Posted on 10/29/2004 3:05:40 PM PDT by thor76
"O'Connor and Egan had long been rivals, and Egan had long been a favorite of the pope. "
I find that statement disturbing for a number of reasons. O'Connor consecrated Egan as a Bishop....as his Auxiliary Bishop of NY in 1983. O'Connor was known in the 80s to have been a friend of the Pope - or at least that is how things were portrayed.
Just prior to this, Egan was one of the principal canonists who composed the 1983 Code of Canon Law. He then remained in NY for five years as O'Connor's Secretary of Education.
The Egan was made Bishop of Bridgeport, CT.
Now the question is - if this story is true - what happened?
The obvious conclusion - and one which I know to be very true - is that O'Connor developed a deep dislike of Egan. Now while JPII can and has made error is judgement, he does listen to his Cardinals. The public impression is that O'Connor had the ear of the pope.
Here is my spin on this situation. Egan got the nickname "fast eddie" for his rabid politicking and jockeying for position during his time in Rome. He cultivated many important contacts. this is what helped him secure his place.....in the very important See of New York.
He knew the power brokers in the Archdiocese of NY all too well....he made many friends here with all the baddies who run the chancery; the partisans of the superforce. In the same manner he used his connections in Rome to help him secure the position in NY.
O'Connor last ditch effort to agrue against Egan was not just a meeting with the Pope.......he went to beg and plead with the power brokers in Rome.....the Pope's "jailers", who control and manage him now. Remember - O'Connor was a Cardinal, and could have just picked up the phone and talked personally to the Pope.
So if there is trutht to the statement that Egan and O'Connor were rivals....that makes me wonder. Remember for all the bad decisions and compromises which O'Connor made, he was in his heart very Catholic. He was forced to do things in regard to his priest personnel which he did not want to. And then there was all the pressure from the gay community.
Egan has received none of this pressure. His clergy have not been revolting against him - like they were against O'Connor. Why? To my view, because they are of the same cloth.
At his roots, O'Connor is Catholic - his record, wrtings, and preaching showed this. Egan is not - he gives the barest lip service. This is the difference between them.
So your question: "who intervened" is a good one.
The related, but better question is - what is it that O'Connor knew about Egan, which made him rise from his death bed to fly to Rome to plead that Egan not be made his sucessor. What did O'Connor know?
In this artice - and in some posts on this thread - the contention was made that Fr. Martin asserted a sedevacantist position, and that he associated himself with sedevacantist groups.
Nothing could be further from the truth. With regard to the "groups" he associated with, he had dealt with members of and the leadership of the SSPX and the SSPV, as well as numberous members and leaders of independant traditionalist Latin Mass Chapels around the country.
First, neither of these groups are sedevacantist, second, he strictly counseled his readers, listeners, and visitors to his website against claiming that the pope is not the pope.
He did, however, expound on how the Chair of Peter COULD become vacant, and circumstances which could lead to such a belief.
To say that he was a sedevacantist in any literal sense, would be like saying that because I possess a copy of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, have read it, and understand it, and have written about the subject......that I must be a Marxist. Nothing is further from the truth!
There is another way to view sedevacantism - in a figurative sense. What if the Petrine office has been effectively rendered moot......its various powers inneffective...........and its office nearly powerless in the worldly, administrative sense of the word? That such power has been effectively lost through disuse by three pontiffs in a row?
We are not speaking of the papacy being ended - of the disappearance of the office.......nor of its powers ceasing to exist. But we are speaking of the demonstrable fact that the present occupant of the Chair of Peter cannot effectively govern the Church as he has power in theory, but cannot effectively use it. Like a toothless tiger.
And that this situation had been connived at and encouraged/enforced by Vatican Beaurocrats, Cardinals, and Bishops, as well as local chanceries.
In that figurative sense, Martin claimed that it is as if the church were a leaderless things. Not in the sense of the occupant not existing, or having become invalid. But that since he was installed in 1978 he was effectively powerless to truly govern it......and that the situation has only deteriorated. And that JPII knew that his job was to preside over this mess - which was not humanly fixable - while travelling and preaching the truths of the faith. This was his not merely his only option, but his mandate.
