Posted on 01/25/2005 2:58:28 PM PST by csbyrnes84
What, sinkspur holds the Catholic Faith whole and undefiled, and you're an ally of his? lol. Sure. That's going to up your credibility a whole lot, huh?
"As an actual traditionalist, allow me to apologize for the phonies and the way they are wasting your time with some of the absolutely silliest arguments yet seen out of them."
BlackElk. You're not even close to traditional Catholicism.
"I have had the misfortune of becoming acquainted with Tom Droleskey who is far advanced into looney-tunehood and advancing further with each passing day."
So everybody's got to stop everything long enough to take your word for the way things are?
"I certainly won't blame you for denying yourself the hilarious laughs or quite dubious pleasure of his acquaintance or hios company. Droleskey is the single most pretentious dim jackass calling himself Catholic I have ever met met."
Oooh, look. Christian charity. Sure. We can all trust you.
"Many of the pseudoTrads are also delusionally nostalgic for what disappeared long, long ago and refuse to accept the fact that Catholic Europe is dead other than the Vatican."
So, if we agree with you, then, we must accept the fact that Catholic Europe is dead, and then, grow to like it? Then we can be like you, and be right? What a fraud.
"Then again, they don't think the Vatican is Catholic. Somehow they are not as offended by France and its organ grinder's monkey Jacques Chirac."
Huh?
"I am not sure they are capable of thinking this through."
Deeply enough to deal with you, BlackElk. Any time.
"Pascendi: Grownups don't care particularly about your pain in having your tastes offended or about your rage against the Church or as to your curious contortions as to Church doctrine."
Then again, I don't seem to care much, do I?
"Peddle the schism elsewhere."
Nah, I think I'll just stick around here and refute you line by line.
Hit me.
Ut unum sint, baby.
Yeah, but see, you know full well that that's not what's going on in modern theology.
Here's what's going on. Draw a circle. Call it Christian. Inside the circle, draw a smaller circle. Call it Catholic. People have this stupid idea that the larger circle somehow abides in, or partakes in, or has a mysterious relationship to, or heck, subsists in the smaller circle denoted "Catholic Church".
But clearly, that's a pile. In fact, like St. Thomas states from a quote of your own provision, "...as we say that those things subsist which exist in themselves, and not in another."
So what are you going to do? Flip flop back and forth, hold a position and stay there, or what?
Do you have any particular problem with coming out and stating a truth, and leaving it at that? State the truth. Let's hear it. Do those Christians so-called who are outside the Church have some kind of participation in the Mystical Body of Christ (the Catholic Church, same thing) or what?
I'm in the mood for more mealymouth stuff. Give it to me.
>> Ask Our Lady to grab them by the ear, rip them out of harm's way, and set them on fire for the defense and protection of Holy Mother Church, for the salvation of souls and the conversion of sinners.<<
I love this!
I just finished the Novena to the Miraculous Metal and prayed for our Catholics who are searching for the real church but can't find it.
But I never thought of putting it THIS way!
Spot on!
Sadly, there is validity to this argument. I don't share the typical American aversion to monarchy, but a Restoration is hard to envision at this point. Where exactly is the alleged American royal family going to come from? England? France? King Powhatan? All pie-in-the-sky daydreaming aside, we're a majority Protestant country with an voter-supported Republican Constitution and an army to defend it. The only way to get from here to a Catholic monarchy with a state religion, is by fomenting revolution and war--which, because of the pathetic numbers of people it will attract, will fail and fail miserably. Put your money where your mouth is for monarchism, and you've probably annihilated the Just War doctrine.
There are red flags all over this article. I've written for the Remnant, I have met John Vennari personally at a Catholic Family News conference and he's a nice guy. But the way they are headed....
Mr. John Vennari, the editor of Catholic Family News, also spoke to Father Sretenovic about the crisis in the Church and of the necessity of fleeing from the Novus Ordo structures. Seeds were being planted.
This writer and his wife, to put it charitably, pummeled Father Sretenovic, asking him bluntly as to how long he could continue to give out Communion in the hand and continue to offer a Mass that less fully communicates the truths of the Catholic Faith and does not render God the full honor and glory that are His due
They are willing to be calumniated, even by fellow traditionalists who have anointed themselves to be in the august and pristine "mainstream," in order to bear a witness to the authentic Tradition of the Church without any compromise at allI don't like it. I don't like it at all.
