Posted on 05/09/2005 6:40:45 AM PDT by Robert Drobot
In short, the CPA is a Communist-created, Communist-controlled, blatantly schismatic, blatantly heretical, pro-abortion organization., created by the devil himself, acting through Mao Tse-tung and his successor "President" Jiang. And yet the Vatican has declared no schism, nor any excommunication of these Communist-controlled, pro-abortion clergy.
Therefore, "the Vatican" is obviously something in Rome that could officially declare a schism or impose an excommunication. In short, the Pope or the Congregation for Propaganda. Retired cardinals can't do either of those two things - Cardinal Kung was a cardinal, does that make him "the Vatican"?
Nevermind the fact that this is the exact same "reformulation" that traditional catechisms used, right? "Baptism of blood or desire makes a person a member of the Church in desire. These are the two lifelines trailing from the sides of the Church to save those who are outside the Church through no fault of their own. (See Questions 166-168.)" (New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism, p. 153).
9. But what about the Baltimore Catechism and Vatican II?
The Baltimore Catechism is not infallible. It was the creation of James Cardinal Gibbons, 19th century Archbishop of Baltimore and a notorious Americanist (a heresy condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1893). His Eminence intended it to replace more orthodox catechisms---like St. John Neumann's---which did not menton desire. Vatican II was not a doctrinal council. It neither defined dogma nor anathematised those who disagreed. Such men as Fr. Karl Rahner, S.J., who were experts there, admittedly lobbied to change Church teaching, and planted "time bombs" in the documents. These were open-ended statements, vague enough to mollify the orthodox, but also able to be seized upon by the radicals after the Council as mandates to do whatever they chose. At Vatican II's end, Paul VI, aware that there was contradiction between the Council and prior teaching, declared that if such contradictions were perceived, the given document must be interpreted by prior tradition. Neither the Baltimore Catechism nor Vatican II could reverse prior dogmatic definitions.
Church men in Rome can say many things if they don't back it up with action it's meaningless. You select quote the Cardinal Kung foundation to make it seem like they are so thrilled with the latest statement from Rome, mean while they've been pleading for years for a strong denouncement of the CPA. Reading the whole page on the link you provided indicates that they are anything but thrilled with Rome, but even a seriously neglected child will delight in any sign of affection or recognition from an absent, negligent parent. This "obviously the Patriotic Association has the characteristic of being in schism" is what the Cardinal Kung foundation is clinging to because it's the only scrap they're going to get.
And what good are these words from Rome when bishops and cardinals in this country welcome the commie priests here, while true Catholics are being martyred and tortured? Our bishops and cardinals who do this have blood on their hands, as does "the Vatican" since they do nothing to stop it. What will the Vatican say next, "obviously the Patriotic Association really has the characteristic of being in schism" ?
So US bishops and cardinals are now "the Vatican"? Direct your criticism where it belongs: Maryknoll, etc. who are disobeying the orders of Propaganda.
Your response to what I posted makes no sense.
Neither are you and Coloumbe, Gerard.
On a side note, these conspiracy theories about Baptism of Desire really are something: "His Eminence intended it to replace more orthodox catechisms---like St. John Neumann's---which did not menton desire". Coloumbe apparently doesn't know Latin, either (what's with all these Feeneyite Latin 'scholars' popping up, who insist that "votum" can't mean "desire"? This is almost as bad as the "pro multis" fiasco from ICEL. Isn't it strange that they know Latin better than St. Alphonsus Liguori? LOL). His twisting of Trent's canon against Calvin's metaphor is incredible. How can any reasonable person believe that Trent anathematized the common doctrine of the Catholic Church, and then did it in such an ambiguous manner that no one noticed for 400 years?
My protest was against saying that "the Vatican" had never stated the CCPA was in schism, or its bishops excommunicated. That is simply false.
You want to criticize US bishops. Fine, but they aren't "the Vatican".
You're getting off topic. I suggest you consult my original post to see what I objected to, if you've forgotten.
the Patriotic Association has the characteristic of being in schism; which doesn't exactly say that they are in schism
Would you like to explain how an organization can have "the characteristic of being in schism" without being in schism?
No I'm not. To your objection, I made the point that the words of "the Vatican" that "the Patriotic Association has the characteristic of being in schism" are meaningless when it comes to the reality of what is going on, which I believe was Robert's point when he said, "Why do you have no shame in deliberately misleading FReepers and lurkers with information that doesn't reflect real time circumstances." Whoa..Deja Vu Anyway...
Would you like to explain how an organization can have "the characteristic of being in schism" without being in schism?
No, I would not attempt to explain something that I do not understand. Would you explain to me that if "the Vatican" meant "the Patriotic Association is in schism" why did "the Vatican" say "the Patriotic Association has the characteristic of being in schism."?
Well guess what spunky? Neither are you. You seem to reserve the right to be the only one to post non-infallible responses.
On a side note, these conspiracy theories about Baptism of Desire really are something: "His Eminence intended it to replace more orthodox catechisms---like St. John Neumann's---which did not menton desire. Coloumbe apparently doesn't know Latin, either ".
That's a rather smug response. E-mail him and correct him then. I'm sure he'll love to hear from you and discuss it with you.
(what's with all these Feeneyite Latin 'scholars' popping up, who insist that "votum" can't mean "desire"?
On a side note, these conspiracy theories from conciliarists about Feeneyite Latin 'scholars' is really something. They insist votum "must" mean desire.
Anyway to answer, It's about the same as "scholars" on Free Republic that will consistently post irrelevant passages in order to justify their twisted understanding of Catholicism.
This is almost as bad as the "pro multis" fiasco from ICEL.
Irrelevant.
Isn't it strange that they know Latin better than St. Alphonsus Liguori? LOL).
Specifically, what are you referring to? Can you possibly stop spinning this?
His twisting of Trent's canon against Calvin's metaphor is incredible.
Nah. Your twisting is top notch. I think you're jealous of him 'cause you think he's smarter than you.
How can any reasonable person believe that Trent anathematized the common doctrine of the Catholic Church, and then did it in such an ambiguous manner that no one noticed for 400 years?
I'm sure you can find some quote of JPII's that would accomodate it perfectly. I'm sure "the Church revealed seeds in Trent that She didn't even know that she would reveal to herself for 400 years." I'm sure you'd buy that if it were referring to some of the modern Vatican II garbage.
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.