San Jose Bishop McGrath Denounced for Heresy by Local Area Priest

St. Joseph's Men Society ^ | February 2004 | Ken Malone

[BlackElk]

Restoring the strictest orthodoxy of doctrine, mercilessly applied, will get the lavenders out of the seminaries quite pronto.

Another alternative is to abolish every seminary in the country, fire each and every staff member, and start over. Replace them with four regional seminaries under four John Wayne priests, no heretics or feminazi radical nuns or psychiatrists of any description or lavender queens on any screening committees. No laity mucking up the classes and interfering by their presence with the spiritual development of the future priests.

Simultaneously purge the heterodox and lavender priests. Have the seminaries collectively be an archdiocese of their own like the military archdiocese, initially run by Bishop Bruskewitz, followed by a 45-year old scourge of heresy and misbehavior to remove all hope from wannabe lavender queens and liberal priests.

Status quo on "married priests." We have opened the windows enough to let in modernist pollutions and poisons. We need not deal with adulterous priests, adulterous priests' wives, bisexual priests, bisexual wives of priests, militantly antiCatholic priests, militantly antiCatholic priests' wives, priests' kids dealing dope or whatever. It was you who has previously posted that if priests had wives, bishops would be less able to effectively discipline rebellious priests. We don't need THAT either. We are at a point in history where we need to focus the priests on the restoration of order and orthodoxy. No opportunistic thrusts on behalf of the dead revolution need apply now or ever.

[BlackElk]

The SSPX is its own Church. All this too will pass away.

[BlackElk]

"Karol Wojtlywa in the dress of the Vicar of Christ on Earth"????? Are you formally admitting sedevacantism?????

Combining YOPIOS with YOPIOT is NOT Catholicism.

[onyx]

BTTT your # 121. I'm keeping your entire post.

The homosexuals have damn near brought-down our Church from within.

[BlackElk]

Ecclesia Dei excommunicates Lefebvre and the illicitly consecrated bishops and declares SSPX schismatic. JP II signed it, That is good enough for me. If anyone disagrees while he maintains that position, those who disagree had better outrank him here on earth.

[netmilsmom]

>>Rome reneged on promises made with the FSSP--it might do the same one day with the SSPX.<<

Can you please explain that a little farther?
I'm asking because I am new to all of this.

[ArrogantBustard]

Several seminaries are, I think, not to be tossed away lightly. Mount St. Mary's and St. Charles Borromeo, for starters. And then there's Our Lady of Guadaloupe (FSSP) ... However, they should be carefully examined ... someone with no tolerance for the stench of heresy should thououghly inquire into the goings on at them. Nothing like being sure. There may be others, not named here, worth keeping.

The rest should probably be closed down, and the buildings demolished. Then new seminaries should be built, as needed, with a thorough dedication to orthodoxy. They would, I think, be needed quickly. I, personally, would financially support their construction and operation.

[ultima ratio]

Noone, not even a mistaken pope, has authority to excommunicate anyone for refusing to destroy tradition. This is because authority does not exist for its own sake, but to protect tradition. When power is used to destroy tradition, it loses legitimacy.

[BlackElk]

This post #107 and #103 of UR say all that needs saying about the schismatic separation. The gist is that unless and until a conclave elects some pope who is acceptable to the schismatics, they need not submit to papal authority or trust it. BTW, don't you get the impression that, if Fellay or Williamson would be electedm, that would merely be evidence that he had defected to the "false Church of Rome" and was no longer to be trusted.

Remember the old scenario of the tin hat crowd: Two guys are sitting in a foxhole and one says: "You know that once there were millions of us and now it has come down to just thee and me and, sometimes, I am not so sure about thee."

[BlackElk]

They were excommuicated for blatant disobedience to papal authority. Anarchy is not Catholicism. No Catholic tradition exists in defiance of papal authority. No one appointed you to direct the pope or judge him. No one ever will. But you knew all of that.

Fine, Catholicism drafts no one. You still have free will. You have left. You can return or not, but to do so you will have to repent and stop scandalizing the faithful. It is up to you to make that decision. You have no authority over the pope and neither do your excommunicated bishops nor the schismatics who adhere to the SSPX schism.

Ubi Petrus Ibi Ecclesia. Roma Locuta Causa Finita.

