No State of Emergency?

Christ or Chaos ^ | MARCH 6, 2005 | Thomas A. Droleskey

[Land of the Irish]

MARCH 6, 2005
No State of Emergency? by Thomas A. Droleskey There has been a great deal of "discussion" lately concerning whether a State of Emergency exists within the Church that justified the episcopal consecrations done by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988 and the existence of chapels administered by priests who have separated themselves from diocesan structures that are in the hands of unbelievers and apostates. Some very important points in defense of the State of Emergency can be found in Defending Catholic Tradition Without Fear of the Consequences, which was posted on this site on March 4, 2005. I stand by the points made by Fathers Zigrang, Smith, and Perez, thanking Our Lady for the manly courage in defense of the fullness of the Catholic Faith that they have exhibited in these truly unparalleled times. A few developments in the past record provide further evidence that the Church is indeed in a real state of emergency in her human elements. Consider the fact that Father Edward Schillebeeckx, a product of Dutch Modernism who was a peritus at the Second Vatican Council, declared that "God has no son," contending that Saint Joseph was the "natural father" of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This is abject heresy that consists in a denial of basic elements in of the Faith found in the Apostles' Creed and reaffirmed by various dogmatic councils throughout the Church's history. Has Schillebeeckx come to this "conclusion" in recent years? Or did he hold this heresy when he was serving as an "expert" adviser at the Second Vatican Council? Will he be denounced for this heresy by any bishop in the world? Will his books be banned from Catholic universities and colleges and seminaries and theological "update" programs for religious educators? Or will Father Schillebeeckx simply be allowed to die a Catholic priest in "good standing" after having spent his life's work trying to destroy belief in the truths contained in the Deposit of Faith? Among the doctrines denied by the statement that "God has no son" and that "Saint Joseph is the natural father" of Our Lord are the following: 1) The Blessed Trinity. 2) The Incarnation. 3) The perpetual virginity of Our Lady. Father Schillebeeckx, 85, has loads of disciples and advocates in Catholic universities and colleges and seminaries and chancery offices. How ironic it is that Father Schillebeeckx's work will be hailed when he dies by many of these disciples while the courage of Archbishop Lefebvre and the likes of the late Father Frederick Schell and Father Gommar DePauw and the priests who have left the Novus Ordo structure recently is held in contempt as exemplary of a "schismatic" mentality. Oh, no, there is no State of Emergency when a Vatican II "expert" can deny the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us, is there? Father Schillebeeckx is far from alone in the pantheon of Vatican II periti who had a Modernist agenda. The late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, who was a professor of Dogmatic Theology at Saint Bernard's Seminary in Rochester, New York, before teaching at The Catholic University of America, resigned from the faculty of Catholic University rather than teach the "gospel" of "religious freedom" that had been promoted by another Vatican II peritus, the late Father John Courtney Murray, whose behind-the-scenes machinations, especially with the American bishops, helped Dignitatis Humanae to approved by the fathers of the Council in 1965. The late Father Karl Rahner, whose theology on the Eucharist was so problematic that the late Father John A. Hardon, S.J., refused to endorse a book about Eucharistic adoration that relied heavily upon Rahner, had many disciples among the Vatican II periti. Rahner himself continues to exercise his Modernist influence upon Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (who has written that Vatican II was a counter-syllabus of errors). And while Father Hans Kung was removed from his Chair of Theology at Tubingen University in 1979 and declared no longer to be able to teach as a Catholic theologian at Catholic institutions, he was a Vatican II peritus who remains in good standing as a priest. The list can go on and on and on. The influence of those steeped in error and heresy continued after the Council concluded its work in 1965. Six liberal Protestants advised the Consilium that devised the synthetic concoction that is the Novus Ordo Missae. Defenders of the late Annibable Bugnini, the Secretary of the Consilium, assert that the Protestants could only "observe" the proceedings and not make any actual contributions as the Consilium did its official work. As Father Romano Tommassi has demonstrated in his groundbreaking research of the minutes of the Consilium and in the notes of the some of the Protestant "observers," the Protestants made their contributions during coffee breaks, observing as the very observations they made "unofficially" got themselves incorporated into the actual minutes of the proceedings by bishops all too willing to do their bidding. The devastation of the Catholic Faith that has resulted from the influence of "advisers" who subscribe to various tenets of Modernism is plain for all who have the grace to see it. Any number of solid, scholarly works (The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, Iota Unum, In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, The Great Facade, the late Michael Davies' pamphlet on Dignitatis Humanae, among many others) discusses the influence exercised by the leading Modernists of the mid-Twentieth Century on the Second Vatican and its aftermath. It should come as no surprise, therefore, when a Vatican II peritus can deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Lord and deny the perpetual virginity of His Most Blessed Mother that diocesan ordinaries can deny doctrines themselves and/or attempt to silence their priests from speaking out when innocent human beings are being threatened with an unjust and immoral execution by means of starvation and dehydration. As noted before, the situation we face in the Church today is simply without precedent. When has it ever been the case that a prominent theologian can deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and remain in good standing as a Catholic priest? When has it ever been the case that a the cardinal prefect of a curial congregation, in this case one-time Vatican II peritus Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (a disciple of Karl Rahner and Hans von Balthaszar, who believed in the heresy of universal salvation and the non-eternity of Hell, stating that Our Lord and Satan would be "reconciled" in the end), has consecrated a man, in this case Father Bruno Forte, to the episcopate after he had written that Our Lord's Resurrection was a myth? (See the most recent issue of The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture and an article in the February 15 issue The Remnant written by Christopher A. Ferrara.) These things are without precedent, and they lead directly to the appointment of men as diocesan ordinaries who are Modernists and thus enemies of the Faith (see Enemies of Christ in Shepherds' Clothing). To wit, Bishop Robert N. Lynch, who has been the subject of numerous commentaries on this site in the past two weeks ( see particularly Defiantly Unrepentant), has issued an edict forbidding any of his diocesan priests from participating in a Rally and Prayer Vigil that will be held on Saturday, March 12, 2005, in front of the Woodspice Hospice in Pinellas Park, Florida, where Terri Schindler-Schiavo is held hostage as she awaits the death sentence that hangs over her innocent head. One angry woman from Florida wrote that I had mischaracterized Bishop Lynch's position, that there are no contradictions between what he has said and what the Pope has stated in reiterating the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church that the provision of food and water is always considered to be