Well, I don't know that at all. Cardinal Ratzinger, who was, as I understand it, closely connected with the addition of this phrase to the Constitution on the Church, has explained that it has its scholastic meaning and that therefore the Church of Christ cannot subsist elsewhere than in the Catholic Church (see DI and the condemnation of Leonardo Boff).
Do those Christians so-called who are outside the Church have some kind of participation in the Mystical Body of Christ (the Catholic Church, same thing) or what?
Ah, I see. We're back to the subject of your Feeneyite views, again. It makes no difference to you that I am definitely the one speaking for Tradition, here? Bellarmine, Suarez, Cajetan, Thomas - they are all on my side. So unless you want to accuse them of the "synthesis of all heresies", you have no excuse for applying the title to me, since I believe what they did on the subject.
Yes, a man who is not actually a member of the Mystical Body, that is, the Catholic Church, can be united to the Catholic Church by desire. They are not, however, members of the Church in reality, since only those are real members of the Church who are baptized, profess the true faith, and have not separated themselves from the structure of the Body or been excluded by legitimate authority. They are members only in desire and longing. I speak nothing more than was traditionally affirmed in the case of catechumens, and which has been affirmed since St. Cyprian.
Melchior Cano says that catechumens can be saved because, although they are not of the Church which is properly called Christian, yet they are of the Church that includes all the faithful from Abel until the end of the world. But this does not seem to be satisfactory because, after the coming of Christ, there is no true Church except that which is properly called Christian. If, therefore, the catechumens are not of this, then they are not of any [true Church]. I answer therefore that the statement to the effect that no one is saved outside of the Church must be understood as applying to those who neither in reality nor by desire are of the Church, as the theologians commonly speak with reference to Baptism. (St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Church Militant, c. 3)
So if you want to brand me with the term "modernism" for this, you can just go ahead and write off our traditional Catholic Saints - and Pius XII and Cardinal Ottaviani - as well. As for me, I think that modernism is the error condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili and Pascendi, and you know as well as I do that he never once condemned what I have written above. Retract the charge of "modernism" and replace it with the term "non-Feeneyite" and I shall gladly accept the accurate moniker, one that indicates fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church.
Stop right there. Is that the same Cardinal Ratzinger that said this:
"Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as a conversation with God. This would assume that God was present there locally and in a confined way. To justify such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God. This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God. To go to Church on the ground that one can visit God Who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects."
Pardon me if I do find him rather unconvincing. On any point.
"Ah, I see. We're back to the subject of your Feeneyite views, again."
Since you believe there IS salvation outside the Church, well then, anyone who says there isn't is a Feeneyite to you. But that's neither here nor there.
"It makes no difference to you that I am definitely the one speaking for Tradition, here?"
Of course not. Because if we were to take it to a special thread and get into the details, we'd find out that you really don't speak for tradition, or more particularly, for doctrine here. Or that all the saints and theologians are on your side.
It's more like this: as is your habit in virtually all these threads, you quote only selected persons and selcected texts. The objective is the attempt to reconcile the new with the old. On this particular topic, all that's necessary is to place your claims of coming down on the side of doctrine and tradition to the test. I'm claiming they won't stand that test.
"So if you want to brand me with the term "modernism" for this, you can just go ahead and write off our traditional Catholic Saints - and Pius XII and Cardinal Ottaviani - as well."
A needless conclusion, if the subject is approached honestly and properly. No, it's not even close to necessary that I would need to write them off.
"As for me, I think that modernism is the error condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili and Pascendi, and you know as well as I do that he never once condemned what I have written above."
What he condemned encompassed your ideas. In fact, it would be remarkably similar to the way in which, in this particular thread and subject of Americanism, most who are imbued with the principles of Americanism would say that the Americanism they hold isn't the same one that was condemned.
"Retract the charge of "modernism" and replace it with the term "non-Feeneyite" and I shall gladly accept the accurate moniker, one that indicates fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church."
Play your game? Absolutely not.
Take this to a dedicated thread. See if you can hold your position.
Well I had spoken to him a few times, but my friends had him as a spiritual advisor, so they are all in the know. From what I understand his feeling that FSSP is a compromise came about from hanging out with the people at Fr. Gruner's conferences. They seem to be the ones who put this idea into his head.
