San Jose Bishop McGrath Denounced for Heresy by Local Area Priest

Catholics are those in communion with the Holy See not in rebellion against it as are SSPX adherents and their excommunicated bishops.

That there are sinners and gross sinners at that among our bishops and clergy is no surprise. Christ chose twelve. Thomas denied the Resurrection unless he could place his hands in the wounds. Peter denied Christ three times on that final night. Judas, well, Judas needs no introduction. All bishops are successors of the apostles. Some are successors of Judas.

We are not appointed to direct Rome. I probably do no care for what has been done "in the spirit of Vatican II" any more than do you or many of the schismatics. I almost apostasized twenty-five years ago. I did not. I decided to trust the promises of Jesus Christ and I am not changing in hat respect to go find a schismatic religious ghetto to abandon the true Church to her internal enemies and satisfy myself with what the schismatics assume is their justified self-congratulation while nursing my wounded pride and tastes.

God gave each of us free will and drafts none of us. We are free to remain in His Church or to leave it for a mess of apostasy. It would be a tragedy if you were to leave but at least you are honest in admitting that you contemplate leaving the Church. You have the potential to be victimized by the persistent campaign of scandal against the Holy Father perpetrated by the heirs of the excommunicated Lefebvre's schism. You have the freedom not to be.

As to FSSP, no one ought to have the right to deny to a priest in good standing the right to say the Tridentine Mass OR the right to say the Novus Ordo. That those who imagine what can never be: tradition in defiance of the papacy, the Novus Ordo is obviously an abomination. Actually it is a valid Mass with a lot lower rent rubrics than the Tridentine, abysmal excuses for liturgical music, preening "presiders", communion in the paw, et al. It is STILL the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass whether the SSPX crew admits that or not. If no FSSP priest is REQUIRED to say the Novus Ordo, where is the beef of FSSP priests? That they will be contaminated by the presence in their order of other priests who say the Novus Ordo voluntarily?????

It is, in any event, none of SSPX's business since the original FSSP priests left SSPX specifically to return to Roman Catholicism and communion with the Holy See and SSPX stayed outside the Church which they have abandoned to endlessly congratulate themselves on their defiant disobedience in emulation of their excommunicated founder and bishops and to seduce others to join them outside the Church.

Abp. Lefevre never rejected Vatican II. He helped AUTHOR the schemas.

I think perhaps you have a misunderstanding here. The first major action of Vatican II was a vote to THROW OUT the schemas that were authored by Lefebvre, Ottaviana and other "reactionaries" of their sort. Those schemas were discarded and replaced with new ad hoc documents that were amenable to liberal manipulation. This vote was the Rubicon over which the council crossed, and having crossed, "the die was cast."

but in the vast majority, where V2 agreed with the prior dogmatic teachings of the Church, they have ALWAYS been supportive.

I have read the issues of "The Angelus" magazine from 1978-1985, and I have to take exception with this description. Virtually every month there has been something from Archbishop Lefebvre, and I believe a more accurate statement would be that they oppose virtually everything coming out of Vatican II entirely.

It's true that they do recognize that it would be possible in the future to reconcile Vatican II with traditional Catholic teaching because nothing was taught definitively that was absolutely contrary to a defined dogma. But that is damning with faint praise indeed. They also recognize that the clear meaning and intention of the Vatican II documents was to subvert the Catholic faith.

From reading these issues of The Angelus you will see that there was no monomania with the Latin Mass. That is only 1 issue. Equal time was given to the issues of religious liberty and ecumenism. These came straight from the documents of Vatican II. Archbishop Lefebvre certainly viewed Dignitatis Humanae as directly contrary to the prior teachings of Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XI, for starters.

It is the odious "Spirit of V2" that they fight against, not the Pastoral Council itself.

Clearly the "Spirit of V2" WAS the "spirit of Vatican II." One cannot read the proceedings of the council without realizing that the spirit that prevailed for some time afterwards accurately reflected the spirit of the proceedings during the council itself. The spirit of the actual council was one of revolution.

I haven't judged this Pope spiritually--I don't claim to know the state of his soul. He may well be a saint. But he can be judged for how he leads his Church--as we would any other public leader, examining his policies and evaluating their outcome. By this it's been abundantly clear from day one that JPII has not been the friend of Catholic tradition, has given scandal, has ignored deep-rooted corruption, has knowingly appointed and elevated men of doubtful orthodoxy, has left unprotected key dogmas of Catholicism eroded by bad liturgies, has shown little interest in the encyclicals of his preconciliar predecessors, has cultivated a questionable doctrine of false optimism, and in general has allowed the modernist agenda to flourish. All this has clearly been detrimental to the traditional faith. This much we can judge--and should.

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.