That much is readily observable.
This definition of the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit is a modern, rationalistic one. It may contain some truth, but scripturally, it was more like those who call evil good and good evil. Your modern day leftist pretty much fits this definition.
This definition of the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit is a modern, rationalistic one. It may contain some truth, but scripturally, it was more like those who call evil good and good evil. Your modern day leftist pretty much fits this definition.
I am currently reading The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church by Malachi Martin and quite frankly he strikes me as a sensationalist. His style is captivating but he tells details that he could not possibly know about. He speculates and poses his speculation as truth and one is left wondering if there were ever ANY good Popes.
(You say) "This definition of the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit is a modern, rationalistic one. It may contain some truth, but scripturally, it was more like those who call evil good and good evil. Your modern day leftist pretty much fits this definition."
FINAL IMPENITENCE
This fact of the end of our earthly existence should obviously make preparation for death the most urgent of our daily concerns. Foolish it is to forget the eternity that is coming as a result of choices currently being made. Such is a recipe for the particular danger known as final impenitence.
A person in this tragic condition finds himself at the moment of death in a state of serious sin. Through neglect or outright rebellion, he is completely lacking the union with God he needs, brought about through the presence in his soul of sanctifying grace. What is more, although he could be reconciled with God through as little as an internal cry of the heart for mercy and forgiveness, even in the last moments of his earthly life, this soul is so hardened in sin that he encountaers death without the slightest stirring of repentance. Jesus in the Gospels speaks of a "sin against the Holy Spirit" that cannot be forgiven. St. Augustine identifies this sin as a hardness of heart at the moment of death: "he who dies in a state of obstinacy is guilty of the sin against the Holy Spirit" (Enchiridion 83). In other words, faced with final impenitence, God’s hands are tied. He longs to save the soul and grant it forgiveness, but He cannot act as long as the soul refuses to call out to Him.
*In other words -
Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is about a person refusing to accept God's saving grace even unto death.
That you confuse such traditional understanding with calling evil good and good evil says little about your credibility as a judge of what is and isnt Tradition.
His style is captivating but he tells details that he could not possibly know about. He speculates and poses his speculation as truth
Your personal opinion notwithstanding, the "X" factor which you are not aware of is that Martin is understood as having been made a Bishop "in pectore" - that is to say in secret.That is something which can neither readily be absulotely surely proven, nor disproved at this point, as he is dead. This had a lot to do with covert work which he did in relation with the countries which at the time, were behind the "Iron Curtain", and inside of Russia itself.
A man who has been involved in espionage work rarely forgets his training, tricks of the trade, knowledge, or contacts. Even if you walk away from it, and try to forget it, some aspect of it will always come back to haunt you.
Post 1965, Martin had a very special mission, which he admitted to. To investigate trends in the church, from all angles. To dig, get facts, interview those close to the action. To find out the whys and wherefores of the current state of the church, and its most probable future trends.
He had access to Bishops, Cardinals, Curial departments, and could get an private audience with the Pope.....since his job was to report to the reigning pontiff.
So, that which he spoke of and worte of, is what he knew......or at least what he was in a postion to tell about what he knew.
"....any good popes". No, since Popes are mortal men, they - like us all, fall prey to sin nad to temptation. Even those Popes who have been named as saints......for all fall short of the glory of God, and sin.
So there were no good popes, as they were mortal men, and , like us are not inherently good. Just some who were more exemplerly in shouldering their cross and following their Master.
This passage is about calling good evil, sorry you see it differently. I did not deny that there is truth in the other explanation, merely that it was incomplete and seemed modernist. Your pointing out that St. Augustine believed that as well shows that the idea has been around since antiquity. I didn't point to tradition in this case but to Scripture.
Then it isn't a factor at all. Odd that a bishop would ask to be released from his vows, though. This is the type of thing that Martin foments: taking something of which there can be no proof and acting as though it were true.
So, that which he spoke of and worte of, is what he knew......or at least what he was in a postion to tell about what he knew.
Which I have no problem with. But in Decline and Fall of the Roman Church he consistently tells details that it is impossible to know. i.e. the particular tone of voice that a pope used or the meaning behind the look that a cardinal supposedly gave.-ridiculous.