ordinary, not extraordinary are, and cannot be withdrawn, noting that one can never take into consideration probabilities of recovery or financial and psychological factors to justify what is an act of "euthanasia by omission." The inability of this woman to see that Bishop Lynch is at odds with the patrimony of the Catholic Church is the exact product of the murkiness and ambiguity that are the trademarks of the ethos of conciliarism. Once again, here is what Bishop Robert N. Lynch wrote on August 12, 2003: Proper care of our lives requires that we seek necessary medical care from others but we are not required to use every possible remedy in every circumstance. We are obliged to preserve our own lives, and help others preserve theirs, by use of means that have a reasonable hope of sustaining life without imposing unreasonable burdens on those we seek to help, that is, on the patient and his or her family and community. In general, we are only required to use ordinary means that do not involve an excessive burden, for others or for our ourselves. What may be too difficult for some may not be for others. Our Catholic Church has traditionally viewed medical treatment as excessively burdensome if it is “too painful, too damaging to the patient's bodily self and functioning, too psychologically repugnant to the patient, too suppressive of the patient's mental life, or too expensive.” [cf. “Life, Death and Treatment of Dying Patients: Pastoral Statement of the Catholic Bishops of Florida, 1989] Bishop Lynch is plainly stating that the administration of food and water can be viewed as "medical care" that is beyond the ordinary and that psychological and financial factors may be taken into consideration when deciding whether to start or maintain such "medical" care. Here is what Pope John Paul II said on these points on March 20, 2004: The obligation to provide the "normal care due to the sick in such cases" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Iura et Bona, p. IV) includes, in fact, the use of nutrition and hydration (cf. Pontifical Council "Cor Unum", Dans le Cadre, 2, 4, 4; Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers, Charter of Health Care Workers, n. 120). The evaluation of probabilities, founded on waning hopes for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond a year, cannot ethically justify the cessation or interruption of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration. Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission. In this regard, I recall what I wrote in the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, making it clear that "by euthanasia in the true and proper sense must be understood an action or omission which by its very nature and intention brings about death, with the purpose of eliminating all pain"; such an act is always "a serious violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person" (n. 65). Besides, the moral principle is well known, according to which even the simple doubt of being in the presence of a living person already imposes the obligation of full respect and of abstaining from any act that aims at anticipating the person's death. Social pressures cannot prevail over general principles 5. Considerations about the "quality of life", often actually dictated by psychological, social and economic pressures, cannot take precedence over general principles. First of all, no evaluation of costs can outweigh the value of the fundamental good which we are trying to protect, that of human life. Moreover, to admit that decisions regarding man's life can be based on the external acknowledgment of its quality, is the same as acknowledging that increasing and decreasing levels of quality of life, and therefore of human dignity, can be attributed from an external perspective to any subject, thus introducing into social relations a discriminatory and eugenic principle. Bishop Lynch's August 12, 2003, statement is irreconcilable with Pope John Paul II's reiteration of fundamental Catholic moral principles on March 20, 2004. Bishop Lynch's statement of March 1, 2004, that Michael Schiavo alone will determine what happens to the wife to whom he has been wantonly and publicly unfaithful cannot be reconciled with the February 24, 2005, statement of Renato Cardinal Martino, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, that Mrs. Schiavo's feeding and hydration tubes must remain in place and that her death as a result of their unjust and immoral removal would be a step forward for legalized euthanasia in the United States of America. I would venture to guess that Father Edward Schillebeeckx would be more welcomed to speak in the Diocese of Saint Petersburg, Florida, than would Cardinal Martino. Indeed, as Bishop Robert N. Lynch has banned his own priests from even preaching about the subject of Terri Schindler-Schiavo it is more than likely that he would attempt to prevent Cardinal Martino from doing so if he had the opportunity to appeal for Mrs. Schiavo's life next Saturday in front of her hospice in Pinellas Park. The inability to see how Bishop Lynch's positions are incompatible and irreconcilable with the reiteration of Catholic teaching by the Holy Father and Cardinal Martino is really part and parcel of the triumph of the conciliarist ethos. Ambiguity and murkiness in doctrine produced muddle-headedness and emotionalism, making people prone to overlook the simple fact that two mutually contradictory statements cannot both be true simultaneously. The Novus Ordo Missae itself enshrines this ambiguity and murkiness, as I point out in G.I.R.M. Warfare. Many Catholics will fall victim to a steady dose of this, finding it difficulty to use the faculty of reason in a logical manner to come to the simple conclusion that there has been and continues to be a revolution going on against the perennial teachings of the Catholic Church for the past four and one-half decades. An inability to see the revolution that the devil has launched against the true so as to confuse the lion's share of Catholics and to try to dispirit those who understand the revolution for what it is spills over into the civil realm. If the plain contradictions between Bishop Robert N. Lynch's words and the consistent teachings of the Catholic Church that have been reiterated generally by Pope John Paul II and in a particular way with direct reference to the case of Mrs. Terri Schindler-Schiavo by Cardinal Manner cannot be seen by practicing, pious Catholics, then it is easy for these same people to overlook the contradictions in the words of those who they they are "pro-life" but who in fact support baby-killing in some instances and who fund the chemical murders of millions of babies here and around the world. A reader wrote to me yesterday, March 5, 2005, to ask for my "sources" for the information provided in A Matter of God's Sovereignty that the Bush administration funds the chemical abortions of millions of babies in this country and around the world. The reader was not taking issue with my contention, only noting that she had never seen this before. My initial reaction was one of exasperation as I, among others, have been pointing out these incontrovertible facts for a long, long time. However, the reader had a point. After all, why should people see through the wiles of career politicians when they accept quite blithely the contradictions that exist between the ethos of conciliarism and the authentic, immutable Tradition of the Catholic Church? Thus, I present a brief excerpt from a recent article of mine in The Remnant, which comes from a list of facts from the American Life League, posted at www.all.org on December 17, 2004 (facts that have been cited endlessly by yours truly and a few others but appear to make no impression on those who want to be in the political equivalent of the tooth fairy): BUSH'S PRO-LIFE RECORD: Some people argue that President George W. Bush is enthusiastically pro-life. President Bush's record speaks for itself: · Bush appointed an almost wholly pro-abortion cabinet. His "pro-life" cabinet members during his first term include