsity in your post, so I won’t take it personally, but rather as a sign of ignorance of basic facts.

The reports of political death are greatly exaggerated.

Which theocracy, with fewer than 1000 citizens is able to command world attention, have dictators literally shaking in their pants(General Jaruzelski), and have its leader draw millions to open air events? Hmmm, what would that be??

If you guessed Vatican City, you would be right!

Fortunately, political power isn’t essential in the spreading of the Gospel, but it certainly helps.

No other organization has more charitable hospitals, schools, or charitable anything than the Catholic Church.

As Peter was the leader of the Apostles after the Resurrection, so his successor leads his brother bishops in the care of the Church and its believers, as well as its ministries of charity and evangelization to the entire world.

Regarding the Bible and the organization of the Church, one only need look at Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21. You will continue to notice in the entire book of Acts that Peter is the lead figure. St. Paul goes to Jerusalem to see Peter first, then James, but no other Apostles (Galatians 1:18).

These references are only a small sampling of what the Bible tells us about the organization of the Church.

I hope this helps!

My larger point in this discussion is what obedience/respect is due to the Pope and his brother bishops?

Are we obliged to only follow dogma? Are we obliged to follow the teachings of the local ordinary?

What obedience can be expected?

In my opinion, we must be obedient in dogmatic teachings, the observance of the liturgy, observance of Obligations put forth, and general teachings of the Church.

In some cases, such as capital punishment, we are not required to share the same view as the Church, but should seriously take its opinion to heart.

On the other hand, say cohabitation, no dogmatic teaching is necessary to know it is unacceptable.

In relation to this entire discussion, I have questioned your position related to the article. I have called you out on your general attitude to the Holy Father and his predecessors.

I have also stated that your general attitude creates division.

Finally, why would you, a faithful member of the Roman Catholic Church, post an article by Dici, the communication agency of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, and then support it??

Do you consider Dici and its writings positive in the nourishment of your soul? Do you consider their writings positive in promoting Christian unity?

Do yourself and others a favor: distance yourself from SSPX and don’t promote their schismatic positions.

Do you find God so weak and confused that he would allow a mere man, of human nature alone, the power to destroy His Church?

The same Church he promised the Gates of Hell would not prevail against.

Do you find God so confused that he would instruct the Holy Spirit to inspire Cardinal electors to vote for this man who ostensibly had the power to destroy the Church?

We have been discussing the Bishops of Rome, so let’s stay on the subject. While you are right to bring up Bishops who strayed from their vocations and criticize them, there is a fine line. Also, although a Bishop by rank, the Pope enjoys the special blessings of the Holy Spirit and the universal Church.

Finally, I would never condemn Sts. Paul, Catherine, Athansius, or any saint for that matter. I am not presumptuous enough to consider myself in their league.

While we live in difficult times, with relativism, egoism, and the Enemy running wild, Our Lord will never abandon His Church. Tougher times have been had. We should be grateful we have not been to called to witness as martyrs.

We are blessed to live in a time of struggle, where our faith is called upon daily, even hourly, to strengthen us. We must stand strong against the horror of abortion, the decay of morality, and the destruction of the family.

Can we sustain our fight when arguing about which Pope is best, and whether Communion in the hand is valid? Can we sustain our fight when trying to one-up each other in knowledge or virtue?

You are right, pride is a terrible sin, and all succumb to it. Let us rally together, encouraging each other, to fight the Enemy. Let us work to present the face of Christ to all we meet.

Stay strong in your quest for virtue and Truth. Be confirmed in your desire to serve our Lord. May the sublime mysteries be made simple and your lot increased.

Pax tecum!

Well, when you speak like a schismatic, you are likely to be called on.

When you criticize a Sovereign Pontiff and criticize duly called and order Vatican Council, you appear schismatic.

When you call me a liar, when I admitted a mistake is not charitable. Please also see Post 48 where I state:

“My incorrect assumption, for which I humbly and graciously apologize, was based on the substance and tone with which you have written against Paul VI, and the Second Vatican Council. I was wrong in assuming.”

Who has the more pride, the one who criticizes Popes and bishops, or the one defends the clergy?

Are you more Catholic than Blessed John XXIII? Are you more Catholic than Paul VI?

Consider those statements when you sit on your Papal throne, wearing your Papal tiara and judge the work of the past.

If you re-read post 32, you will see 3 key words: Infallibility, faith, and morals.

You will also see how those three words are clearly and specifically linked to the term ex cathedra.

