The Neo-Catholic Dead-End

Dear ultima,

"You will remember me in your prayers?"

No, that isn't what I said. I said, "I remember you in my prayers."

As in, I remembered you in my prayers today. And yesterday. And a lot of other days.

"Talk about speaking falsehoods."

Are you saying that I'm lying that I remember you in my prayers? Precisely how would you know that I'm lying?

"You show your true venom when you repeat I'm not a Catholic."

Well, I don't think I'm saying it out of a desire to be venomous. From all the evidence that has been splattered across this site since you joined in July, it's my honest opinion, and that of the intelligent, knowledgeable Catholic members of this forum, that you are a schismatic, and no longer in communion with the Holy Catholic Church.

Obviously, as I told Zviadist, I can't make a "legal" judgement to that effect, but as I told Zviadist, I can observe the facts of the situation, and draw a reasonably solid conclusion therefrom.

You are an individual with an indult Mass available to you, yet you obstinately defy the Supreme Pontiff and attend illicit Masses held by schismatics. These are schismatic acts, and those who obstinately cling to schismatic acts, even after many explanations and warnings, are schismatics.

My saying it doesn't make it so, but I have eyes, too.

You state that the Magisterium of Pope John Paul II is different from the "Magisteria" (!!) of pre-Vatican II popes. You believe that you may interpret prior Ecumenical Councils in a way that varies from the instructions given to us by the Supreme Pontiff.

Frankly, I wonder whether some of these beliefs of yours actually start to fall into heresy, rather than merely schism. Multiple "Magisteria", for goodness sake!!

You no longer submit to the Holy Father and his teaching and instructions. You refuse to take heed of the warnings given to you, often out of the deepest charity, and obstinately cling to your disobedience, your practice of schismatic acts, which directly go to a rupture in the unity of the Church ("Schism [from the Greek schisma, rent, division] is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity,..." - Catholic Encyclopedia).

You go on and on with your false arguments, your false assertions, your misquotes, your mischaracterizations, your manufactured quotes, well past the point of having made yourself look foolish to those with any sort of rational sense or discernment.

When others lack the willingness to repeat over and over their refutations of your falsehoods, you mistake your willingness to repeat over and over your falsehoods and errors for winning the debate.

LOL.

"But that is the sum of your pathetic argument."

Yes, it is the sum. In the sense that it is what it all adds up to. All that has gone before adds up to the sum of the argument: you are no longer a Catholic.

And I will continue to pray for you.

;-)

sitetest

When you have to make up words, then you have stopped arguing. There is a perfectly good term for what you are claiming and that is ultramontane, but no, I do not hold this pope or any bishop to be above criticism. "Peter" has screwed up too many times for anyone to think that "he" is generally impeccable. On the other hand, I think you make too much of the Council of Trent, which no more than its predecessors can be said to have had the "last word" in everything it said and did. It was a dike against the tide of heresy and it worked well. But every bulwark erodes over time.

You have taken the most words to say nothing at all. You crow about how Ultima's arguments have been disproven, yet I see no dis-proof at all on this thread. Indeed, it seems to you the mere word "schismatic" can take the place of all argumentation. Reading your above post, I must conclude that you intended it to mean nothing at all, as it is completely unintelligible.

By the way, SSPX priests are not schismatic. (Neither are the bishops or Abp. Lefebvre, as they were denied due process according to Canon law, but why confuse the matter with facts?)

The Mass according to the Holy Roman Rite, as it has existed for centuries and millenia, codified "for all eternity" by Pope St. Pius V, cannot be "schismatic": for if that is so, then everything you believe in is but a big lie. If we are false now in adhering to the original Faith, then the entire Roman Church is false, all the Saints were false, the Doctors of the Church were liars, Pope St. Pius V and all the other popes were all liars and deceivers: If we are wrong now, the Catholic Church has been the greatest tool of the devil in history. This is the position you take. The rest of us believe that God has not lied to and decieved us for the nearly 2,000 years we have adhered to Sacred Tradition and the old Faith. So, to use a favorite phrase, who is "schismatic" now?

Dear Zviadist,

"You have taken the most words to say nothing at all."

Thanks. It's a specialty. ;-)

"You crow about how Ultima's arguments have been disproven, yet I see no dis-proof at all on this thread."

You obviously didn't read what I wrote, whether I said nothing at all, or not. It isn't reasonable to have to repeat on every thread the refutations against ultima, when they have run to tens of thousands of words. Go look up the threads yourself. It's good exercise.

