Posted on 07/03/2004 8:15:10 AM PDT by Polycarp IV
What a stupid and evil thing to say. Apart from the fact that tu quoque is no defense, it's literally diabolical to seek to advance one's case by adverting to the sinfulness of one's opponent. Your foul and satanic subtext is that sinful men have no business proclaiming the truth. This is precisely how the slavery of sin takes hold: the weak and foolish are tempted to despair at the thought of their personal sinfulness and how far short it falls of the truth of God they're charged to uphold.
What a stupid and evil thing to say. Apart from the fact that tu quoque is no defense, it's literally diabolical to seek to advance one's case by adverting to the sinfulness of one's opponent.
Please don't attack Narses for this quote above, Romulus. He was quoting me. I asked this rhetorical question, not Narses, and I'm no apologist for the SSPX. I was simply pointing out that we ften attack the trads when our own USCCB seems even more schismatic at this point than the SSPX.
So how about I offer a little levity?
This was forwarded to me by an excellent priest from Brooklyn NY:
Communion Advice from the Archdiocese of L.A.
I figured that you would appreciate this one. It is from a blog called "Dyspeptic Mutterings" run by one Dale Price.
http://dprice.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_dprice_archive.html#108783089645150 069
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004 by Dale
Letters to the Editor of The Tidings, June 28, 2004.
Dear Sir: Despite the Cardinal's recent statement that no one would be refused Communion in the Archdiocese, I would appreciate some guidance on the following:
On Sunday, June 27, a man presented himself for the Eucharist at our parish. In his right hand, he held a severed head. In his left, a blood-caked machete. He received Communion from Fr. Hailfellow. Was this correct?
Editor:
Your situation is indeed a delicate and, sadly, recurring one.
According to the Diocesan Liturgy Office, he was indeed entitled to receive, but he should be carefully catechized so that the next time, he receives in the hand as a sign of unity with the rest of the gathered community.
The question is: when some U.S. bishops are at least as disobedient to Rome as SSPX, what makes one schismatic and the other not? Granted, there was a formal document regarding SSPX...this is more of a philosophical question.
Then consider the subject matter: one wishes to celebrate a particular version of the valid Roman Rite, without proper permission. The other apparently wishes to downplay a central teaching of the Church. Which is worse?
This is not to accuse all U.S. bishops of schism...it is simply to say that we have at least a few, and possibly more than a few, who are not doing their job.
Another authoritative look at the question you raised.
This one's a little less formal than Abp Burke's statement in America magazine--but has exactly the same reasoning and logic, including addressing the 'formal/informal/remote' question.
Hope that it satisfies your curiosity.
Thanks!!! Most interesting. The last two graphs also clarify the Church's position on 'voting for pro-abort' people like GWB and Hutchinson, I suppose.
Ummm, how do you suppose that this "secret" letter got to the Italian press?
Perhaps you'd like R. to CC you by Fedex?
I wonder how little he tithes to the Church.
Actually, Poly, the whole CHURCH started with V.II, if you believe certain clergy and Bishops.
Testem Ben. was really addressed to the then-Apb. of St Paul/Minneapolis, who was an Irishman absolutely devoted to the nascent schism of Americanism.
Bernardin and his ilk are merely the (rotten) fruits of this tree, planted well back in the 1800's.
Not all that different from the progression of Dimowits from FDR to Clinton.
Satan isn't stupid either. But he lies VERY well.
What a stupid and evil thing to say
Stupid? I don't think so. The USCCB regularly lies to and disobeys Rome. I am no theologian or canon liar, but I sort of get the idea of schism, and when Rome said apply Canon 915 and 90+% of the US Bishop's said NO, well, if that is NOT schism, maybe we need a new word. Nor is this new. Review the history of the Indult, not the Tridentine one but the Communion in the hand Indult. Try the history of Altar girls. Rome said NO! The USCCB went right ahead anyhow. As for EVIL, well if calling disobedient and geretical Bishops schismatic is EVIL, then the word needs redefinition.
That's exactly why I'm not sure this letter is real. Maybe McCarrick just doubted that the actual letter would ever leak out. If that's the case, and this letter is authentic, then he's a moron in addition to being a liar.
And the leak has the imprint of 'romanita' about it. R. writes a letter which is flagrantly ignored, and he knows that this compromises the Church's teaching on both the Eucharist and on abortion (mutatis mutandis.)
R. cannot let this pass unremarked, but he also cannot directly call the US Bishops a bunch of temporizing, ah, fibbers. After all, there are at least 6 who are NOT temporizing fibbers...
So the letter magically appears in the hands of an Italian journalist.
Let's pursue another logic-path. Why would an Italian journalist (or anyone ELSE) create a logical and concise statement of the Church's clear teaching and print it?
Cui Bono? as they say...
This letter was leaked for the edification of the Faithful, such as Polycarp, Sinky, and the rest. NOT for the Bishops (except the faithful 6) and NOT for the Democrats--and not for the Republicans (because it was leaked in Italy.)
Are you going to make me repeat myself?
Very well: you cannot make your case by calling attention to the blunders or even malice of your opponent.
The regrettable fact that the AmChurch hierarchy is timid or disobedient does not and can not confer any legitimacy upon the Lefebvrite schism.
Indeed, and in my haste I overlooked that. But in quoting your text and bolding it, he associates himself with the remarks and makes them his own. I don't seek a quarrel with either of you. Though I don't post as frequently as many on this board, I hope you realise that my sympathy is with the traditional Latin rite, which I attend at home and as often as possible when away from home. Nevertheless I accept the licitness of the NO, even while finding it unlovely, badly flawed, and practically inviting liturgical innovation and ad libs.
I stand by my remark, that it's "diabolical" in the strict and literal sense of the word, to make one's way by accusing others of sin.
God knows that I grieve over the treachery and evil of those working from within to hollow out the sacraments and redefine the Church and man. I hope I have never shilled for these time-serving frauds, but continue to insist that a cynical and deceitful rebellion cannot justify one that's reactive and embittered.
You make an excellent point in asking whether the AmChurch bishops aren't every bit as schismatic, but Narses wrongs you in appropriating those words to bolster his own defective cause.
The latter of course -- until the former group moved to consecrate its own bishops. It's that act of overt schism that placed the SSPX on a level every bit as bad as the worst of the AmChurch trimmers. This is not to impugn their love and reverence for the Trad rite, which it's well know I prefer myself. Their undoing as I hope you'll agree is in refusing to accept the humiliation and suffering that sometimes accompany obedience. To reject this mystery of suffering seems spiritually defective.
I just can't help noting that there is schism "within" the Church which is at least as bad, in most aspects, as that which has been formally recognized.
That said, there are some possible, if unlikely, reasons why bishops may have voted for this language, even if they did not actually agree with it.
More goings on at St. Joan of Arc parish
Don't miss their "gay pride" float:
GLBT Pride/Twin Cities Presents the 2004 Community Pride Award to Church of St. Joan of Arc
Now, if that ain't schism, I don't know what is.
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.