Traditionally Hypocritical

Christ or Chaos ^ | April 29, 2004 | Dr. Thomas Drolesky

[Land of the Irish]

Ping

[Maximilian]

Tom Drolesky has always been forthright, but if he was ever pulling any punches, he is certainly not doing so anymore. The gloves have come off.

Our problem, I believe, is that we are dealing with men who have clearly rejected the patrimony of the true Church, men in the hierarchy from the Holy Father on down who believe that the traditional, unambiguous language of the Church is counterproductive and harmful in our "civilization of love," men who do not believe that it is of the Church's very mission to convert everyone alive to become her members, men who promote sin under the aegis of "sex instruction" and "diversity" and other slogans, men who look the other way and who refuse to discipline brother bishops and priests who engage in and who persist in unrepentant sinful activity, whether natural or unnatural, men who do not accept and who do not want to listen to those who insist that all of the problems of the world are caused by Original Sin and our own actual sins and that is it is only the teaching and the sacraments the God-Man entrusted to the Catholic Church that can save souls and thus restore and maintain as much order as is possible in a fallen world. Much of the Church's hierarchy is engaged in material heresy.

[Unam Sanctam]

Nothing in the paragraph you have quoted remotely describes the Holy Father. And note how the author speaks with venomous hatred by using words like "Vatican lapdogs" for the Zenit news service, and as always accentuates the negative by criticizing rather than praising Cardinal Arinze for his forthright and laudable remarks, both pointing out the requirements and pointing out that implemenation is the role of the local episcopacy, which at least in the case of Cardinal McCarrick is dropping the ball and shirking its duties big time.

[franky]

From this past Sunday's Liturgy. It certainly reads as if Paul and Barnabas told the Jews if they do not accept, the gentile's will. Paul and Barnabas also obeyed Christ's admonition to "wipe the dust from your feet" if My Word is not accepted. Ir certainly seems as if the Jews need to be converted.

Acts 13:14, 43-52

Paul and Barnabas continued on from Perga
and reached Antioch in Pisidia.

On the sabbath they entered the synagogue and took their seats.

Many Jews and worshipers who were converts to Judaism
followed Paul and Barnabas, who spoke to them
and urged them to remain faithful to the grace of God.

On the following sabbath almost the whole city gathered
to hear the word of the Lord.

When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and with violent abuse contradicted what Paul said.

Both Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said,
"It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first, but since you reject it and condemn yourselves as unworthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.

For so the Lord has commanded us,
I have made you a light to the Gentiles,
that you may be an instrument of salvation
to the ends of the earth."

The Gentiles were delighted when they heard this
and glorified the word of the Lord.
All who were destined for eternal life came to believe,
and the word of the Lord continued to spread
through the whole region.

The Jews, however, incited the women of prominence who were worshipers and the leading men of the city,
stirred up a persecution against Paul and Barnabas,
and expelled them from their territory.

So they shook the dust from their feet in protest against them, and went to Iconium.

The disciples were filled with joy and the Holy Spirit.

[ultima ratio]

You again are apologizing for the cowardice and dereliction of Rome. It is the DUTY of the Pope to protect Sacred Tradition, not to ignore the pack of jackals destroying it.

[Unam Sanctam]

I am loyal to both Sacred Tradition and the Successor of Peter. You apparently are loyal to neither.

[Judith Anne]

Thank you for the ping to this remarkable article.

[Land of the Irish]

I am loyal to both Sacred Tradition and the Successor of Peter and Mao Tse Sung.

[ultima ratio]

Coulda fooled me. If you were loyal to Sacred Tradition, you would be retching over the inventions coming out of Rome instead of making excuses for them. You are all too typical. You place authority before even the Faith--and condemn those who do the reverse--which is ass-backwards.

[neocon]

Max, please remove me from your ping list. I rarely bother with FR at all since you told me to "get lost" a while back, and doing so really has improved my outlook. But on those occasions when I do look in, I would not like to have my attention called to threads like this one. Thanks.

[Unam Sanctam]

I am perfectly loyal to Sacred Tradition, and I don't think that piling on with slander and falsehoods against the Holy Father constitutes defending Sacred Tradition. As I have told you a thousand times at least, Sacred Tradition consists of the deposit of faith, i.e., doctrines on faith and morals that have been taught always and everywhere by the magisterium as handed down from the apostles and interpreted and applied by their successors (the ordinary and universal magisterium), as well as dogmatic definitions on faith and morals of Popes and Ecumenical Councils. Not every teaching of the ordinary magisterium and not every disciplinary or liturgical rule is is part of Sacred Tradition and hence irreformable. Whether to withold communion in a particular instance may or may not be wise, but it is a disciplinary rule and hardly part of the ordinary and universal magisterium. As usual, you define everything as Sacred Tradition, including much that isn't, and therefore the Pope never meets your infallible standard. He therefore will never meet your subjective infallible standards and will always be the butt of your everlasting criticism. I honestly don't think you have any faith in Christ or His promises, or otherwise you would not preach such total and unmitigated hatred against the Successor of Peter, whom Christ promised would be the rock of the Church around which we must rally. You don't believe in or trust in God and have a purely human conception of the Church.

[Unam Sanctam]

I think you are the one loyal to Mao Tse-Tung, since you are in schism and thumb your nose at the Successor of Peter, just like the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association.

[Land of the Irish]

...just like the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association.

Unlike you, I have never assisted nor defended attendence at a CCPA "Mass". Who's the real schismatic?

[saradippity]

I just saw your name and eagerly pulled up the thread to learn what you had to say. I was sorry it was just a request to be pulled from a ping list.

Your comments have always been of special interest to me. You provided a wealth of information with clarity and wisdom. I hope you will continue to occasionally look in on the religious forum and comment. Thanks.

[Unam Sanctam]

I did not take communion. And in any event, please take it up with my confessor in Hong Kong, who said that it would be permissible (but not mandatory) to assist at a CCPA mass if it were not possible to attend a proper mass. Since most of the priests' orders are probably valid but not licit, like the SSPX priests, I don't see how it is any difference from assisting at an SSPX mass, which I assume you do.

[Land of the Irish]

please take it up with my confessor in Hong Kong

Who was it? A visiting Mahoney or Hubbard?

[Land of the Irish]

Rome has said I can attend an SSPX Mass and fulfill my obligations, under certain, defined conditions.

Where and when has Rome said you can attend a CCPA Mass? And what are the conditions? Was your Hong Kong confessor the Pope?

[Land of the Irish]

I did not take communion.

No different than, "I did not inhale".