Posted on 11/29/2004 11:33:53 PM PST by Sean O L
Bravo, bornacatholic! Bravo!
Your posts exactly correspond with my memories as a former SSPXer of over 23 years duration!
I thank God for His Mercy in leading me (and many others) out of the schismatic cult known as the SSPX,
These scurrilous lies linking the SSPX priests with Nazism are false. These sources, which you do not cite, are making unsupportable claims and have never been corroborated. You quote a former so-called "confidante" of the Archbishop regarding a purported statement by him admitting that he would be like Luther if he ever consecrated bishops. How convenient. Of course this "confidante" goes nameless. Why not? Any hit will do, even if it's bogus.
Tell me, if you can, do you think the Holy See would have sought to negotiate with SSPX bishops to regularize the current situation if it believed the SSPX were the bunch of Nazi looney sympathizers here depicted? Would the SSPX have garnered such wide respect among the faithful if this were the case? Get it through your very thick skull: these are good and holy men, dedicated to the Catholic faith, who are continually slandered by people like you who bruit these lies about, over and over. These good priests are the very opposite of what you contend.
By the way, it is also false to say as you do that Lefebvre called the Pope an anti-Christ. He spoke of "anti-Christs" in the plural, referring to many modernist churchmen in very high places within the Vatican apparatus who made it their life ambition to destroy Catholic Tradition. In this judgment he was absolutely correct. So also was he correct to speak of the warnings of both Pius IX and Pius X that modernism was waiting for a chance to pounce--and that we were now living with the devastation of that movement within the Church ever since the close of Vatican II.
That John Paul is a pope who is widely celebrated does not make him immune from sin or error. Your claim seems to be that because he is the pontiff and Lefebvre is not, he is right and the Archbishop necessarily wrong. But the Pope is as liable as you or I for injustice and abuse of power and errors in judgment--unless he is speaking ex cathedra--and the fact that he holds the highest office in the Church and can do or say whatever he wants, does not make him right. It only means he has the ultimate clout LEGALLY, nothing more--certainly not morally. And he should be resisted when he is wrong and leads the Church astray--as he has been doing throughout his pontificate.
I know it is hard for those like yourself who admire him greatly to do so, but try looking at the evidence dispassionately and then try to explain away the enormous damage inflicted by his appointments to high office of so many unworthy men, for instance, or by his reckless pan-religious ecumenism that gave such scandal, or by his refusal to reform what is systemically corrupt within his Church or even to protect the dogmas of faith currently collapsing everywhere in the western world. Any way you hack it, the evidence of widespread ruin to the Catholic faith under his aegis should prove to you how right the Archbishop had been all along, that there was no springtime resulting from Vatican II, that the Church was in the deep throes of crisis as he said, and that despite papal claims to the contrary, the course the Pontiff was following was harmful to the Church and had already led to the ruin of many souls.
Or as one great Doctor of the Church stated it, "Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who aggresses the body, it is also licit to resist one who aggresses the souls or who disturbs civil order, or, above all, one who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and preventing his will from being executed. It is not licit, however, to judge, punish, or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." (St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, doctor of the Church; De Romano Pontifice, 2,29)
What another arrogant statement from you to take it upon yourself to judge who is outside the Church.
Bornacatholic, SOL,marshmallow:
For your edification:
You say, "No! Once again YOU have it wrong! There were a number of seminarians at Econe, including Daniel Dolan, who then had sedevacantist orientations. Nonetheless, Lefebvre (who vacillated between a sort of 'respect' for Rome and on other occasions of calling the Pope and the curia guilty of heriesies and of being antiChrist) nevertheless, ordained those seminarians who were 'fiddling' with sedevacantist opinions. AFTER their postings to the USA and after a period of time (when Lefebvre felt like cuddling up to the one he described as 'antichrist') THEN he expelled the 9 in the USA. Your 'facts' are 'fiction'."
