San Jose Bishop McGrath Denounced for Heresy by Local Area Priest

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

[ninenot]

No one should FAULT someone for attending SSPX Masses, if they bear in mind the monitum that 'attachment' is very dangerous.

OTOH, in prudence, one should try to find a decent NO parish, within reason, before running off to SSPX.

[netmilsmom]

But I still don't get it. If these priests wanted to say the new mass, why did they want to stay with the FSSP? Why didn't they go to a new order (or can't they do that? Geez, I'm pretty ignorant about this)?

I guess my biggest question is, what good has Vatican II done? Short of the fall of Communism, I don't see very much that is great since it started. Wouldn't one think that the Vatican would want to gather all of us together and start fresh? Let the Latin mass be an option everywhere and let the chips fall where they may?

Maybe I'm just being a Polyanna.
Like I said, being raised with Vatican II in place, and finding out about SSPX a week ago, I am puzzled. I just see an awful lot of bad in our church with the Pope more concerned about traveling than either protecting our children or bringing us together. I just bought my older daughter's First Communion dress and was thinking of leaving the church after the younger one made hers. I am so upset about the silence from Rome.
And my Uncle is the former Bishop of Steubenville. I have a very Catholic family.

[netmilsmom]

I'm sorry, I forgot to add your name. Please see 142.

[ultima ratio]

You miss the point. Right or wrong, this was minor stuff--nowhere near the corruption and malfeasance and heresy that was running rampant throughout the Church without so much as a slap on the wrist. What was striking was how swiftly retribution was meted out to FSSP four years ago on such a minor matter.

[ultima ratio]

It can't. Egan owns the property and wishes to raze it.

[ultima ratio]

The Pontiff never excommunicated the SSPX bishops. This is a falsehood. He mentioned in a letter that the excommunication had taken place latae sententiae. But since automatic excommunications of that sort depend on the spiritual dispositions of the subjects involved, and since the Pope could not have known these with any kind of certitude, and since there were canons exempting the SSPX bishops from obedience in a state of necessity, and since the bishops believed in good conscience that there was such a crisis situation in the Church, and since, even if they were mistaken, they can still not be justly charged with evil intent--it was therefore exceedingly wrong for the Pope to have declared them excommunicated, let alone schismatic.

[ultima ratio]

He signed the letter, not any document of excommunication. There's a difference. It was not a decree of excommunication and has no official standing as such.

[ultima ratio]

"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."

Excuse me, but this is horse manure. Catholics, it is true, need the papacy to sort out challenges to tradition. BUT WHEN IT IS THE MAGISTERIUM ITSELF which opposes tradition and brings change and revolution and novelty into the Church in open contempt of all its predecessors, then the faithful themselves must challenge these high churchmen and recall them to the ancient faith.

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

Welcome to the forum.
Like many on the forum, I try to find the good in all arguments.
What bothers me most about this Fr Bisig FSSP affair is that he very quickly dismissed without being given a chance to implement what could easily be called a clarification of FSSP rules; meanwhile our homo clerics continue to get carte blanche. It sounds like a mean-spirited power play. Obviously we don't know all the facts here, but that one part, that he was dumped quickly with little pretext is quite troubling IMHO.
I would encourage you to stay Catholic whether it's NO or trad. The alternatives are much less compelling and have no real authority.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

it was therefore exceedingly wrong for the Pope to have declared them excommunicated, let alone schismatic.

And it seems Ratzinger, Cassidy, Hoyos, etc KNOW this, hence all the statements since 1988 which deny the SSPX is schismatic. I just wish those who hang on every word of the Living Magisterium would pay attention.

[ultima ratio]

No. My real beef concerns the unjust persecution of a traditionalist Archbishop by a Pontiff who lacked the will--for whatever reasons--to protect the Catholic faith from auto-demolition. I may lack humility--but you are wrong when you say I'm miserable for thinking this. On the contrary, it has been liberating to be honest about this--it is tremendously comforting to tell the plain and simple truth. It is you who must lie to yourself, pretending the fault for the mess that has been the Church for the past twenty years remains with others besides the Pontiff.

[netmilsmom]

At the moment, I think I am going to check out the Traditional (thanks LandoftheIrish) and keep my girls in the NO. I'm not sure they could go through the Latin Mass.

I am scared for my kids. They will NEVER do anything in our Parrish without me. I would love for them to get the thrill of the big hug from the Priest that all of us got as children. Our Dear Father will no longer hug our kids. He is retiring (God Bless him), and who knows what is coming next.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

SSPX has four chapels in Michigan and two have schools for children. I think the Armada group is the one who protested the Buddhists in the Church sanctuary last month. It might be worth checking out.

The nice thing about SSPX is they can tell it like it is without fear of retaliation by diocesan bishops.

http://www.sspx.org/chapels.htm

http://www.sspx.org/schools.html

There are four dioceses which have Traditional Mass under the Indult but unfortunately these are not traditional parishes with schools like the SSPX. The N.O. Masses might be more conservative in those churches.

http://www.ecclesiadei.org/region05.htm

[lrslattery]

PATRICK J. McGRATH is the Roman Catholic bishop of San Jose. He wrote a column for the Mercury News. Here is an excerpt:

I do offer some reflections on underlying concerns that seem to be coming into focus in light of the Ash Wednesday release of ``The Passion.''