former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson at HHS, who supports human embryo research, and Attorney General John Ashcroft. · Bush broke his campaign promise and authorized funding for human embryonic stem cell research. The supposedly "narrow" policy is managed by Thompson and has expanded, just as he supported it in Wisconsin. · Bush's appointed National Institute of Health director, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, is a pioneer in embryonic stem cell research. · As a consequence of Thompson's appointment, HHS has done nothing about the highly irregular approval of RU-486 during the Clinton administration. · President Bush appointed pro-aborts to his bioethics council, which produced a split opinion on human cloning stating the commission could not come to a consensus on the "moral status of the human embryo." His handpicked bioethicists confirmed the ludicrous claim of Roe v. Wade that scientific and ethical experts cannot come to consensus on when life begins. Though this is absurd in any authentic representation of science or ethics, it has allowed the administration political cover behind their so-called "experts." · Despite his well-publicized statement that he was completely opposed to all human cloning, Bush blocked a vote on the Brownback/Landreiu amendment in the Senate to ban the patenting of human embryos. · The Bush administration's attorney was on the wrong side of the NOW v. Scheidler case, intervening on behalf of the plaintiffs in the racketeering suit against Joseph Scheidler and other pro-life activists. The U.S. Solicitor General agreed that there were grounds for considering clinic blockades a form of extortion. · Despite his statements regarding the sanctity of human life, Bush positively requires a legal freedom of killing preborns when the children are conceived in rape, incest, or when their mothers' lives are allegedly in danger due to their pregnancy (which is medically never the case). · On the subject of contraceptives and abortifacients, Bush has maintained millions in funding for Planned Parenthood, and has signed hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for abortifacient chemicals worldwide. His Mexico City policy permits such funding to go to government family planning programs that promote abortion as long as they "segregate" the funds. In both 2002 and 2003, the Bush administration approved USAID population control funding of $446.5 million, higher than the $425.0 million Clinton approved for 2001. · Bush approved an expanded Medicaid coverage of abortifacients in New York. · His AIDS package provides $15 billion for potential payments to overseas organizations that promote abortion including the International Planned Parenthood Federation. · Bush's White House counsel (and attorney general nominee), Alberto Gonzales, is being whispered to be "on the short list" as a possible nominee for the Supreme Court should there be a vacancy. As a Texas Supreme Court justice, Gonzales voted to authorize abortion for teenagers without parental involvement, and other rulings during his tenure on the court raise doubts about how he would rule on life-related matters if he were confirmed as a U.S. Supreme Court justice. · Bush's 2004 budget request for Title X of the Public Health Service Act, is $264 million, or $11 million more than the program was appropriated during Bill Clinton's last year in office. Planned Parenthood alone expended nearly $59 million from this program in fiscal year 2001. · Bush's 2004 budget request for international population control programs/USAID is $425 million, plus an additional $25 million set aside for the U.N. Population Fund if it becomes eligible for U.S. funding. During the last year Clinton was in office, USAID population control programs were appropriated $425 million. (Source: American Life League Communique, December 17, 2004.) I have written numerous commentaries on some of these matters. Two of them, "Of Slaves and Babies" and "True Justice for a Pro-Life Hero," appeared on the Seattle Catholic website in December of 2002 and February of 2003, respectively. Facts are facts. Others gather facts and report them. I try to disseminate them and to help readers understand them clearly from the perspective of the Catholic Faith, which is the point of our forthcoming book, "Restoring Christ as the King of All Nations," which is now in the editing process. It has been the lack of a clear witness to the Catholic Faith as a result of the ambiguities and novelties of the conciliarist ethos from popes on down to parish priests that has confused the faithful so much that they seek refuge in the delusion that career politicians are our friends when this is not the case at all. Indeed, all of the fuss made this past week about the efforts of United States Ambassador to the United Nations Ellen Sauerbrey to reaffirm that the 1995 Beijing Conference on Women did not create an "international right" to abortion borders on the absolute absurd when you consider the fact that the government of the United States, starting with the administration of President Richard M. Nixon in 1970, has funded chemical abortions all around the world. Anyone who believes that the government of the United States is squarely on the side of stopping abortion is not familiar with the facts. In the midst of all of this confusion and disarray, both ecclesiastically and civilly, we never grow discouraged. The Catholic Church is the true Church founded by the God-Man upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. The jaws of Hell will never prevail against her. She will last until the end of time. True, the devil is having a field day right now with the Church in her human elements. The final victory, though, belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary once Russia is consecrated by some pope with all of the world's bishops. The Social Reign of Christ the King will be ushered in anew. The errors of Russia, which are the errors of Modernity (starting with the Protestant Revolt) in the world and Modernism in the Church, will cease. There will be an period of peace. Steadfast in the faith, ever desirous to make reparation for our own many sins, especially in this season of Lent, by offering all of our sacrifices and prayers and sufferings as the consecrated slaves of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, we keep Our Lord company in His Real Presence as we walk the Via Dolorosa that the Church in her human elements is journeying on at present. We seek out the sure refuge of Tradition and we continue to maintain the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity in all of our efforts to plant a few seeds here and there for the restoration of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition as normative in the life of the Church and for the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen in the world. Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for us. Saints Pereptua and Felitas, pray for us. Blessed Laetere Sunday to you all. P.S. In your charity, I would ask you to pray for the repose of the soul of my late mother, Norma Florence Red Fox Droleskey, who would have turned eighty-four today had she not died on March 18, 1982, twelve days after her sixty-first birthday. My mother was born out of wedlock to a woman who put her up for adoption. Her chances of making it out of the womb today would have been pretty negligible. A whole host of social workers would have tried to convince my grandmother, Ruth Coomer, whom my mother never met in this mortal life, to kill her twins. (My mother's twin brother died in infancy after they had been adopted in Kansas City, Missouri, by the vaudevillian performer, Chief William Red Fox and his wife.) We gave our own daughter a third name, Norma, after honoring Saint Lucy and Our Lady in order to remember all children who are at risk in what should be the safest place on earth: their mothers' wombs. Thank you for your prayers for my mother's soul. Please pray also for her mother, Ruth Coomer, with whom I hope and pray daily that she has had a happy reunion in eternity.