"Indeed, it seems to you the mere word 'schismatic' can take the place of all argumentation."

Indeed, the word becomes a symbol for all that has come before. It doesn't take the place of all argumentation. It reminds others, and the schismatic himself, of all the argumentation that HAS gone before.

"By the way, SSPX priests are not schismatic. (Neither are the bishops or Abp. Lefebvre, as they were denied due process according to Canon law, but why confuse the matter with facts?)"

Others more intelligent and knowledgeable have stomped this one to death, Z. You are showing the same flaws as your schismatic friend, ultima, repeating things that have been repeatedly refuted with facts, argument, logic, and loyalty to the Holy Catholic Church.

"The Mass according to the Holy Roman Rite, as it has existed for centuries and millenia, codified 'for all eternity' by Pope St. Pius V, cannot be 'schismatic'..."

The Rite itself isn't schismatic. Those who say it who are in union with the late Mr. Lefebvre are schismatic.

We recognize the rites of the Eastern Orthodox, even recognizing that when these rites are said by Eastern Catholics, they are perfectly Catholic rites. When Eastern Orthodox reunited with Rome, thus becoming Eastern Catholics, they didn't change their rites. Nonetheless, the Orthodox who say the same rites are schismatics.

"If we are false now in adhering to the original Faith, then the entire Roman Church is false,..."

When the Orthodox went into schism, it isn't their faith that changed, but rather their union with the Bishop of Rome. Though schism often leads to heresy, and I sometimes think I detect the buds of heresy in what some of the schismatics here say, schism isn't heresy. I haven't said that ultima is a heretic, and certainly not a formal heretic. But a person who holds to the Catholic faith while rejecting his previous unity with the Catholic Church is a schismatic.

It appears that it is you who needs to learn just what is schism.

Get back to me when you understand it.

sitetest

Those who say it who are in union with the late Mr. Lefebvre are schismatic.

Rome disagrees. Honolulu agreement. Next?

It was a dike against the tide of heresy and it worked well. But every bulwark erodes over time.

Interesting way of referring to an infallible Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church. A mere bulwark which erodes over time. So, the infallible teachings of the Church simply "erode over time"?

Interesting how flippantly you treat this infallible Ecumenical Council, yet you and yours revere beyond rational explanation a mere Pastoral Council like Vatican II. Methinks you and your neo-cath compatriots here have your priorities a bit screwed up. But hey, man, I guess eternal truths just have a way of eroding over time...

Dear Zviadist,

"'Those who say it who are in union with the late Mr. Lefebvre are schismatic.'

"Rome disagrees. Honolulu agreement. Next?"

I hadn't realized that the six folks in Honolulu to which you refer included SSPX priests who say the Rite.

Oh, wait, there weren't any SSPX priests in the "Honolulu Six". They were laypeople. They didn't ever say the old Rite. Or the new one. Or any rite at all. Right?

Didn't our Holy Father say that properly speaking, laypeople can't belong to the schismatic SSPX? Thus, as stated many times by me and others here at FR, it would be wrong to think a person was a schismatic based strictly on occasional assistance at SSPX Masses, though it is the matter of mortal sin.

No, to be a schismatic, one must obstinately perform acts which lead to a schismatic leading, and obstinately hold to beliefs which rupture unity with the Church.

As anyone of a number of posters here would have told you.

Next?

LOL.

Listen, hate to stomp and run, but I have a limit to how much charity work I can do, and I have to go meet paying clients.

sitetest

leading = mentality

The Rite itself isn't schismatic. Those who say it who are in union with the late Mr. Lefebvre are schismatic.

Again, I will say, Rome and Canon Law disagree. Allow me:

LETTER OF THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY
Under signature of Edward I. Cardinal Cassidy, President (May 3,1994)
"The situation of the members of this Society [SSPX] is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory. Of course, the Mass and Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid. The bishops are validly ... consecrated."

LETTER OF THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION "ECCLESIA DEI"
Under Signature of Msgr. Camille Perl, Secretary May 28, 1996; repeated in Protocol N. 236/98 of March 6, 1998
"It is true that participation in the Mass and sacraments at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute 'formal adherence to the schism.'"

So is Rome wrong and you are right?

It appears that it is you who needs to learn just what is schism. Get back to me when you understand it.

Oh yeah???

