Tilting at Liturgical Abuses

Seattle Catholic ^ | January 18, 2005 | Peter W. Miller

[sinkspur]

They sound made up, to me.

As it turns out, the Church has determined they very well may be made up.

[murphE]

Nobody declared Rahner a heretic, since he never wrote anything heretical.

That's not sound reasoning sinkspur, if Rahner was not formally declared a heretic that does not mean he was not a heretic or did not write anything heretical. People write heretical things all the time and are not formally declared heretics. Some of them have imprimaturs on their work, even though it is heretical, some people just post their heresy on forums.

[murphE]

the Church has determined

The Church? What you really mean is some churchmen don't you?

[sinkspur]

No. I mean "the Church." Her visions were not considered in her beatification, since they were transcribed by a third party, who likely embellished them.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Actually, no. The Church is not normally in the business of canonizing saints who make up visions, although, due to the defective form now used for canonization, all new process saints will need to be reviewed at some point in the future by a Magisterium which returns to traditional Catholic theology.

Emmerich's canonization was stalled for years not due to questionable prophecy, but rather as to what was added or altered by her secretary.

[sinkspur]

Emmerich's canonization was stalled for years not due to questionable prophecy, but rather as to what was added or altered by her secretary.

How can the "prophecy" not be questionable if it was added to, or altered?

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

No one knew if alterations were made. Apparently, they came to the conclusion they were not which is why the process was restarted.

The modernist problem is at least two apparitions of the Blessed Mother and countless other prophecies all corroborate Emmerich's visions. Emmerich isn't the problem. Widespread rejection of the Faith is.

[broadsword]

some people just post their heresy on forums.

AMEN to that, my friend.

Looks like business as usual around here. (yawn!) I'm going back to other parts to fight against Satan's scourge... his big one.

[thor76]

Unlike yourself - who spends 14 hours a day in here, I made dinner, and shoveled snow.

There is a brave big world outside........take a look!

[sinkspur]

I live in Texas, and my wife made chili.

I also preached at all six masses this weekend.

[sinkspur]

BTW, when was Karl Rahner formally declared a heretic?

[thor76]

You most certainly did not preach at six masses on Sunday. Anyone can look up when you have posted one here.

I would strongly doubt that your pastor - or any pastor - would allow a deacon to preach at all six parish masses. That would be highly irregular at best.

As a matter of fact, there have been weekends when you continually post of FR - all over the place. So you could not possibly be engaged in any meaningful parish work. Frankly, I would tend to doubt that you are gainfully employed, as you are always on here, virtually full time.

You would have to be either retired or disabled, in order to account for the time which you spend here. .

Unless, of course...........this is your job!

[thor76]

BTW - when are you going to respond to the challenge posed to you by several posters, to concretely, and in your own words, defend Vatican II, and the NO mass.........to show their positive effects or fruits.

You do not, becaue you cannot.

And Rahner is most certainly a heretic, along with Teihard deChardin, Hans Kung, Edward Scheelebeex, Richard Mc.Brien, Philip Sandstrom, and their ilk. Formal condemnation is not needed when such is quite painfully obvious.

[sinkspur]

You most certainly did not preach at six masses on Sunday. Anyone can look up when you have posted one here.

Go ahead. Look it up. Last night and this morning and this afternoon.

We take turns, preaching at all masses. I preach every fourth Sunday.

I sell software as a profession. Do very well at it.

I've learned to multi-thread, thor. Email me if you want to learn how.

[sinkspur]

Formal condemnation is not needed when such is quite painfully obvious.

As I suspected. You told a bald-faced lie.

[Grey Ghost II]

I preach every fourth Sunday.

Today would be the fifth Sunday.

[sinkspur]

Dim.

[murphE]

I found this on EWTN, thought y'all might find it interesting

False Reasoning
Question from Peter D Howard on 01-24-2002:

Dear Fr Echert

You have disposed of the false idea that appointment to the present Pontifical Biblical Commission gives unqualified approval to those so appointed regardless of errors promoted.

Also, isn't it a fact that not being censured by name from Rome for errors does not mean necessarily that the person has not spread errors? Several examples come to mind.

Rahner, with some others, concocted the notion of a "fundamental option" of a type which denied the doctrine on mortal sin taught by the Council of Trent ["An Introduction to Moral Theology", Wiiliam E May, p 154-155]. Jesuit Fr Karl Rahner, was one of the signatories of a document dissenting from "Humanae Vitae" actually circulated world-wide by its authors so as to get support for it. [Refer Christian Order, Aug-Sep 92, Jorge Molinero - Recent History of Theological Dissent (20 years of "Parallel Magisterium", p 432)]. No named censure from Rome, but we know that both errors have been censured by the Holy Father -- in "Veritatis Splendour" (# 65-70) and in "Evangelium Vitae", however.

Certain beliefs propagated by Origen were condemned centuries after he died by several Ecumenical Councils.

Fr Richard McBrien, SJ, has confused many and denigrated the Magisterium -- US Bishops have censured much contained in his most recent "Catholicism" as well as his earlier work, but nothing from Rome has publicly condemned him by name.

Thus, nothing is proved by fallaciously reasoning that because Raymond Brown has not been condemned by Rome to date, in condemning theories which he promoted, that Brown must be in very good standing. The false theories have been condemned by Rome, not only by his bishop who named him, and the reasoning is fallacious because it involves a non sequitur. When bishops govern and teach faithfully, Rome seldom needs to act directly by naming, but in the final analysis Rome chooses when to include names.

God bless

Peter

Answer by Fr. John Echert on 01-24-2002:

Thanks, Peter, for elaborating upon this important point with some examples. In fact, in recent decades Rome has been rather cautious and even slow to act against some dissident theologians and renegade bishops, for reasons known to Rome I imagine. As you note, a lack of condemnation or censure from the Vatican in the present times is not the equivalent of an endorsement. In fact, until the very end, Jesus Christ kept to himself the sinister character and corrupt behavior of Judas Iscariot rather than expose him to the other apostles, even as he stole from the purse of the poor and made plans to betray the Son of God into the hands of sinners.

Father Echert

---

Back to Question List

Back to Search Form

[Grey Ghost II]

Dim.

Ok, silly me. I figured this being the first month of the year, you would have preached last week. What Sundays does the pastor preach? What did you preach about this weekend? You seem to either be preaching or posting...when do you prepare your sermons? Do you preach from a book of canned sermons?

[sinkspur]

As you note, a lack of condemnation or censure from the Vatican in the present times is not the equivalent of an endorsement.

It's not a condemnation, either.

So, what is it?