---

© Copyright 2004, Christ or Chaos, Inc. All rights reserved.

[murphE]

Could you please cite

1) Where Mr. Droleskey denies the primacy of the papacy

2) Where he rejects the teaching authority of the Church

and how is lauding a priest a "denial of dogma"?

[Gerard.P]

No Chuck,

You're confusing Droleskey with JPII.

He denies papal primacy (see Ut Unum Sint, he is open to others deciding what the exercise of papal primacy is to be. He leaves the question open ended. Therefore attempting to undo the dogma proclaimed infallibly at Vatican I)

His constant rejections of the teaching authority of the Church in his "reflections" which he safely tightrope walks on the abyss of outright heresy (see Crossing the Threshold where he says people are saved IN the Church and other BY the Church, another open ended attack on the dogma of EENS)

And who could laud a disobedient priest more than JPII? He elevates them to bishops and gives the worst of them the red hat. He wants them to be Pope. Why else would he laud Walter Kaspar and Roger Mahoney? They all would've had to take the anti-modernist oath. Along with JPII, they have all broken their vows.

[donbosco74]

Please see my reply to #80. In my vagueness I did not intend to say Thomas Droleskey denies any dogmas.

[murphE]

Oh, I know you didn't. St Chuck did in his post to you, so my question was addressed to him, but I was including you in the discussion. :-)

[donbosco74]

Answer: murphE in post #81 and Gerard.P in post #82 have done a pretty good job of answering for me. At this time I would only add that for you to be taking this position requires you to have ignored history and the plain facts that describe what has been going on, especially since that year Our Lady said "it would become clearer," 1960. She also said that if the Pope and bishops do not obey the command of heaven (not exactly her words) that the entire world, but especially the heirarchy of the Church (and therefore those who fall in line behind their disorientation) would suffer a "diabolical disorientation" which would lead to much confusion and discord.

What we are experiencing now is the fruit of that D2, diabolical disorientation. Why can't a faithful Catholic find a traditional Mass in his neighborhood anymore unless he run the gaunltlet of ridicule by other Catholics who think the Mass is "schismatic?" -- D2.