I say it is you who espouse the real fiction. Show where Archbishop Lefebvre had ever called the pope an antiChrist. You cannot do so! He spoke of ANTICHRISTS in the plural--obviously referring to those revolutionists in the Holy See who sought to dismantle Catholic tradition. Look up the quotation. When you do so, you will see that you have taken it out of context, that he used the conditional mode when he spoke of the Pope and insisted he was not yet ready to say the Pope was a heretic, though he was highly suspicious of a pope who prayed with witchdoctors and voodoo priests and placed the Church on a par with idolators, something no pope had ever done before in all of Church history. He angrily declared this suspicion--and why not? But the real FACT is that despite this he never did ascribe to sedevacantism and warned all seminarians against this temptation to ascribe to it, insisting that all members of the SSPX pray daily for the Pope and remain loyal, and even expelling those priests from his Society who avowed the chair of Peter was vacant.
What you call his "cuddling up" to the Pope, moreover, was simply his respect for the papacy itself. He never reversed his opinions, he merely worded them more softly at times in an effort to reach a rapprochement. He deeply revered the papal office, as any traditionalist Catholic would--and leaned over backwards to try to understand where the postconciliar popes were coming from--even when they put on shows like Assisi that came perilously close to heresy, and even when they instituted policies that had a clearly disastrous affect on hundreds of millions of Catholics around the world. It was why he signed the Protocol Agreement--trusting in the papacy, even when nothing the Pope actually did gave him any indication he should do so. It was only at the last minute that he realized it was impossible to trust Rome--and so he reneged. I give him a pass for this absolutely. Why? Because a pope has all the power of the Church at his disposal--even if he's wrong and even when his pontificate is a disaster. It is not easy to deal with popes, let alone one as stubborn and inflexible as JPII.
Most of these citations of yours are of popes who would have sided with Archbishop Lefebvre, not with JPII, in the present impasse. And Trent would readily and unequivocally have condemned the Novus Ordo.
Here's my own favorite quote: "If any pope teaches what is contrary to Church doctrine, do not follow him." --Pius IX
Oh, I see. A former SSPX-er. Were you dismissed for some reason? This would explain your animus.
This is a word taken from the lexicon of fundamentalist protestants.
When you read statements like this:
Convoking Vatican II was a personal decision of John XXIII. He may have thought God was telling him to call it, but who knows? He has no special charism that guarantees he would recognize such a decision as coming from the Holy Ghost with theological certitude.
Ask yourself one question; "could a protestant happily sign off on this statement?". If the answer is "yes", then pause for a moment and think.
How does Marra know what special charisms John XXIII had? Perhaps Marra himself has a special charism that enables him to judge the Pope's charisms.
Furthermore, Marra likes to make statements such as: "And we Catholics are never obliged to believe that a given command, or given decision of anyone, including the Pope, is necessarily that of the Holy Ghost."
OK. Key word; "necessarily". There is a big difference between this, however, and saying that a given command or decision is definitely not that of the Holy Ghost, which is what Marra wants to say and what in fact is said all day, every day, by those in the traditionalist movement.
The idea that "only when the Church invokes its infallible authority are we compelled to pay attention, the rest of the time my opinion is as good as the Pope's" is a seriously flawed one and it opens the door to exactly the sort of contestation that surrounds the Pope's work and teaching today. This is protestantism disguised as the keeping of tradition.
Sorry, Dr. Marra. The Pope does have a special charism to guide the Barque of Peter, which you don't.
Who the dickens is William Marra anyway? Apart from a guy with an internet connection just like me?
Who the dickens is William Marra anyway?
First of all, Marra was not a traditionalist. Secondly, who are you to determine what somebody "wants to say". Are you omniscient?
"Dr. William A. Marra was born in Jersey City, New Jersey on February 20, 1928 of Italian immigrant parents. He grew up in Jersey City, but attended the Jesuit-run Regis High School in New York City. He went to college at the University of Detroit School of Engineering also run by the Jesuits. After college he attended graduate school at Fordham University. After his release from the military, in 1952, he began a teaching career at Fordham University that spanned nearly four decades. At Fordham he met the man he would later call the greatest influence on my life - Dietrich von Hildebrand."