While the primary source material of the film is attributed to the four gospels, these sacred books are not historical accounts of the historical events that they narrate. They are theological reflections upon the events that form the core of Christian faith and belief. (Emphasis added by me)

But from the Catechism we read this:

#126 We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:

1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, "whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up."[99]

And the footnote #99 above directs us to the Second Vatican Council's Dei Verbum #19 which states:

Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1).

I suppose one could also extract excerpts from Pascendi Dominici Gregis or Lamentabili Sane, both from Pope Pius X, but I suppose the Catechism and Dei Verbum are enough to begin the educational process for the San Jose bishop.

I did write the diocese and Bishop McGrath on Feb 21 after this article came out, but since I do not belong to that diocese, I doubt I will get a response.

Then, on Feb 25, this comes out in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: An editorial commentary in the St Louis Post-Dispatch by Judson R. Shaver, President of Marymount Manhattan College, proclaims that the Gospels are not true, that the passion narratives are not historical.

This is similar to Bishop Patrick Mcgrath's article.

Shaver states:

[H]is (Mel Gibson's) film is unhistorical and replicates the Gospels' shifting of blame from Rome to the Jews.

This blame-shifting is part of a broad strand of Christian anti-Semitism that begins in the New Testament and runs through modern, well-intentioned Christian thought.

... While scholars find it difficult to establish exactly what Jesus said or did, there is no reason to believe that he rejected Judaism or the Jews.

... The fact that Christian anti-Judaism is rooted in some New Testament texts has both created the sickness and delayed the cure. We cannot deny the sinful events in our history or the members of our fellowship who fall far short of the Christian ideal; neither can we can reject our scripture.

Shaver, however, seems to have rejected that Scripture was divinely inspired, and at least our understanding of Sacred Scripture as taught by the Church (See Dei Verbum) He goes on to write:

If we can't abandon the New Testament or even its truly regrettable passages, I believe we can learn to read scripture differently.

... Christians forgot that the Gospels, with their passion narratives, were originally the literary and theological creations of Jews.

(...Sarcasm On...) Of course, we must read them and interpret them, not with the mind of the Church, but according to our own sensibilities - much like the ECUSA has reinterpreted Scripture to say that homosexuality is NOT an abomination to God. I just wonder how these heretics* obtain jobs at allegedly 'Catholic' schools?

But wait a second - we soon find out what he is really saying...

Many of us know better, (regarding the true way to read the Gospels) but millions of Christians don't - including, I fear, Mel Gibson and the large evangelical audience his film will attract.

The truth seems to indicate that Shaver is a member of an elitist group, formerly known centuries ago as the Gnostics - those who have been given special insights and powers that God did not want to share with us "common" and unenlightened people.

Only those who have been granted special insight are capable of understanding the Gospels, not as historical in the events that are narrated, but "theological reflections"...

Lord, have mercy on us!

* CCC 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."</font size>

[narses]

Abp. Lefevre never rejected Vatican II. He helped AUTHOR the schemas. He (and the SSPX) objected to the perversions caused by the liberals to the vagueness of so many of the ending documents, and to one or two of the ultimate conclusions, but in the vast majority, where V2 agreed with the prior dogmatic teachings of the Church, they have ALWAYS been supportive. It is the odious "Spirit of V2" that they fight against, not the Pastoral Council itself.

[narses]

Be scared, be vigilant. The "catholic" schools in LA would have had educated our children into the modern "mysteries" of sex without our cooperation or knowledge. The SSPX insisted that sex and children required mom and dad's guidance and that sex education was parental not pastoral in nature. Further, they gave us great books and help in fulfilling our divine duties.

[Siobhan]

I imagine others would agree with me that we are long overdue for an Exorcism of the "spirit of vatican 2" from Holy Mother Church.

[BlackElk]

Re: Your #146-148.

So you and those who adhere to the SSPX schism in defense of the excommunicated bishops always seem to insist. When one of you becomes pope and so rules, be sure to get back to us. Meanwhile, repent and return to the Church of your ancestors.

As for me and mine, we will go with the idea that the pope knows what he is and was talking about when he declared Marcel and the Econe 5 excommunicated and SSPX to be a schism. This is NOT terribly complicated except to those whose bleeding fingers and broken fingernails seek any rationalization even "ultimate" ones for their rejection of Christ's Vicar on Earth in the vain hope of continued Catholicism without papal authority.

Every Tom Dick and Harriet will be his or her own pope. Everyone wins and all shall have prizes. Well, ummmmm, no. Tempus fugit. Memento mori.

[BlackElk]

NO ONE in authority has said that SSPX is not schismatic. The pope has declared the SSPX schismatic. Stick to truth.

[BlackElk]

What part of NO ONE APPOINTED YOU or other SSPX schismatics to judge the pope do you fail to understand? All of it, obviously.