Why do the respectful appeals by a faithful Catholic to the Pope, the cardinals, his local bishop, because he has found himself persecuted for doing nothing other than what all the saints of history have done, fall on deaf ears; or worse, why does his complaint become published or returned to the local level exposing his identity and breaking his trust, and he then becomes chastised locally all the more for having tried to appeal to legitimate authority? -- D2.

Why are good and loyal priests who take a just stand against the international network of homosexual priests, or the lavender mafia, slapped with penalties by their bishop as if THEY are the one in the wrong? -- D2.

Why is a well meaning and traditional Catholic like Thomas Droleskey vilified by those who would be Catholic, merely because he dares to annunciate the current crisis and show them who would be Catholic where they are drifting away: is it because he is capable of expressing himself and they can't stand the threat of clarity? The popes and bishops used to be clear in what they said, but no more! -- D2.

Why do otherwise intelligent people persist in mispelling his name ("Drolesky," "Drochesky")? -- D2.

Why is it when you go to the local parish for confession and ask the priest, under the seal of confession, anything regarding these issues (except perhaps the mispelling issue), you consistently get nothing that makes any sense, as if the diabolical spirit of disorientation reaches even into the sacred space of the Sacrament that would be "Penance?" (They changed it to "Reconciliation.") -- D2.

When one pope of long ago (I can look up his name if anyone wants to know) was wont to dictate his writing of books to a scribe who sat on the other side of a curtain, one day the scribe pulled the curtain aside, the legend goes, and he saw the Holy Spirit as a white dove speaking into the ear of the pope the words that the pope would make part of his new book. I have to wonder what the legend would be today; or, more precisely, if there are new legends, how many are buried deep in the silence of the better judgment of those who would never repeat them?

Once you see the connections, once you connect the dots, once you know where you've been and can see where you would be going if you continue, once it becomes clear to you the inexorable advance of the auto-demolition of the Faith toward the prophesy of Jesus, "When I return, shall I find, think ye, faith on earth?" Once you can look upon the historical record with vision clear, things will never be the same for you. Until that time, you will continue to defend the indefensible. You will continue to be under the D2 curse. You will remaind D2'd.

[St.Chuck]

You're confusing Droleskey with JPII.

Am not.

He denies papal primacy (see Ut Unum Sint, he is open to others deciding what the exercise of papal primacy is to be.Therefore attempting to undo the dogma proclaimed infallibly at Vatican I)

I don't think so. JPII has wielded his authority to the dismay of a lot of factions. I don't recall a synod being called to discuss the excommunication of Lefebvre. On the contrary, he uses his authority as expressed in the Vatican II document, Decree on the Bishops' Pastoral Office of the Church.

"Hence by divine institution he enjoys (odd choice of word for such an awesome responsibility IMHO) supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority over the care of souls."

The footnotes are more detailed: "supreme -over all the churches; full - over everything pertaining to them; immediate - over all members, including bishops, without intermediary; and ordinary- by the very reason of his office (not delegated)"

I don't see how one could think the V2 pope, John Paul II, would not understand, nor not be able to observe, during his 27 year pontificate, how the pope would deny this dogma. He has used his authority unilaterally, personally, and suddenly throughout his pontificate.

On the other hand, Mr. Droleskey, by embracing the schism, apparently has denied this dogma.

His constant rejections of the teaching authority of the Church in his "reflections" which he safely tightrope walks on the abyss of outright heresy (see Crossing the Threshold where he says people are saved IN the Church and other BY the Church, another open ended attack on the dogma of EENS)

I like your defense. "He safely tightropes." Nothing more need be said.

And who could laud a disobedient priest more than JPII? He elevates them to bishops and gives the worst of them the red hat. He wants them to be Pope. Why else would he laud Walter Kaspar and Roger Mahoney? They all would've had to take the anti-modernist oath. Along with JPII, they have all broken their vows.

The assignment of a red hat has nothing whatsoever to do with his desire to see them as pope. I believe Mahoney was made archbishop of L.A. due to his vigorous appeal, as bishop of Stockton, for Catholics to have nothing to do with the nuclear arms proliferation then underway. The pope was impressed. Don't know why Kaspar was red hatted. Sometimes there are odd politics occurring that propels the advancement of clergy. Karol Wojtyla was appointed archbishop of Krakow by fluke too. The primate of Poland didn't want Wojtyla because he wasn't political enough. The communist minister of religious affairs wanted him because he didn't think Wojtyla was political either. So they both thought the same thing, yet wanted different things, and they were both wrong and it's a different world as a result.

Anyway, the pope can govern his church any which way he "enjoys". Mr. Droleskey, not being the pope, doesn't get to make similar judgements.

[St.Chuck]

At this time I would only add that for you to be taking this position requires you to have ignored history and the plain facts that describe what has been going on, especially since that year Our Lady said "it would become clearer," 1960.

I don't ignore history or plain facts. I trust that God is in charge. It is not His will for me to share in the contempt that so many have for his Bride, the Church, nor in the pastors that he has appointed to rule over it during my lifetime.(Not that I'm not tempted. :o))

I'm not familiar with your Lady quote, but I'm not into Marian Gnosticism either.