"....any good popes". No, since Popes are mortal men, they - like us all, fall prey to sin nad to temptation. Even those Popes who have been named as saints......for all fall short of the glory of God, and sin.
Including Malachi Martin. My point is not that the pope merely fell short of the glory of God, but that Martin portrays practically every pope since the fourth century as debauched to the point of being Satanic. If this is an accurate history of the Catholic Church then it is a small wonder that protestants consider us the whore of Babylon.
Such errors are a consequence of opposing the Living Magisterium
Really? Maybe you need to tell the guys over at New Advent.
VIII. SINS AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST
The sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is mentioned in Matthew 12:22-32; Mark 3:22-30; Luke 12:10 (cf. 11:14-23); and Christ everywhere declares that it shall not be pardoned. In what does it consist? If we examine all the passages alluded to, there can be little doubt as to the reply. Let us take, for instance, the account given by St. Matthew which is more complete than that of the other Synoptics. There had been brought to Christ "one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb: and he healed him, so that he spoke and saw". While the crowd is wondering, and asking: "Is not this the Son of David?", the Pharisees, yielding to their wonted jealousy, and shutting their eyes to the light of evidence, say: "This man casteth not out devils but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils." Jesus then proves to them this absurdity, and, consequently, the malice of their explanation; He shows them that it is by "the Spirit of God" that He casts out devils, and then He concludes: "therefore I say to you: Ever sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not he forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."
So, to sin against the Holy Ghost is to confound Him with the spirit of evil, it is to deny, from pure malice, the Divine character of works manifestly Divine.
For a further exposition here's the link:
Yes, Brother Ignatius spreads calumny and detraction. He probably never knew the man, nor has read much of his stuff.
However, Fr. Fiore, a priest in good standing, who recently died as a member of the FSSP, was a good friend of Fr. Malachi Martin. He wrote a "corrected" obituary on his good friend for the anti-traditionalist Our Lady of the Visitor publications when they smeared Fr. Martin, much in the same vein as Brother Ignatius does.
He should be ashamed for his public detraction of Fr. Martin, God rest his soul.
The sin agains the Holy Spirit has many more angles than what you list here. TraditionalRC's explanation is just a orthodox and authoritative and likely as yours is.
Get off your high horse.
I ride a small horse (not to be confused with the biography of Billy Barty)
"This definition of the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit is a modern, rationalistic one. It may contain some truth, but scripturally, it was more like those who call evil good and good evil. Your modern day leftist pretty much fits this definition."
The highlighted words are yours and they are wrong.
What you posted was, of course, true (as what I posted was true also. I was just proving how far from tradition you were)and the blackened words are a short version of that longer truth.
In other words, you identified as modern and rationale the exegesis of St. Augustine - but, for a traditionalist, that is an everyday occurence and results from being cut off from the Living Magisterium and following one's own private judgement
* I was correcting the error made by the trad man. I proved his private judgement was wrong by citing St. Augustine.
So, if I am on a high horse, it must be the high horse of truth, huh? :)
"but, for a traditionalist, that is an everyday occurence and results from being cut off from the Living Magisterium and following one's own private judgement"
So you take one truth and then go off to accuse him of "private judgment." You also impinge a great number of traditionalist Catholics, and accuse us of being unfaithful, and call that an everyday occurrence.
Certainly, that is just as untrue in your own "private judgment" perhaps as the original post calling the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit a modern, rationalistic one. So now you are wrong in that you are judging the intentions of a whole group of Catholics. Are you trying to even the score?
Do you follow and obey the Living Magisterium?
"Do you follow and obey the Living Magisterium?"
Are you my local Ordinary, His Excellency Robert J. Baker, who has the canonical authority to request such information from me?
How about this one?
Do you follow and obey the Catholic Faith, in union with the living and eternal magisterium? Do you interpret Sacred Scripture in complete conformity with the Fathers of the Church? Do you reject Modernism? Do you reject the heresy of Americanism? Do you interpret Vatican II in light of Tradition?
LOL I follow the Living Magisterium and I have no hesitation in admitting it
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.