McCarrick Ratzinger Spin is The Second Time - Remember Arinze

LifeSiteNew.com ^ | LifeSiteNews.com

[LifeSite News]

Controversy Heats up over Cardinal McCarrick Downplaying Vatican Direction on Communion

WASHINGTON, July 7, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - With the release of the letter from Cardinal Ratzinger stating Communion must be denied to obstinately pro-abortion Catholic politicians, Cardinal McCarrick's report on the letter given at the U.S. Bishops Meeting last month has come under fire. - snip - However, as LifeSiteNews.com pointed out on July 5, the current incident is the second time Cardinal McCarrick seems to have contradicted the Vatican over the issue of denying communion.

[saradippity]

Sorry,you are missing the whole point. You all rag on about what went wrong,but when we try to explain it,you folks would rather just keep raging. People have been telling you that the amchurch bishops are disobedient,they lie,they twist,thsy spin. Nothing gets by them from the Pope or the magisterium in union with the Pope that they don't delay,postpone,send to committee or use some other wile to not be in union.The deck was stacked with Paul VI and it takes time to unravel it.

The Bishops have started to wrest control over the infiltrated,imposter bishops appointed in the 70's. Maybe you have not had the experience of working for dishonest people or maybe you have not been able to pay attentiion to what has been going on over the last 40 years but whaatever the reason you have not probed far enough so you rage against the wind. I am here to tell you if we don't start working together,everyone is going to down separately. Christiianity and western civilization right with it.

[Land of the Irish]

You just can't admit you were wrong, can you?

If one wants to look at the sunny side,the B/bishops by a vote of 183 to 6,voted to allow the Bishops to follow Rome rather than the "imposters",who have,to this point,forced the entire group of B/bishops to follow them.

186 bishops chose to ignore Rome.

[Smartass]

Cardinal McCarrick needs to be taken to task!!!

[Notwithstanding]

186 bishops agreed that denial of communion is acceptable.

This is big news.

In the past, as Saradippity points out, these men would most likely have voted to make denial of communion a violation of USCCB rules.

[Squire of St. Michael]

I don't think you should be jumping to the conclusion that 183 bishops are unfaithful dissenting heretics. His Excellency, Archbishop Burke, was one of the 183 and I'd venture to guess that he isn't one of your "SOB" Bishops, seeing as he's spearheaded the non-schismatic traditionalist assault on pro-choice politicians. BTW, I'm again impressed by the charity used in referring to Successors of the Apostles. Keep it up, you're sure to win over many hearts and minds.

[Polycarp IV]

His Excellency, Archbishop Burke, was one of the 183

I've read just the opposite, which I believe over your assertion here, lacking proof beyond your simple statement itself. But the list of who voted among the 183 and who was in the other 6 has not been printed to my knowledge.

Often there is far more spiritual pride among the holier-than-thou pollyannas bemoaning critics like us ("I'm glad I'm not like them, criticizing those poor Successors of the Apostles") than among their targets of disdain. So if its OK with you, I'll not lose too much rest over your post, especially since, like Burke, I am a non-schismatic traditionalist too.

[AAABEST]

Why are you attributing statements to me that I didn't type? I said nothing about any "SOB" bishops and I didn't jump to any conclusions.

In fact, if you bothered to open your eyes you'd realize that I typed not a single word on this entire thread.

You're quickly working your way onto my imbecile list.

[AAABEST]

Heh. Thanks for sticking up for my position, but it is my duty to inform you that (although I have a stupid opinion about everything) I didn't take one here.

As I stated in #27 this silly person is arguing with an imaginary me.

BTW Marie is sending that CD out today.

[Squire of St. Michael]

My mistake AAA, I saw your name on one of the lists, and thought you had posted. I worked fourteen straight hours followed by two hours of sleep yesterday and then another three-hour shift, so I wasn't seeing clearly.

But anyway,

"In an interview Thursday, Burke called that discussion "a good, healthy debate" and said he was pleased with the statement "Catholics in Political Life" that the bishops drafted and voted to accept 183-6. Burke said he voted in favor of accepting the statement and did not know which six bishops opposed its adoption."

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/St.+Louis+City+%2F+County/EAF9C6818BC6F5E986256EBF0064788F?OpenDocument&Headline=Burke+clarifies+stance,+causes+more+turmoil&tetl=1

[Squire of St. Michael]

I suppose you could assume that STLtoday is just blatantly lying (certainly not out of the realm of possibility), but His Excellency has said he will soon issue a pastoral letter clarifying his stance on voting for pro-choice candidates and I'm sure he'll mention the recent USCCB decision, so maybe that will put the issue to rest for you.

[AAABEST]

Apology humbly accepted.

You don't have to be so nice about it you know. Now I feel like I owe you an apology!

[Polycarp IV]

BTW Marie is sending that CD out today.

Great! Thank you!

[Polycarp IV]

Burke said he voted in favor of accepting the statement and did not know which six bishops opposed its adoption."

In my anger and frustration, I've allowed my language to fall into inappropriate usages.

I stand corrected, and I humbly offer my apology for my harsh reply to your appropriate rebuke.

[Squire of St. Michael]

Thanks for the charitable replies. It's by saintly action and humility like this that we'll be able to remain united as traditionalists and then bring the Church back on track (even though we may have some disagreements as to what exactly lies at the end of the track).