What we are experiencing now is the fruit of that D2, diabolical disorientation. Why can't a faithful Catholic find a traditional Mass in his neighborhood anymore unless he run the gaunltlet of ridicule by other Catholics who think the Mass is "schismatic?"

I don't think that "schismatic" and traditional are synonyms, but if you refer to a council of the Church as a "diabolical disorientation", then the term, "schismatic" certainly becomes applicable. You invite it. Here's something from the book,"Self-abandonment to Divine Providence"

"We have to arrive at the point where at which the whole created universe no longer exists for us, and God is everything. For that purpose it is necessary that God should oppose himself to all the particular affections of the soul, so that when it is led to some particlar form of prayer or idea of piety or method of devotion, when it proposes to attain perfection by such and such plans or ways or by the direction of such and such people, in fact, when it attaches itself to anything whatever, God upsets its ideas and permits that instead of what it thought it would do, it finds in it all nothing but confusion, trouble, emptiness, folly. No sooner has it said: that is my path, there is the person I ought to consult, that is how I should act, than God immediately says the contrary and withdraws his power from the means chosen by the soul. So, finding in everything only deception and nothingness, the soul is constrained to have recourse to God himself and be content with him.

Happy the soul that understands this loving severity of its God and corresponds to it faithfully!"

Why do the respectful appeals by a faithful Catholic to the Pope, the cardinals, his local bishop, because he has found himself persecuted for doing nothing other than what all the saints of history have done, fall on deaf ears; or worse, why does his complaint become published or returned to the local level exposing his identity and breaking his trust, and he then becomes chastised locally all the more for having tried to appeal to legitimate authority? -- D2.

I'm very sorry that you have endured some personal setbacks and humiliations as far as your desire for a traditional mass go, but I wouldn't equate the traditional mass with sainthood. Saints would be saints no matter what form the mass was in. Conforming to God's will, not just completing one's religious duties makes a saint.

Why are good and loyal priests who take a just stand against the international network of homosexual priests, or the lavender mafia, slapped with penalties by their bishop as if THEY are the one in the wrong? -- D2.

Maybe because they are just completely wrong about their allegations and come across as looney tunes.

Why is a well meaning and traditional Catholic like Thomas Droleskey vilified by those who would be Catholic, merely because he dares to annunciate the current crisis and show them who would be Catholic where they are drifting away: is it because he is capable of expressing himself and they can't stand the threat of clarity? The popes and bishops used to be clear in what they said, but no more! -- D2.

Mr. Droleskey has lost faith in the Church. For that fact no good Catholic should be attracted to his musings. He has drunk the Kool-aid and has devoted his life to exciting contempt for the Church. You are right about his ability to express himself. I used to enjoy his columns in the Wanderer but he no longer writes as a Catholic.

Why do otherwise intelligent people persist in mispelling his name ("Drolesky," "Drochesky")? -- D2.

It was purposeful since you pointed out a previous misspelling. BTW, Thanks for the compliment. I'm usually described as confused, dumb, modernist, uninformed (that's just in the last week, let alone the past four years, LOL) on this forum. You are kind.

"When I return, shall I find, think ye, faith on earth?"

I have no doubt. Jesus will find faith in his indefectable Bride, The Holy Roman Catholic Church.

[Gerard.P]

I don't think so. JPII has wielded his authority to the dismay of a lot of factions.

I do think so. And JPII has dismayed a lot more by his lack of weilding his authority. This isn't even debatable.

From Ut Unum Sint. "As Bishop of Rome I am fully aware, as I have reaffirmed in the present Encyclical Letter, that Christ ardently desires the full and visible communion of all those Communities in which, by virtue of God's faithfulness, his Spirit dwells. I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding THE REQUEST MADE OF ME TO FIND A WAY OF EXERCISING THE PRIMACY WHICH, WHILE IN NO WAY RENOUNCING WHAT IS ESSENTIAL TO ITS MISSION, IS NONETHELESS OPEN TO A NEW SITUATION.

I don't recall a synod being called to discuss the excommunication of Lefebvre. On the contrary, he uses his authority as expressed in the Vatican II document, Decree on the Bishops' Pastoral Office of the Church. "Hence by divine institution he enjoys (odd choice of word for such an awesome responsibility IMHO) supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority over the care of souls." The footnotes are more detailed: "supreme -over all the churches; full - over everything pertaining to them; immediate - over all members, including bishops, without intermediary; and ordinary- by the very reason of his office (not delegated)"

......IS NONETHELESS OPEN TO A NEW SITUATION.

On the other hand, Mr. Droleskey, by embracing the schism, apparently has denied this dogma.

Which definition of schism are you using the pre-Vatican II or the post-Vatican II or the special definition that was just for Archbishop Lefebvre?

His constant rejections of the teaching authority of the Church in his "reflections" which he safely tightrope walks on the abyss of outright heresy (see Crossing the Threshold where he says people are saved IN the Church and other BY the Church, another open ended attack on the dogma of EENS)

I like your defense. "He safely tightropes." Nothing more need be said.

Plenty can be said on that. It's the same model of speech that Bill Clinton was so good at. He "undefines things" and while never actually stepping into manifest heresy, he leads others right into it. I realize you might not want to say anything more because it would burst the bubble.