"Prompted by concerns over the emerging practice of sex-education in both public and parochial schools, in 1968-69, he began a second career as a lecturer. He initially spoke to groups dedicated to fighting abuses in local schools. He also founded alternative private schools, the most notable being the Holy Innocents schools, a small chain of parent-managed primary schools. Dr. Marra served as vice-president of Catholics United for the Faith*. He founded the Roman Forum Lecture Series which often featured his friend von Hildebrand as its speaker. In addition, Dr. Marra often lectured on such varied topics as evolution, liturgy, philosophy, and seminary education."
"In later years Dr. Marra expanded his lectures to include various topics related to the condition of the Catholic Church with a special emphasis on home schooling and parental rights. He authored and co-authored numerous articles, as well as published a work in philosophy, Happiness and Christian Hope."
"Dr. Marra appeared on Mother Angelica's EWTN Network, and spoke to numerous groups of religious and clergy, including Mother Angelica's own order. He was returning from a series of seminars given in Alabama when he became ill and died from a stroke on December 12, 1998."
*From C.U.F.F.'s mission statement:
Catholics United for the Faith is an international lay apostolate founded in 1968 by H. Lyman Stebbins to support, defend, and advance the efforts of the Teaching Church in accord with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.
No. I chose the wrong words. "What Marra is implying" would probably have been a better turn of phrase. I stand by my point, however. He does the same thing elsewhere in his essay when he says:
But who said that the decision to call the council was protected by the Holy Ghost?
A straw man. Nobody says "the decision was protected by the Holy Ghost". Because there is no cast iron guarantee of this, however, are we therefore to necessarily assume the opposite, i.e. that it was not the work of the Holy Ghost?
That is often the leap of logic which is taken by those who have a problem with the council.
Marra's essay could be summed up in one sentence "the pope can be wrong and has been in the past."
True enough but so what? This gives rise to a more pertinent question, however, which Marra flirts with but shys away from: "Why does that necessarily mean that he is wrong now and just as importantly, who decides if he is?"
Traditionalist or no traditionalist, one fact remains.
If the Pope's teachings and decisions are subject to Marra's (or anyone else's) second guessing, simply because there is no invocation of infallible authority, then Marra is the Pope.
It's as simple as that.
Hi All,
I've been reading for some time and at the urging of a friend find myself needing to throw in some comments.
On the comment:"If the Pope's teachings and decisions are subject to Marra's (or anyone else's) second guessing, simply because there is no invocation of infallible authority, then Marra is the Pope. It's as simple as that."
A person can only infer from a statement like this, that you subscribe to a doctrine of irresistibility to the Pope?
If not, was St. Paul second guessing St. Peter as recorded in Galatians? There is no material difference on the part of St Peter's behavior and St. Paul's rebuke regarding the events at Assisi except for the fact that St. Peter was known to have exhibited humility in accepting Paul's rebuke. Also St. Peter's behavior was on a far smaller scale than JPII's.
If JPII has not been upright in the faith taking the example of Assisi I and II, then, the fault lies with him and not the archbishop. The archbishop was then forced to take steps that St.Paul was not required to but speculatively might have done to maintain the purity of the transmission of the faith.
If one studies the case of the archbishop as well, you will realize that JPII never actually directly ordered the archbishop not to consecrate bishops. He cajoled, appealed and pleaded but never actually commanded.
The names of episcopal candidates are submitted to Rome, and Rome approves them. That's how it's been done for a hundred years, in most every diocese and country of the world.
The fact that JPII never approved a single one of these men indicates that ordaining them was, at the very least, illicit.
Lefebvre knew he was jumping off a cliff with these ordinations.
Multiple lists were sent to Rome and they were all constantly rejected. LeFebvre knew at the end that Rome would never approve of a strong traditional priest. That's how LeFebvre knew they were simply waiting for him to die. Since there is no doctrine of irresistibility in regards the Pontiff and it is obvious he was not upright in the Faith just as Peter was. LeFebvre was fully in line with tradition for his resistance.
