Replies

MurphE: Kaspar is REALLY heterodox and he is NOT orthodox and he is NOT misunderstood. This will remain true unless and until proven otherwise by Kaspar and by history. I shall not hold my breath.

There is plenty of heterodoxy and anti-orthodoxy to go around. Some folks pretend that they are Catholic while rejecting the legitimacy of Novus Ordo ordinations, the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo Mass, the applicability of papal rulings adjudging their movement schismatic and their ringleaders excommunicated and who relentlessly attack pope and papacy, acting as though they and not JP II are the judges of orthodoxy. They are NOT misuderstood either. Just enemies of the Chrch who attack from a different direction than do Kaspar and Daneels and Mahoney and others.

The Barque of Peter remains the safe refuge of those who are actually Catholic.

"The Barque of Peter remains the safe refuge of those who are actually Catholic."

Actually, it is the barque of Peter and one's diocesan Ordinary, which is where the problems begin. To deliberately separate one's self from one's Ordinary and those priests and Catholics connected with him is to head toward schism.

However, the same pope who appointed Archbishop Gregory to Atlanta appointed Archbishop Donoghue too. Donoghue siad wash men's feet only during Holy Thursday, but now Gregory says women are OK. The Vatican says men only, but they appointed Gregory to succeed Donoghue. The Pope appointed Ratzinger. But he appointed Kasper too. But the Pope appointed Archbishop Burke, but he appointed Cardinal Mahony too...

Therein lies the dilemma for all of us. It is not just the Pope and the laity. There are bishops and priests to whom we owe obedience as well.

Kaspar is REALLY heterodox and he is NOT orthodox and he is NOT misunderstood. This will remain true unless and until proven otherwise by Kaspar and by history. I shall not hold my breath.

For shame, Black Elk! How dare you say that. Kaspar is a prince of the Church in good standing, given the red hat by the Holy Father himself, I believe. He remains in good standing now and in communion with the pope. If he were heterodox surely the Holy Father would do something. How dare you question the pope's judgment, who is "the judge of orthodoxy". You should repent and get back to "The Barque of Peter... the safe refuge of those who are actually Catholic."

"Some folks pretend that they are Catholic while rejecting the legitimacy of Novus Ordo ordinations, the legitimacy of the Novus Ordo Mass, the applicability of papal rulings adjudging their movement schismatic..."

Since when is it heresy to reject any of the above? We may even be bad Catholics--which is doubtful--but we are still in the Church and still Catholics. You want to play pope, as usual, excommunicating people because they violate your sense of propriety. Thankfully, you have no authority to burn people at the stake. If you could, you would.

You also make the foolish claim the Pope "adjudged" the SSPX was schismatic and excommunicated. Wrong. The Motu Proprio was no such thing. It was the Pope's opinion as to what transpired during the latae sententiae, which was automatic, and which depended upon the interior dispositions of the men involved. But not even popes have the capacity to read the consciences of other men.

In short, there was no "adjudgment" because there could have been no access to the motives of those men, no way to know that they were rejecting his primacy, as he claimed, rather than protecting the ancient Mass from destruction, as they claimed. There was, it is true, a nasty Motu Proprio statement, without corroboration or evidence, one which contradicted the Pope's own canon law. So of course it has been criticized--rightfully so.