No, to be a schismatic, one must obstinately perform acts which lead to a schismatic leading, and obstinately hold to beliefs which rupture unity with the Church.

But it is you who continually call anyone who disagrees with you -- and who, God forbid, offers facts to back up that disagreement -- "schismatic." According to you we Traditionalists are all "schismatic." When I prove you wrong you change the subject. Typical.

And as to rupturing unity with the Church, I suggest you read the above quote, where the Church itself denies there is any disunity with SSPX. You get in trouble when you argue with your hatred and prejudice on your sleeve.

Of course the pope is above the Holy Roman Catholic Church because he is its leader on earth. The CEO of the Ford Motor Company is above that company. Prince Rainier is above Monaco, and, even after his excommunication, Marcel Lefevbre was above SSPX, but you knew that!

Further:

REV. FR. GERALD E. MURRAY, J.C.D. (PONTIFICAL GREGORIAN UNIVERSITY)
Title of Doctoral Thesis Accepted: "The Canonical Status of the Lay Faithful Associated with the Late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X: Are they Excommunicated as Schismatics?":
"They're not excommunicated as schismatics, because the Vatican has never said they are.... You can ... show that Lefebvre himself was not excommunicated and therefore no one else was.... I come to the conclusion that, canonically speaking, he's not guilty of a schismatic act punishable by canon law. In the case of the Society of Saint Pius X, the Vatican never declared any priest or lay person to have become a schismatic."

sitetest:

The Rite itself isn't schismatic. Those who say it who are in union with the late Mr. Lefebvre are schismatic.

Looks like your screaming "schismatic" at every turn was not the wisest approach. Or are you arguing that the approved doctoral thesis was somehow approved by Rome in error? Is Rome, too, in schism, sitetest?

Pease explain the dogmatic distinctions between, say, Pope John IX or Pope Anacletus, on the one hand and John Paul II, on the other.

That was (in #252) PLEASE not pease.

Okay, here we go. I will refute you point by point--but it won't do any good because you will say I speak falsehoods. Then you will declare victory and say I've been defeated. Forget about me for a second and let's get to the important stuff. I spoke of the magisteria because there are multiple magisteria--but not outside the papacy. There is a popular dissenting opinion which would suggest there are two teaching magisteria in the Church, the papacy and the teaching theologians. I am not suggesting anything like this. The context of my comments should have made it clear that when I speak of multiple magisteria, I simply mean the separate teachings of the various papacies. The ordinary magisteria do not, after all, always coincide. And when they do not they are not infallible or binding on the faithful and comprise separate magisteria. This is not heretical. It is a perfectly legitimate Catholic perspective. The living magisterium refers only to those teachings which are infallible and consistent.

Has this Pope been out of line with other popes in his teaching? You bet he has! I gave the instance of capital punishment. Since time immemorial, beginning with an epistle of St. Paul, the teaching of the Church has been that the state had the right--and popes have said they have the DUTY--to impose capital punishment on serious criminals to protect society. This Pope takes exception to this teaching. Whatever his reasoning--it is quite involuted and has changed at least twice so that the new catechism had to be corrected--this teaching is at odds with past magisteria. It is not heretical to point this out. It is ridiculous to suggest, as you do, that this is now an infallible teaching simply because the Pope says so. Other popes say the opposite. Whom are we to believe? The Church has always taught we must take the traditional view, not a novelty which is to be treated with suspicion. Tradition has always trumped everything else. St. Paul even said if an angel came down from heaven and taught another gospel from his, we were to reject it.

As for the interpretation of past ecumenical councils which you say I interpret in ways that contradict this Pope's interpretation--you are totally wrong. I don't ever remember an instance when I have opposed this pope's interpretation of past councils. But you may be referring to my contention that the Novus Ordo opposes Trent. If this is what you mean, you may be sure my disagreement is rooted in the teachings of the traditional Church itself. I do not make up my own interpretations. As a traditionalist I follow the tradition of the Catholic Church from time immemorial, which includes traditional interpretations of past councils. If there is any contradiction, it is because of some novelty that has been introduced by this most novel of all popes or by his predecessor.