Lefebvre knew he was jumping off a cliff with these ordinations.
What LeFebvre knew and is now painfully obvious to the whole world is that JPII and the rest of his curia had long ago gone over the cliff as far as being upright in the faith is concerned. God will not be mocked with Canon Laws being abused against LeFebvre.
That's a new one. "Irresistibility." You traddies make up terminology as you go, inventing a new concept yet again to explain your schism from the Pope.
Lefebvre was hell-bent to keep his little movement going. He would defy the Pope, regardless.
Welcome to the witches brew that is the FR religion forum. You traddies are like termites, coming out of the woodwork. Did Vennari send you over here?
There is an issue of scale and proportion here. What is being alleged in the modern era is that pope after pope after pope (John XXIII, Paul VI, JPI, JPII) has been in error and if I correctly understand some contributors to this forum, they have been in error in almost every area of their ministry. They are not being accused of doing something wrong. They are being accused of doing everything wrong.
That is unique, I believe. What is being alleged is not mistakes in specific issues but a wholesale hijacking of the Church by successive popes such that it has gone in completely the wrong direction.
To buy into this theory one must go a whole lot further than simply accept the idea that he is not irresistible. One must subscribe to the idea of a complete papal dereliction of duty over decades by different popes.
This is not the same thing as Paul's rebuke of Peter.
...inventing a new concept.
No. Describing a reality. Do you believe the Pope is irresistable? Yes or No? If yes, Why?
yet again to explain your schism from the Pope.
No. It doesn't explain a schism that never happened. That is irrelevant anyway as to whether or not the Pope is irresistible or not. The term "irresistibility" describes the errors of those who believe the Pope is irresistible. This is of course un-Catholic.
Lefebvre was hell-bent to keep his little movement going. He would defy the Pope, regardless.
As long as the Pope acts like Peter at Antioch and worse, he is fully justified in passing on the faith undiluted with the errors of JPII.
Welcome to the witches brew that is the FR religion forum.
Thank you.
You traddies are like termites, coming out of the woodwork. Did Vennari send you over here?
Very charitable of you. But I'm used to over-emotionalism from Neo-Catholics. As Gerry Matatics told me, "as long as you don't crumble when someone calls you names, you can keep speaking the truth." No. Mr. Vennari didn't send me over. Patrick Madrid basically did. You can thank him. After I mopped up the floor with him and the others who took shots at "traddies" and when he was backed into a corner and made to look foolish by his positions, (Basically, I just asked him how many people he actually interviewed who currently attend Masses by the SSPX, and how many times and chapels he'd actually visited ) he did the only thing left to him and deleted all of the posts and deleted my registration. I'm currently disembowling his latest screed. "More Catholic Than the Pope" in fulfillment of a promise I made to him. My red pen is running out of ink, it is so full of errors.
Uh-huh. Sure. Any fool can come on a website and say anything.
I've read Patrick's book, and it's quite good, though I wish he had spread his focus to the independents and sedevacantists.
He makes his points well, however. And, his bona fides are well-established.
I'll believe you backed him into a corner when hell freezes over.
Until then, have fun with your "irresistibilities". No doubt you'll be writing a book for The Remnant, Traditio, or any of a number of sectarian sites, trashing Madrid a-la Woods and Ferrara.
Does Gerry Matatics applaud your following a dead archbishop? I doubt it, since Matatics is thoroughly Catholic, and will not renounce John Paul II.
for tomorrow
Is this era free from that possibility for some reason?
However it needs to be said that these occasions have been infrequent- I believe that is correct- and the person doing the rebuking has been someone formed in outstanding holiness through great suffering.
I'm not so sure of that as a rule, St. Paul was a murderer and persecutor of Christians, St. Augustine lead a life of sin and debauchery, Moses was a murderer, Samson was a killer and vain and arrogant. Formation had little to do with their ability to fight for God.
Furthermore, they were rebuked over specific issues.
