Posted on 02/29/2004 1:04:29 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
On Sunday, Feb. 22, 2004, Rev. Daniel Cooper, pastor of Our Mother of Perpetual Help in Los Gatos, CA, denounced Bishop Patrick McGrath for heresy. The priest was responding to a stand taken by the bishop against the historical truth of the four Gospels
Bishop McGrath wrote the heretical comments as part of an op-ed piece which appeared in the February 1st edition of the San Jose Mercury News. The newspaper also recently featured a number of by-line pieces linking The Passion of the Christ and Mel Gibson to charges of anti-Semitism. Under the title "Its Just a Movie", Bishop McGrath states:
"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."
Father Cooper said the bishop had contradicted official teachings of the church and thereby committed heresy. "Non-Catholic Christians will look down on us" he noted, "since our common thread has always been a belief in the Gospels." Presumably, the priest’s position was taken from church documents such as the Syllabus of Errors and Dei Verbum, Vatican II.
"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." Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum 19. Promulgated in 1965.
The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office at the command of Pope St. Pius X issued the Syllabus of Errors condemning the errors of the Modernists on July 3, 1907 which officially CONDEMNED 65 modernist propositions including #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." (See also #3,16,29 and 36) etc. Promulgated in 1864.
"I was surprised to hear him take the position he did, but then, how many holy priests do I really know" said one eye witness. "For a supposed schismatic, he was pretty true to the Gospels."
Father Cooper’s chapel is located in the St. Aloysius Retreat Center at 101 Bear Creek Road, Los Gatos, CA within the Diocese of San Jose which is headed by Bishop McGrath. St. Aloysius is operated by the Society of St. Pius X, the largest organization within the Catholic traditionalist movement. Catholic traditionalists, whose number includes Mel Gibson, typically suspend obedience from church office-holders who reject church teachings handed down by their predecessors because of biblical (2 Th 2:15, 1 Co 11:2, Ga 2:11) and various papal injunctions to defend Tradition.
Of course. Events are historical, but the words may have been embellished.
Now, tell me what a "moerbist" is. My big ole 2500 page Webster's unabridged doesn't define it.
Exactly, and the Vatican hierarchy realize the same. I wish I could find the quote by either Cardinal Hamao or Hoyos, stating if a universal indult is granted the New Mass will be gone in ten years.
Are you morphing into an SSPXer?
The SSPX is leading many faithful Catholics astray, colleen. I give as good as I get. You look around here and decide who picks the fights in the Catholic Caucus.
I am NOT ordained to minister to schismatics. In fact, permanent deacons wouldn't be recognized in the SSPX.
Is the SSPX priest wrong in his statement that the bishop who made the above (in italics) is stating/teaching heresy?
No, with qualifications.
I agree with you that suppression of the new Mass is a non-starter. "Spirit of Vatican II" aside, I think there are also some positive results of the Novus Ordo outside of the Western world (e.g. Africa).
His actual written words do, you're right. He should have qualified what he wrote.
Consequently the priest you accuse of being schismatic - but who to the best of my knowledge has not been excommunicated by the Church or declared to be in schism - is probably more fully in communion with the Church than is McGrath.
Except that he follows the jurisdiction of bishops who are excommunicated. If he's not an excommunicate, then what is he?
Look, McGrath is wrong as to historicity of events, but not necessarily to historicity of words.
Another major advantage identified! Thanks Sinkspur for putting your finger on one of the great things about the SSPX.
Fellay talks a good game, but he has either expelled or allowed himself to be talked into expelling the leading proponent of reuinon, a Fr. Aulaigner. He's out of the SSPX, at the insistence, I suspect, of the foam-at-the-mouth hierarch, Richard Williamson. Fellay kinda likes being a big fish in a small pond. After reconciliation, he'd be a nobody.
It is the responsibility of the SSPX to seek reconciliation. They left, remember?
Well, it's their loss. They've got circuit-rider priests traversing wide swaths of states, while the Latin Rite has ordained ministers seeing to baptisms, marriages, care of the sick, Eucharistic services in the absence of a priest (the SSPX folks deny themselves daily Eucharist..how nutty!).
Oh, and by the way, when is the SSPX going to conduct a study of how many of its priests have abused minors?
Did you know that NO permanent deacons were identified by the National Review Board as having abused minors? There were some transitional deacons, but I couldn't find any permanent deacons.
And, I read both studies this afternoon.
They are not mistaken on some points - this thread being one instance of that - and you would have to have blinders on to say otherwise.
Quite a few non-SSPX bishops and priests and nuns are leading people astray too, sinkspur. Sometimes out in the open but mostly through what they don't say and don't teach. The confusion in the pews is heartbreaking.
You say you "give as good as you get" but I wasn't aware that a deacon of the Catholic Church checked his deaconhood at the parish door when he left for the day.
How's a deacon supposed to act? "Remember to act mousy" was not in the letter I signed when I petitioned the bishop for ordination.
There may eventually be a return of large numbers of these people. How many will continue to hang with Williamson is anyone's guess.
I don't think this organization is as monolithic as it appears.
I agree with you. I think there are some cracks already (see the ouster of Fr. Aulaigner). I suspect many of the people in SSPX would like to have it regularized, if possible.
I pray they can be fully rejoined to the Holy See, in a way that preserves the traditional liturgy.
If one is married, 35 is the minimum age. If one is celibate, 25 is the limit (though I can't imagine a celibate man becoming a deacon; I'd just go on to priesthood).
We have two celibates among the 65 permanent deacons in our diocese, and these are men in their late 60s whose wives died.
I'm only 53, and I could honor my celibacy commitment without hesitation if something happened to my wife.
I could not have said that at 25.
I don't have any national statistics handy.
No.
Condescension is not a sin. It's unattractive, I suppose, but what you see as condescension I see as calling a spade a spade.
"Schismatic" is not name calling; it is an accurate description of the state of the SSPX.
Here we have a fairly obvious example of a bishop teaching explicit heresy - for which pehaps the most shocking element is in its lack of subtlety rather than its substance, since we've almost come to expect it.
He's called out on the heresy - but not by one of his own priests. Heaven forbid those should value Christ's eternal Truth above the favor of their bishop! But rather by a priest many Catholics consider a schismatic.
Could lead to an interesting discussion of where God wants his Church to go. Bishops being explicitly heretical is hardly a minor matter, and ought to call for some sort of serious response. But schism is rightly considered a very serious matter as well.
But instead it quickly devolves into the typical "schismatic" versus "modernist" nonsense.
Getting back to basics, what is worse? A heretical bishop, or a schismatic priest? Which is the greater danger to the faith?
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.