As to the rupture in the Church--it has been the Novus Ordo and the consequent parade of novelties that has split the Church apart more surely than an atomic bomb, not the traditionalists who adhere to the faith as it has been practiced for two thousand years. Nor is disobedience always improper as you incorrectly suppose. It is never proper to submit to a command to do evil. In this we can only be guided by our own consciences. In the modern chaotic context, nothing else is available to us. We cannot even be sure that this Pope who kisses the Koran and elevates apostates to the cardinalate is a pontiff to be trusted. He was unwise to have excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre for consecrating bishops without a papal mandate, because the Archbishop did so to save the Church's own heritage--which this Pope and his predecessor have unwisely rejected. This placed the Archbishop in an untenable position of choosing either obedience to the Faith itself or obedience to the pontiff. I believe he chose well and wisely. I believe the obvious corruptions and apostasies that have riddled the conciliar Church prove that he chose wisely. The Church is presently groaning under the weight of its own rejection of the truths it had inherited.

Having said this, it is not true I do not submit to the Pope's teachings. I always submit when his teachings are aligned with the teachings of past popes and past councils. I do not submit when I am not obliged to submit--that is to say, I do not submit to novelties, especially when they contradict past teachings. Submission is not required for obvious reasons: because to submit to something which contradicts past teachings is to set up an impossible conundrum for the faithful Catholic: either he follows this Pope and denies past popes, or he follows the teachings of past popes and denies this Pope. You can't have it both ways. You have yet to show me why it would be better to follow this Pope rather than past popes. Do you think modern Catholic thinking is smarter or wiser or holier than Catholic thinking in the past? Where is the proof for this? All the evidence is to the contrary.

The question is whether those who obstinately cling to the SSPX are schismatics, NOT whether they have been formally EXCOMMUNICATED as schismatics. On Lefevbre, your Fr. Murray, is equivocating by saying that "you can show" that Lefevbre was not excommunicated, etc. I take it that he is not purporting to show that but merely saying that one might. Further, any excommunication of Lefevbre was for the direct defiant disobedience of Pope John Paul II in consecrating four renegade priests including Williamson as bishops as was the excommuniction of the four "bishops" as was the excommunication of the elderly and saintly Brazilian bishop who was in attendance and later wrote to John Paul II to say so, Castro de Mayer (?) of Campos.

If Lefevbre could consecrate anyone according to his own choosing as bishops among his rebellious and disobedient clergy in order to guarantee the future of the schism, then how to resist the "ordination" of Dagmar Braun Celeste aka Angela White with eight other great feminazi pretenders as "priests" on a boat on some European River by an excommunicated (1998) Latin American looney tune (apologies to decent cartoonists everywhere) bishop?

Rule #1: The pope is right. Rule #2: If the pope ever seems wrong, refer back to Rule #1.

Uni Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia

No anarchy! Viva Cristo Rey!

***It is ridiculous to suggest, as you do, that this is now an infallible teaching simply because the Pope says so. Other popes say the opposite. Whom are we to believe?***

YOFPO - Your Own Favorite Pope's Opinion?

Your assertion is ridiculous. No man, not even the Pope, is above the faith itself. The office of the papacy exists to protect the deposit of faith. It is not itself the object of worship. This is utter foolishness and demonstrates just how unCatholic and pagan some Catholics have become. This is pope-worship, nothing less. I have news for you: John Paul II is a man, not a god. He took an oath to protect Catholic tradition under pain of excommunication. If he were above that tradition, would he be subject to excommunication for not doing his job?

Right on the mark. Great response!

Further, any excommunication of Lefevbre

But Lefebvre was not excommunicated. First, let's go to Canon Law: the question of excommunication does not come up under the traditional Code of Canon Law (1917), which does not provide for the penalty of excommunication for the consecration of a bishop without papal approval.

Abp. Lefebvre was technically not "excommunicated." The Sacred Congregation of Bishops simply declared that he had "excommunicated" himself, as no ecclesiastical trial was ever held. Abp. Lefebvre disputed this, citing the provisions of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. So was he or wasn't he? Perhaps the question really is "should he have been at all?" If you will indulge me one other quote:

COUNT NERI CAPPONI,
D.CN.L. - LATERAN (DOCTOR OF CANON LAW)
LL.D. - FLORENCE (DOCTOR OF LAWS)
Professor Emeritus of Canon Law at the University of Florence Accredited as an Advocate of the Holy Roman Rota (the Holy See's highest marriage tribunal)
Accredited as an Advocate of the Apostolic Signatura (the Holy See's highest appeals tribunal)
"The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre simply said: 'I am creating bishops in order that my priestly order can continue. They do not take the place of other bishops. I am not creating a parallel church.' Therefore, this act was not, per se, schismatic."