And who could laud a disobedient priest more than JPII? He elevates them to bishops and gives the worst of them the red hat. He wants them to be Pope. Why else would he laud Walter Kaspar and Roger Mahoney? They all would've had to take the anti-modernist oath. Along with JPII, they have all broken their vows.

The assignment of a red hat has nothing whatsoever to do with his desire to see them as pope.

Really? That's a stretch. At the very least he thinks they are excellent candidates to vote for Pope and what are the odds that a Cardinal becomes Pope opposed to a monk? Mahoney and Law and Kaspar obviously have the best methods and designs for the Church. I'm sure they would have all voted for a nice conservative Pope.

I believe Mahoney was made archbishop of L.A. due to his vigorous appeal, as bishop of Stockton, for Catholics to have nothing to do with the nuclear arms proliferation then underway. The pope was impressed.

You believe. You mean JPII wasn't clear as a bell on this? Mahoney's politics are obviously more important than souls. Good.

Don't know why Kaspar was red hatted.

Oh come on. You were doing so well. He was obviously given the red hat for being what he is. A theologian in the mold of JPII. What did he objectively do? He rewarded a scandalous "theologian" with the highest honor he could.

Sometimes there are odd politics occurring that propels the advancement of clergy. Karol Wojtyla was appointed archbishop of Krakow by fluke too.

Obviously. He certainly didn't warrant it with his views. Just like Kaspar. So, Kaspar is just as much a papabile as Wojtyla was.

The primate of Poland didn't want Wojtyla because he wasn't political enough.

You aren't talking about Wyzinski are you?

The communist minister of religious affairs wanted him because he didn't think Wojtyla was political either. So they both thought the same thing, yet wanted different things, and they were both wrong and it's a different world as a result.

So you are saying that JPII is a good actor and isn't necessarily what he appears? That he fooled a bunch of people into thinking he was pious and not political? Sounds par for the course.

Anyway, the pope can govern his church any which way he "enjoys". Mr. Droleskey, not being the pope, doesn't get to make similar judgements.

No. First it's not JPII's Church. He's the steward of Christ's Church. And he's doing a lousy job of it, he can't govern as he "enjoys" either. You need to learn something about the papacy. He's responsible for defending and preserving the Deposit of Faith. Part of that is the papacy itself. And he is "open to a new situation." What EXACTLY did he mean by that? Not what you think he meant. What did he mean by "new situation?"

[St.Chuck]

I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding THE REQUEST MADE OF ME TO FIND A WAY OF EXERCISING THE PRIMACY WHICH, WHILE IN NO WAY RENOUNCING WHAT IS ESSENTIAL TO ITS MISSION, IS NONETHELESS OPEN TO A NEW SITUATION.

I'm not certain why you are so scandalized by this statement. I think he is addressing the shifting relationships other denominations have with the Church. He is heeding the request to be sensitive to those relationships. He is acknowledging that his hands may be tied due to the essential mission of the papacy, which is to protect the deposit of faith. He can only go so far. Pretty innocuous statement. I'm not sure how you can see it as being anything otherwise, except that it contains the word "new" which sets off some kind of Pavlovian reaction.

You mean JPII wasn't clear as a bell on this? Mahoney's politics are obviously more important than souls. Good.

JPII hasn't told me anything. I can only pass along what I have picked up reading, and I imagine what I read is only speculation as well, because the pope doesn't publicly explain his reasons for making his appointments, but I like the theory, given that JPII has a strong anti-nuke position.

Politics and morals are linked so characterizing Cardinal Mahoney's stance as purely political is inaccurate. In hindsight the American bishops are proven to be correct in opposing the nuclear arms race, as now the world has to worry about where all these warheads have gotten to.

Yes, and the Kasparites have sent teams of missionaries to my neighborhood passing out flyers and magazines, evidently intent on spreading their heresy to the ends of the earth. For some reason, though their efforts are failing as 99.99999999 % of the population associates Kaspar with the image of a friendly cartoon phantom. If they could just get the Schillebeexzer's out of the way, perhaps their efforts would pay off.

You aren't talking about Wyzinski are you?

Yes, Wyzinski opposed Wojtyla initially. They became good friends and allies in time.

So you are saying that JPII is a good actor and isn't necessarily what he appears? That he fooled a bunch of people into thinking he was pious and not political?

Yes, JPII was a very talented actor. When he decide to become a priest his friends and theatre associates were incredulous, because they felt he had a God given superior ability as an actor and therefore a duty to pursue that career. Karol Wojtyla never fooled anyone into thinking he was pious. His piety was observed in childhood and throughout his life. His piety has fueled his success in whatever he has been asked to do. Were it his decision, he would have become a Carmelite contemplative, but when asked to work in a parish he excelled at that, and when asked to return to academia he excelled at that, and when asked to be a bishop he excelled at that. His success, in whatever role the church would have him, is due to his ability to submit wholly to God's plan. "Totus tuus" is his motto. No need to fool anyone, he's the real deal.

[Gerard.P]

JPII hasn't told me anything. I can only pass along what I have picked up reading, and I imagine what I read is only speculation as well, because the pope doesn't publicly explain his reasons for making his appointments, but I like the theory, given that JPII has a strong anti-nuke position.

Some teacher. Nobody knows what he's talking about. Must be frustrating for someone fluent in about 8 languages. "Nukes" of course are more important than the Eucharist. How utterly humanist.