[BlackElk]

We need to re-establish uniformity and orthodoxy and vigorous purge of seminary ranks. Such seminaries as St. Charles Borromeo and Our Lady of Guadalupe and Lincoln and Mount St. Mary's are fine seminaries. Rehire those who make them fine seminaries but carefully scrutinize all hires. Would you not feel greater assurance if a Bruskewitz or his clone were in charge of the education and formation of ALL PRIESTS in our country and had no other responsibilities and enjoyed the status of an archdiocesan ordinary limited to the seminaries? I would.

[ArrogantBustard]

Two issues, here:

1) Uniformity is fine, so long as it is orthodox. I don't mind Bruskewitz in charge. But suppose he's succeeded by a stealth Mahoney ...

2) Let's be sure to reward those who have been faithful, these many years. Scrutiny? Yes. But keep the good personnel. Keep the traditions. Keep the names. Keep the facilities. Then raze the Pink Palaces to the ground, and sell the land to Wal*Mart ...

Fix what's broken. Preserve what's good.

[ArrogantBustard]

vigorous purge of seminary ranks.

My best understanding is that the Pink Palaces are largely empty. The good places are filled to capacity. There just aren't enough good places.

[ultima ratio]

Four years ago the Vatican over-ruled the Fraternity's Superior General who denied 16 of his priests their request to concelebrate Mass with their local ordinary in the Novus Ordo rite. The denial, it was thought, was consistent with the promise of JPII that the '62 missal must be used exclusively by the FSSP, that they should not be coerced in any way toward using the Novus Ordo rite.

The l6 priests--a small number out of a community of 100 ordained men--complained about the denial to the Vatican; it immediately responded with amazing ferocity, firing the duly elected Superior General, Fr. Bisig, as well as two priest-theologians who taught at the FSSP seminary. It then replaced these with its own hand-picked men. And it did all this within weeks of the original letter of complaint.

All of which is very interesting, given that Rome has allowed the rest of the Church to stew in heretical dissent and incredible corruption without any interference whatsoever. The sex abuse scandal is a case in point. Not a single head has rolled as a result--not here or anywhere else. By this double-standard the Holy See has made it abundantly clear that it will tolerate any corruption or malfeasance imaginable EXCEPT an untrammeled traditionalist Catholicism to which it remains secretly hostile.

This is what has paralyzed relations between SSPX and Rome, not SSPX intransigence. All this happened only four years ago and was not lost on the Society, which was why it had asked for assurances--chiefly, the granting of a universal indult for the ancient Mass which had been UNLAWFULLY suppressed in the early seventies by Church authorities. Indeed, the Indult is a misnomer--no indult has ever been necessary in fact, since the ancient Mass had been granted its privileged status in perpetuity back in the sixteenth century.

In any case, the FSSP had been successful beyond the Vatican's wildest dreams, attracting vocations, and doubling and tripling in number within a decade. At a time when the rest of the Church was closing seminaries, it was building a brand new one in Nebraska. One would have thought Rome would have been delighted. It was not. Instead it looked for a pretext to clamp down and did so with lightning speed--proving it can turn on a dime when it really wants to. It hardly ever wants to.

[BlackElk]

Apparently, the SSPX is worked up over the fact that there was a bit of skullduggery within FSSP in which some of the FSSP carried out a palace coup and elected a new superior who would allow, but not require, the FSSP priests to say the Novus Ordo Mass. They all still would be allowed to say the Tridentine and that would be their norm but the Novus Ordo would merely be allowed. It says something about SSPX attitudes about the Novus Ordo when this becomes a cause celebre. Also bear in mind that FSSP is despised by SSPX because it was founded by SSPX priests who wanted to re-unite with Rome.

If there had been a promise that no FSSP priest would ever be required to say a Novus Ordo Mass, each FSSP priest would have an interest in enforcing such a promise. If the claimed promise is that no FSSP priest would ever be ALLOWED to say the Novus Ordo Mass, that would smack of a rejection of the validity of the Novus Ordo which, however low rent the rubrics, is a valid Mass. No priest has an enforceable interest to require that any fellow priest not be ALLOWED to say the Novus Ordo.

It is of such as this that the schismatic briar patch of SSPXism consists. For the record, I will be delighted when the last Novus Ordo Mass has been said when it has been rejected by popular demand in favor of the Mass of our ancestors. I do not think its extinction should be ordered from above because that would do to Novus Ordo adherents what was done to the Tridentine adherents nearly forty years ago. That was wrong then and it is wrong now.