From the Catholic Encylopedia:

The phrase ex cathedra ... its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: “We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.” (See INFALLIBILITY; POPE.) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm

How have I defamed you?? How have I harmed you, ridiculed you, or tarnished your reputation?

Regarding which Holy Father, there is only one at a given time.

My incorrect assumption, for which I humbly and graciously apologize, was based on the substance and tone with which you have written against Paul VI, and the Second Vatican Council. I was wrong in assuming.

The reigning Pontiff has certain prerogatives. We know that Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of the 4 bishops ordained by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, levied by Blessed John Paul II.

It is also consistent that one Pope may relieve a requirement made by another Pope, as we have seen throughout the centuries, especially regarding the norms of receiving Holy Communion. Specifically, the period of fast, as well the frequency with which one may receive.

It is heartening to hear you are not suffering in schism. God be praised!

Please consider, however, how you speak of the Servants of God, our deceased Pontiffs. While you may have disagreement with specific issues from a given period, those men were called by Our Lord to serve His people.

Such are men, imperfect. As you mentioned, Peter, our first Pope, denied Christ Himself 3 times! However, we don’t condemn Peter. Perhaps criticisms of Popes is best left in private quarters, so as not to give the appearance of disunity.

May we continue to thank God for His ocean of Mercy and His willingness to have us as His Children.

As I stated before, I truly believe your sincerity in your beliefs. However, somewhere along the pilgrim trail, you appear to have been detoured to schismatic beliefs.

As a reminder, Mgr. Lefebvre acted against the expressed orders of the Holy Father more than once, begining in 1976 (http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Chapter_12.htm).

He was later suspended a Divinis (22 July 1976
Notification of Suspension a Divinis). In the words of Pope Paul VI (through the Secretariat of the Congregation for Bishops), whom you acknowledge was Sovereign and Supreme Pontiff:

“... it is with great sorrow that the Holy Father resolved to take this disciplinary measure, because of the scandal caused to the Christian people by your obstinacy, after so many fraternal attempts to turn you from the blind alley in which you are proceeding. His Holiness cherishes the hope that you will again reflect on this, and he begs Our Lord to inspire you with the resolve to re-establish as soon as possible your communion with him.” (http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_one/Chapter_12.htm)

In charity, is this the path you wish to follow? Do you wish to follow those who would flagrantly disobey the Holy Father?

Please also reflect upon this one passage from the Apostolic Letter “ECCLESIA DEI” of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II Given MOTU PROPRIO, 2 July 1988 (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html)

4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, “comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth”.(5)

While I welcome continued dialogue, and the most recent moves toward reconciliation, I urge you, as a brother in Christ, to put aside schismatic beliefs and attitudes, and attune your heart, mind, and soul to the rightful teachings of the Holy Father and the Church founded by Christ.

I don’t know the GIRM to be “screwed up.”

I trust the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, led by Cardinal Arinze.

I apologize for my vagueness. My intent was to question whether you believe Blessed John XXIII and Paul VI were validly elected Popes.

I only asked it directly once, but called it into question at least twice.

To be mistaken doesn’t make one a liar.

See post 32, ex cathedra is implied.

If they were legitimate Popes, you are obliged to follow their teachings on faith and morals. “Good” or “bad” is subjective. They were elected according to God’s plan for the Church.

All ordained men and other religious are required to be obedient to his teachings on all matters, by their vows.

By virtue of their office and election, Popes have an assumption of correctness. They have the legitimate right to rule the Church, teach, and guide.

When people disagree, they can communicate their disagreement through the appropriate channels. Until such time as it is addressed or changed, the assumption is that the Holy See is correct, and obedience is expected.

If one doesn’t wish to follow these norms, especially the clergy, they need to re-think their membership.

For those unwilling to obey, they should disassociate themselves with the Catholic Church and worship elsewhere, no longer calling themselves Roman Catholic.

After the election of Benedict XVI, someone said, “The cafeteria is now closed.” No more picking and choosing what one wishes to believe.

It is clear that your intention was to post a reply not meant for discussion, but rather argument.

You make a statement that is inconsistent with what was reported, attempting to pass it off as truth.

You continue to demonstrate that you either haven’t read the article or read it thoroughly.

Your interpretation and comments regarding John 6:56 also demonstrate, like those listening to Jesus, you find it hard to hear and believe. And clearly, the Bible does back my view, as it comes straight from the mouth of Our Lord.

I will pray that your zeal for the Truth leads you to the fullest possible relationship with Our Lord.

May God’s peace fill your heart and days!