I'm not certain why you are so scandalized by this statement. I think he is addressing the shifting relationships other denominations have with the Church. He is heeding the request to be sensitive to those relationships. He is acknowledging that his hands may be tied due to the essential mission of the papacy, which is to protect the deposit of faith. He can only go so far. Pretty innocuous statement. I'm not sure how you can see it as being anything otherwise, except that it contains the word "new" which sets off some kind of Pavlovian reaction.

The only thing Pavlovian is the defense of such ambiguous statements. He's flat out wrong in that encyclical first by implying if not outright saying that the prayer of Our Lord "That they may be one." has not been fulfilled in the Church. "You think he is addressing..." He is addressing nothing. He is "open to a new situation" regarding the exercise of Petrine Primacy. And he is asking non-Catholics to redefine the papacy for him. If it weren't flat out in the face of Vatican I, I'd think that he would give Catholics a vote in it as well, since we actually believe in Petrine Primacy.

Politics and morals are linked so characterizing Cardinal Mahoney's stance as purely political is inaccurate.

That's right. It's not purely political. He is motivated by the destruction of the Church. He (mahoney) does not believe in the real presence according to his letters. What kind of Pope would give a man like that the title of Prince of the Church? Prince of Darkness is more accurate.

In hindsight the American bishops are proven to be correct in opposing the nuclear arms race, as now the world has to worry about where all these warheads have gotten to.

You're on a tangent. The U.S. bishops are a disgrace. Catholic in name only. God comes first and the politics of a bishop are worthless if he is not lead by the Faith.

Yes, and the Kasparites have sent teams of missionaries to my neighborhood passing out flyers and magazines, evidently intent on spreading their heresy to the ends of the earth. For some reason, though their efforts are failing as 99.99999999 % of the population associates Kaspar with the image of a friendly cartoon phantom. If they could just get the Schillebeexzer's out of the way, perhaps their efforts would pay off.

You wouldn't have to deal with any of that at all if JPII had done his job regarding Kaspar.

Yes, Wyzinski opposed Wojtyla initially. They became good friends and allies in time.

He should've gone with his first impressions. It was merciful that he died so as not to see the destruction of the Church organization.

"You have to know the psychology of priests who spend a good part of their time praying and serving people and finally discover that they are not being rewarded properly by God on earth. They don’t want to blame the Holy Ghost, so they turn to their peers and try to maneuver them into recognizing them as a little more than equal."--Stefan Cardinal Wyszynski as quoted when asked about how JPII was elected. From God’s Broker: The Life of John Paul II By Antoni Gronowicz

Karol Wojtyla never fooled anyone into thinking he was pious. His piety was observed in childhood and throughout his life. His piety has fueled his success in whatever he has been asked to do.

That would explain his failures as Pope. It makes sense too, if that quote I supplied is true. Especially thought provoking is his failures in Russia. Makes one think that he didn't actually fulfill Our Lady's request at Fatima.

I've often noticed myself how God has taken everything away from him that he entered into the papacy with his vitality, his voice, his charisma. He has been a disaster. He stubbornly refuses to clarify the issues that flail at the Church. He is so dazzled by ecumenism that he let the demons loose in the Church. His actions are identical to those that have been condemned as injurious to the faith by numerous Popes. God is probably in his mercy going to keep him alive until he finally "gets it."

[gbcdoj]

Am I wrong to presume that therefore you are opposed to the Pope? Do you reject the papacy of Pope Pius XII?

The proper sanction for heresy is major excommunication; Pius XII knew that, even if his successors often seem not to. If Fr. Schillebeeckx was a heretic, why was he not excommunicated?

[donbosco74]

Why were progressivists like Schillebeeckx not excommunicated for heresy by Pope Pius XII? While they harbored heresy in their hearts, they cleverly disguised it so as not to be crushed. They believed their crusade of auto-demolition was a noble cause. They were not stupid about it, either. They meticulously wormed their way into positions of power so that when the time was right, they could all strike together.

You might as well ask why Pope Pius XII brought in someone as destructive to the traditional Church as Annibale Bugnini, the "chief architect of the liturgical reform." Why would he place someone with such an agenda to uproot tradition, into a place where he could do just that? If it wasn't heresy, it was as close as he could dare get and not get excommunicated.

Unless you are aware of how consequential the errors of theologians and teachers of religion can be, it is useless to discuss this issue. If, for example, you do not think that the destruction and confusion that followed the Second Vatican Council is something we ought to find appalling, there is not much to say. Perhaps you think there has been progress. Within varying degrees among them, progressivists recognize destruction as good and necessary so that their new religion may grow and conquer. Do you agree with them?

Available quotations from avant-garde “luminaries” such as Fr. Schillebeeckx and his comrades make it clear that these men believed that the “old religion” (or at least parts of it) had to be wiped out in order for the “new springtime” of Vatican II to succeed. Is that what you think, too?

Pope Pius XII did a lot of good, but he also, unfortunately, allowed Modernism to continue to grow. He permitted and approved the first changes to the Mass, the reactions to which the revolutionaries observed, and since Catholics the world over did not cry out in opposition to those first changes, the revolutionaries rightly concluded that more drastic changes would not be resisted, either. They were mostly correct. That doesn't mean they were morally right in making more changes.