Now as to why he didn't join the SSPX, I really can't tell you , and even I am a little bit confused by it. The SSPX is, afterall, in the process of trying to obtain a chapel in North Jersey and they also have somewhat of a shortage of priests in the area. Fr. Paul would have been a great Priest to have in this type of situation. I know that Fr. Paul at one point was in talks with the SSPX, but in the end he just chose to go to California anyways.
Another interesting thing in this whole situation is Drolesky's involvement. In the article he acts as though he was just an onlooker to all of these proceedings, but in reality that doesn't seem to be the case. Mr. Drolesky was definitely involved in the talks that Fr. Paul was having about leaving the Diocese of Newark.
Nice try at distraction. That's not relevant, even if it's accurate.
Since you believe there IS salvation outside the Church
I absolutely do not.
What he condemned encompassed your ideas.
Quote from Pascendi or Lamentabili and then quote what I've said that's encompassed in the condemnation. I'm waiting.
LAMENTABILI SANE
Pius X July 3, 1907
With truly lamentable results, our age, casting aside all restraint in its search for the ultimate causes of things, frequently pursues novelties so ardently that it rejects the legacy of the human race. Thus it falls into very serious errors, which are even more serious when they concern sacred authority, the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, and the principal mysteries of Faith. The fact that many Catholic writers also go beyond the limits determined by the Fathers and the Church herself is extremely regrettable. In the name of higher knowledge and historical research (they say), they are looking for that progress of dogmas which is, in reality, nothing but the corruption of dogmas.
These errors are being daily spread among the faithful. Lest they captivate the faithful's minds and corrupt the purity of their faith, His Holiness, Pius X, by Divine Providence, Pope, has decided that the chief errors should be noted and condemned by the Office of this Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition.
Therefore, after a very diligent investigation and consultation with the Reverend Consultors, the Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, the General Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals have judged the following propositions to be condemned and proscribed. In fact, by this general decree, they are condemned and proscribed.
1. The ecclesiastical law which prescribes that books concerning the Divine Scriptures are subject to previous examination does not apply to critical scholars and students of scientific exegesis of the Old and New Testament.
2. The Church's interpretation of the Sacred Books is by no means to be rejected; nevertheless, it is subject to the more accurate judgment and correction of the exegetes.
3. From the ecclesiastical judgments and censures passed against free and more scientific exegesis, one can conclude that the Faith the Church proposes contradicts history and that Catholic teaching cannot really be reconciled with the true origins of the Christian religion.
4. Even by dogmatic definitions the Church's magisterium cannot determine the genuine sense of the Sacred Scriptures.
5. Since the deposit of Faith contains only revealed truths, the Church has no right to pass judgment on the assertions of the human sciences.
6. The "Church learning" and the "Church teaching" collaborate in such a way in defining truths that it only remains for the "Church teaching" to sanction the opinions of the "Church learning."
7. In proscribing errors, the Church cannot demand any internal assent from the faithful by which the judgments she issues are to be embraced.
8. They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations.
9. They display excessive simplicity or ignorance who believe that God is really the author of the Sacred Scriptures. 10. The inspiration of the books of the Old Testament consists in this: The Israelite writers handed down religious doctrines under a peculiar aspect which was either little or not at all known to the Gentiles.
11. Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.
12. If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete must first put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document.
13. The Evangelists themselves, as well as the Christians of the second and third generation, artificially arranged the evangelical parables. In such a way they explained the scanty fruit of the preaching of Christ among the Jews.
14. In many narrations the Evangelists recorded, not so much things that are true, as things which, even though false, they judged to be more profitable for their readers.
15. Until the time the canon was defined and constituted, the Gospels were increased by additions and corrections. Therefore there remained in them only a faint and uncertain trace of the doctrine of Christ.
16. The narrations of John are not properly history, but a mystical contemplation of the Gospel. The discourses contained in his Gospel are theological meditations, lacking historical truth concerning the mystery of salvation.
17. The fourth Gospel exaggerated miracles not only in order that the extraordinary might stand out but also in order that it might become more suitable for showing forth the work and glory of the Word lncarnate.
18. John claims for himself the quality of witness concerning Christ. In reality, however, he is only a distinguished witness of the Christian life, or of the life of Christ in the Church at the close of the first century.
19. Heterodox exegetes have expressed the true sense of the Scriptures more faithfully than Catholic exegetes.
20. Revelation could be nothing else than the consciousness man acquired of his revelation to God.
21. Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.