If the Tridentine had not been actively suppressed, this conversation would not be necessary today since the Novus Ordo would be a faintly remembered historical idiosyncrasy.

[ultima ratio]

I celebrate such disobedience. It was a good thing, not a bad thing--because it was in defense of the faith. It placed the faith before the Pontiff himself--who acted wrongly and improperly and against Tradition. That is something you must get your mind around. You and others who think like you can't get past your worship of the papacy, i.e., your identification of the faith with the papacy itself. Such a frame of mind is idolatrous; it makes an idol of an office. It is incapable of comprehending how a pope may act wrongly and command wrongly--of seeing that insofar as JPII did this, he superceded his own legitimacy. So you and others may think I've left--but I know who has not kept the faith, and it's not myself or other traditional Catholics who follow the teachings of the popes and councils going back for two thousand years. The ones who have actually abandoned Catholicism are those who have broken with the past, introducing revolution into our midst. They are the ones who have brought the smoke of Satan into the sanctuary--not the innocent priests who follow tradition like the men of the SSPX.

[BlackElk]

As usual, or dare I say traditional with a small t, SSPX will take no responsibility whatsoever for its defiance, its disobedience, its interference with those who left their ranks to re-unite with Rome. In this instance, the schismatic SSPX (see Ecclesia Dei) attacks Rome for merely ALLOWING priests to say the Novus Ordo. No one, but no one in FSSP is REQUIRED to do so.

Why this is any of the business of a schismatic organization or its excommunicated bishops is inexplicable. They should run their Church. JP II should run the Catholic Church. It is, after all, his job.

As to the crack about the sixteenth century grant of privileged status for the Tridentine, that would be the Papal Bull Quo Primum in which Pope St. Pius V purported to excommunicate in advance anyone who would ever tamper with the Tridentine Missal. That exceeded his powers. There have always been revolutionaries in foreign nations posing as advocates of democracy who really want one man, one vote, one election and no more. No pope can, on a matter non-doctrinal but merely prudential, bind his successors and remove their equal papal powers.

When Pius IX declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, that exhausted papal authority and precluded any successor denying it. Likewise, Pius XII and the Assumption of Mary. The precise word-for-word rubrics of the Mass need to be consistent with doctrine but no pope can decree in advance that he is excommunicating a future pope for changing the rubrics in ANY way.

Just as Catholics generally recognize the perils of individual interpretation of Scripture, so must we recognize the dangers of non-papal interpretation of tradition in areas of doctrine.

We have one pope at a time. He is now JP II. He is NOT SSPX and, if they do no like that fact, toooooo bad! Whether SSPX thinks that JP II is fair or not is not the question. Neither were John XXIII or Paul VI or Benedict XIV but they were, each of them, the only popes of their times from election to death as JP II is today. Catholicism without Peter as the holder of the keys is a contradiction in terms.

Ubi Petrus Ibi Ecclesia. Roma Locuta Causa Finita.

[BlackElk]

You celebrate disobedience to the pope because, as he has declared, your movement is in schism. You have insisted on leaving in service to your tastes and your pride, and misery, loving company, seeks to seduce others into leaving the Church of Jesus Christ, founded on Peter. You have free will. We will win with you or without you the battles that must be won WITHIN the Church.

You are not the first schismatics nor probably will you be the last. You are in service to a faith that is NOT the Catholic Faith whatever you may delude yourselves into imagining.

Your real beef remains the fact that JP II rightly excommunicated Marcel the impudent and his little band of willing co-conspirators against papal authority. Catholicism is a monarchy not an anarchy or even a democracy. When Rome needs your opinions, it will certainly ask for them. Don't hold your breath.

[BlackElk]

As an ex-lawyer, I become concerned that anything short of the suppression in toto of existing seminaries will cause unnecessary litigation against the Church by the usual gang of seminary heretics, lavenders and other suspects.

I generally agree with your points but, if necessary in ceating a new archdiocese of seminaries, make it plain that the archbishop's tenure is at the pleasure of the pope.

The existing system allows Hubbard and Mahoney and their ilk to control seminary admissions for their respective dioceses. That system has to go.