LeFebvre and the SSPX have constantly pointed to the specific doctrinal areas that they have issues with. Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, the implementation of the Council and the refusal to define the documents of the Council in accord with tradition. The principles for which they stand are quite public and can be found on their many official websites.
There is an issue of scale and proportion here. What is being alleged in the modern era is that pope after pope after pope (John XXIII, Paul VI, JPI, JPII) has been in error and if I correctly understand some contributors to this forum, they have been in error in almost every area of their ministry.
For the sake of argument, where is this an impossibility in Catholic doctrine?
They are not being accused of doing something wrong. They are being accused of doing everything wrong.
Not speaking for others, I will only say, that the self-contradictory content of the statements of post-conciliar Popes (including John XXIII though along with JPI, the least contradictory due to their deaths ) Paul VI contradicts JPII on the Rosary. (Paul put the kibbosh on adding mysteries to the Rosary and thought all additions should be new devotions separate from the Rosary) JPII contradicts himself on Communion in the Hand, Altar girls etc. One minute it's forbidden another it's an "enrichment." The worst is his view of the papacy itself as demonstrated in "Ut Unum Sint" where he is "open to a new situation" regarding the exercise of papal primacy and never defines what it is. He alludes to a heretical position that is outright condemned by Vatican I as a common consent to allow the papacy to moderate disputes.
That is unique, I believe. What is being alleged is not mistakes in specific issues but a wholesale hijacking of the Church by successive popes such that it has gone in completely the wrong direction.
That it has gone in any direction is the crux of the argument. The Catholic Church is not "progressive or conservative" As St. Pius X indicated there is a tension between progressive and conservative forces which work seemingly at odds but actually work together to undermine the Church. Truth is truth, it doesn't move. Ecumenism is a movement, not a truth. Ecumenism (false ecumenism) has been the main focus of all the post conciliar pontiffs. To resist these "movements" in the Church is not heresy but rather a strong defense of the unchanging and immutable truths of the Church.
To buy into this theory one must go a whole lot further than simply accept the idea that he is not irresistible. One must subscribe to the idea of a complete papal dereliction of duty over decades by different popes.
We would look today on a papal sex scandal as an impossibility but the Church has many examples in history. We are only talking about 40 years thus far. Democrats held the U.S. House for more than that with an ideological influence on the country. The Soviets were in power for 70 years. It is far easier for a modernistic Pope to place similarly thinking prelates all over the Church in a few years and undermine it terribly.
This is not the same thing as Paul's rebuke of Peter.
How so? I see JPII's actions with regards ecumenism as the exact same thing but on a grand scale as far as the immediate influence he has and the damage done to Catholics regarding Indifferentism. They are both the single actions of a single Pope. The difference is the speed in which the information travels and the level of politicking it takes for a bishop to set the Pope straight on these issues. JPII and Paul VI both had and have layers of ministries blocking a brother bishop from keeping the big cheese in line. St. Augustine would never be tolerated in today's Church with his constant meddling in other bishop's territories and his lack of tolerance with their errors.
Uh-huh. Sure. Any fool can come on a website and say anything.
True, but irrelevant.
I've read Patrick's book, and it's quite good, though I wish he had spread his focus to the independents and sedevacantists.
Pick a section and we'll go through it together. Line by line. The book is unfocused and makes more logical fallacies than I'd previously thought possible. It is hardly "Inside" and he defines "Extreme" as anyone who criticizes the Pope.(page 12 paragraph 2) His "background" is completely one-sided, sloppy and lacking in important details regarding the back and forth between LeFebvre and the Vatican. The Vatican actions are not even mentioned, just LeFebvre's reactions. The heart of the story is not schism as he states in the opening paragraphs, it is doctrine.
He makes his points well, however. And, his bona fides are well-established.