22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.
23. Opposition may, and actually does, exist between the facts narrated in Sacred Scripture and the Church's dogmas which rest on them. Thus the critic may reject as false facts the Church holds as most certain.
24. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves .
25. The assent of faith ultimately rests on a mass of probabilities .
26. The dogmas of the Faith are to be held only according to their practical sense; that is to say, as preceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of believing.
27. The divinity of Jesus Christ is not proved from the Gospels. It is a dogma which the Christian conscience has derived from the notion of the Messias.
28. While He was exercising His ministry, Jesus did not speak with the object of teaching He was the Messias, nor did His miracles tend to prove it.
29. It is permissible to grant that the Christ of history is far inferior to the Christ Who is the object of faith.
30 In all the evangelical texts the name "Son of God'' is equivalent only to that of "Messias." It does not in the least way signify that Christ is the true and natural Son of God.
31. The doctrine concerning Christ taught by Paul, John, and the Councils of Nicea, Ephesus and Chalcedon is not that which Jesus taught but that which the Christian conscience conceived concerning Jesus.
32. It is impossible to reconcile the natural sense of the Gospel texts with the sense taught by our theologians concerning the conscience and the infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ.
33 Everyone who is not led by preconceived opinions can readily see that either Jesus professed an error concerning the immediate Messianic coming or the greater part of His doctrine as contained in the Gospels is destitute of authenticity.
34. The critics can ascribe to Christ a knowledge without limits only on a hypothesis which cannot be historically conceived and which is repugnant to the moral sense. That hypothesis is that Christ as man possessed the knowledge of God and yet was unwilling to communicate the knowledge of a great many things to His disciples and posterity.
35. Christ did not always possess the consciousness of His Messianic dignity.
36. The Resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the historical order. It is a fact of merely the supernatural order (neither demonstrated nor demonstrable) which the Christian conscience gradually derived from other facts.
37. In the beginning, faith in the Resurrection of Christ was not so much in the fact itself of the Resurrection as in the immortal life of Christ with God.
38. The doctrine of the expiatory death of Christ is Pauline and not evangelical.
39. The opinions concerning the origin of the Sacraments which the Fathers of Trent held and which certainly influenced their dogmatic canons are very different from those which now rightly exist among historians who examine Christianity .
40. The Sacraments have their origin in the fact that the Apostles and their successors, swayed and moved by circumstances and events, interpreted some idea and intention of Christ.
41. The Sacraments are intended merely to recall to man's mind the ever-beneficent presence of the Creator.
42. The Christian community imposed the necessity of Baptism, adopted it as a necessary rite, and added to it the obligation of the Christian profession.
43. The practice of administering Baptism to infants was a disciplinary evolution, which became one of the causes why the Sacrament was divided into two, namely, Baptism and Penance.
44. There is nothing to prove that the rite of the Sacrament of Confirmation was employed by the Apostles. The formal distinction of the two Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation does not pertain to the history of primitive Christianity.
45. Not everything which Paul narrates concerning the institution of the Eucharist (I Cor. 11:23-25) is to be taken historically.
46. In the primitive Church the concept of the Christian sinner reconciled by the authority of the Church did not exist. Only very slowly did the Church accustom herself to this concept. As a matter of fact, even after Penance was recognized as an institution of the Church, it was not called a Sacrament since it would be held as a disgraceful Sacrament.
47. The words of the Lord, "Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained'' (John 20:22-23), in no way refer to the Sacrament of Penance, in spite of what it pleased the Fathers of Trent to say.
48. In his Epistle (Ch. 5:14-15) James did not intend to promulgate a Sacrament of Christ but only commend a pious custom. If in this custom he happens to distinguish a means of grace, it is not in that rigorous manner in which it was taken by the theologians who laid down the notion and number of the Sacraments.
49. When the Christian supper gradually assumed the nature of a liturgical action those who customarily presided over the supper acquired the sacerdotal character.
50. The elders who fulfilled the office of watching over the gatherings of the faithful were instituted by the Apostles as priests or bishops to provide for the necessary ordering of the increasing communities and not properly for the perpetuation of the Apostolic mission and power.
51. It is impossible that Matrimony could have become a Sacrament of the new law until later in the Church since it was necessary that a full theological explication of the doctrine of grace and the Sacraments should first take place before Matrimony should be held as a Sacrament.