In Pope Fiction, Yes. In this book, no. He establishes false premises and relies on loaded language to "poison the well" his logic is found wanting when it comes to debating traditionalists. Here's a snippet pieced together from an exchange he and I had on Envoy Encore: http://www.envoymagazine.com/EnvoyEncore/ArchiveWeek.asp?WeekStart=7/25/2004#1962
Patty Bonds: "I just have to say that I'm puzzled when people read two hundred some comments, half of which are hostile, angry, chest beating accusations against the Pope, the Church and against Patrick and Pete and their book"
Gerard: I'm puzzled as to why you're puzzled that someone would rise to defend the Catholic Faith from cloudy-minded, modernist influenced extreme conciliarists when a book is promoted that on its face presents a biased view of the good people of the SSPX.
Patrick Madrid: "Extreme Conciliarist"? Now that's a fun new term! What exactly does it mean, Gerard? And would you apply the term "Extreme Conciliarist" to, say, St. Athanasius, for his stalwart and unswerving defense of the validity and teachings of teh First Council of Nicea against the errors of the Arians?
Gerard: It's like "extreme traditionalist" but with reference to reality. It's the stretching of logic, plain common sense, theology and the doctrines of infallibility and indefectibility to extremes. An overemotional attachment to the conciliar Church and a markedly knee-jerk negative reaction to common sense, particularly when one points out the absurd state of affairs in Christ's Church organization. The sensus catholicus is overshadowed by an emotional and intellectual imbalance. Pride is a major factor, covering up an insecurity that is the result of the loss of grace and consequent guilt by participating in the Conciliar destruction of the Church organization.
"And would you apply the term "Extreme Conciliarist" to, say, St. Athanasius, for his stalwart and unswerving defense of the validity and teachings of teh First Council of Nicea against the errors of the Arians?"
No. St. Athanasius didn't exaggerate the teachings of Nicea or extend the priveleges of the Church beyond all revelation. St. Athanasius by the way withdrew to hiding in a house in to order to avoid the traps set by his enemies. Much like archbishop LeFebvre not walking into the Lion's mouth. Though LeFebve cuts an even more heroic figure than even Athanasius. The crisis that LeFebvre faced and we face is even greater than the Arian Heresy and it encompasses the entire world. (none of this AmChurch nonsense)
I'll believe you backed him into a corner when hell freezes over.
eh. Learn the hard way then. I crossed swords with him on multiple occasions and he floundered each time. This is simply because I didn't challenge him when I knew he was right but only when he's wrong. He's just not willing to admit when he's in over his head. Pride is quite a stumbling block.
Until then, have fun with your "irresistibilities".
Not going to deal with it? That's okay. I see you were afraid to answer the simple question of whether the Pope is irresitible or not. It was a simple "yes" or "no" Remember, make your "yes" mean "yes" and your "no" mean "no".
No doubt you'll be writing a book for The Remnant, Traditio, or any of a number of sectarian sites, trashing Madrid a-la Woods and Ferrara.
Good idea! Thanks for that. But I'm not trashing Madrid. Just his error-filled ideas. He and the other neo-Catholics can't help but lash out since they have so much emotion invested in their errors. Actual Catholic teaching is painful to them, they can't admit that they were wrong, lead down a primrose path and that God is really calling them to defend the faith for real and not just placate lazy-minded baptized Catholics. I don't hate Madrid even though he boils over with anger when he tries to deal with me. I realize that it's just the conflict going on inside him.
Does Gerry Matatics applaud your following a dead archbishop?
Yes. Actually he does. He knows that Catholics have to go to lengths to get proper doctrine and valid sacraments. He goes where the Mass is. He's been to Mel Gibson's independent Church and had Mass with him and his congregation before speaking to them.
I doubt it, since Matatics is thoroughly Catholic, and will not renounce John Paul II.
I guess you haven't heard Matatics speak much about the problems of the current heirarchy. On one of his tape sets "Traditionalists answer their neo-Conservative Critics" he makes a joke about wanting to print up a bumper sticker that says, "Don't blame me, I voted for Cardinal Siri." Also, since your doubt made me think of it, I took Madrid to task on the Matatics vs. Keating brouhaha and left him stammering in fury (again)simply because he was caught contradicting himself and wouldn't 'fess up to 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.