52. It was far from the mind of Christ to found a Church as a society which would continue on earth for a long course
of centuries. On the contrary, in the mind of Christ the kingdom of heaven together with the end of the world was about to come immediately.
53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution.
54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel.
55. Simon Peter never even suspected that Christ entrusted the primacy in the Church to him.
56. The Roman Church became the head of all the churches, not through the ordinance of Divine Providence, but merely through political conditions.
57. The Church has shown that she is hostile to the progress of the natural and theological sciences.
58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.
59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.
60. Christian Doctrine was originally Judaic. Through successive evolutions it became first Pauline, then Joannine, finally Hellenic and universal.
61. It may be said without paradox that there is no chapter of Scripture, from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocalypse, which contains a doctrine absolutely identical with that which the Church teaches on the same matter. For the same reason, therefore, no chapter of Scripture has the same sense for the critic and the theologian.
62. The chief articles of the Apostles' Creed did not have the same sense for the Christians of the first ages as they have for the Christians of our time.
63. The Church shows that she is incapable of effectively maintaining evangelical ethics since she obstinately clings to immutable doctrines which cannot be reconciled with modern progress.
64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.
65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism.
The following Thursday, the fourth day of the same month and year, all these matters were accurately reported to our Most Holy Lord, Pope Pius X. His Holiness approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers and ordered that each and every one of the above-listed propositions be held by all as condemned and proscribed.
PETER PALOMBELLI, Notary of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition
That isn't even close to the point.
The point is this: Catholic doctrine. What we believe. What the God's truth actually is concerning social government.
Start the thread on subsistence theory. We'll get into great detail. It would have to be evenings only, though.
I have already explained what I believe about "subsistence". Quote what I said, and explain where it is condemned by St. Pius X.
I would be more than happy to hash this out on a special thread, as you well know. In fact, maybe tonight I'll start one.
LOL!! That's kinda what I thought. The California atmosphere usually mellows one out, but Drolesky has become more and more shrill as time goes on.
Monarchists are fun to spar with, don't you think?
They do. The Catholic Church has never re-baptized Christians who have been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the Holy Spirit, no matter which denomination they belonged to.
They do participate, though to a lesser extent, in the Body of Christ.
Save for papal states, it pretty much defined Christendom. Indeed, there were times in which potentates would not rush to the defense called for by the Pope, himself. They would weigh their options. Ultimately, the modern notion of separation of church/state doesn't so much wish to deprive the court of its bishops, but the laws of their Catholicism. The King was still the King, when Kings mattered, and much to the dismay of all of Heaven during the reign of Henry VIIIth and his 'Catholic' archbishop at Canterbury. But the moral law, before, and elsewhere, even for pretender Kings even in England, was judged against the Catholic standard. It wasn't papal control of foreign lands that made it Christendom. It was their voluntary confession of the higher law and basis for jurisprudence that made it so. That small confession of the same, however intentionally made vague, was part of the founding of the US. And the US has prospered, not always for embracing the Faith or for dealing fairly in business or great social projects (the robber barons, and such). But the social compact is still one based on a confession of the higher, if not now that of Catholicism, itself. It's the remaining moral hope for this nation, and perhaps one explanation for why this remains a nation with the largest number of at least self-professed Christians. Contrast with the French who denied this altogether in their insurrection, and created The Terror and Bonaparte, and a legacy of shame, defeat, and a slew of new 'republics'.
ever hear of the supreme court?
Please see my post #104 that illustrates the Catholic view on the church and state relationship prevalent since Gregory VII.
"Separation of church and state" has a precise meaning these days, thanks to secular theorists of the French Revolution, Marxist-Leninists, and some utterances of American Founding Fathers that never made it into our constitution. It has become the pathetic reality for us in the US thanks to the secularist fanatics in government. When a Christian monument is vandalized by court decree because it is on public property, or a politician dismissed because he considers his actions God-inspired, that is separation of church and state. Catholicism never stood for this and never will.
The US Constitution rightly forbids the US government to establish a church. It does not say anything about a church directing the government. This may not be identical to Gregory VII ideal, but it is compatible with it. Note that after absolving Henry IV the Pope turned him over to the electorate of the day, -- the Augsburg council, -- just like the church today should extend or withdraw its blessing from civil government, while leaving the choice of civil leadership to the political process.
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.