The theologian, of course.
Posted on 10/30/2008 10:27:06 AM PDT by NYer
The more modernistic the liberal clerical cohort in Australia tries to become, the older are the heresies that they promote. Lately, one Fr Peter Dresser is promoting his own brand of Arianism, a heresy that basically denied the divinity of Christ, and which was solemnly rejected by the Council of Nicaea (325). "No human being can ever be God," writes Fr. Dresser in a booklet distributed to the faithful, "and Jesus was a human being. It is as simple as that."
Okay, here's my version of simple: "No Catholic priest may deny the divinity of Christ, and Dresser is a Catholic priest. It's as simple as that." If Fr. Dresser really denies the divinity of Christ (among several other things!), declare his formal excommunication and expel him from the clerical state. Do it quickly, do it cleanly, and do it without rancor. But do it.
Most everything one needs is in Canon 1364:
1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194.1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336.1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.
The gravity of the scandal given by Fr. Dresser's direct feeding of his heresies to innocent faithful, and the world-wide attention such heretics can command in modern times, dramatically shortens the time table that hitherto was available for Church authorities to think about how to react to these cases. Besides, it's not as if Dresser has come up with some new, highly nuanced, abstruse theory that takes years to tease out. His heresy is ancient, and worse, his public promotion of it, is an urgent invitation to the Church to do something about it.
I see precious little evidence that the forbearance the Church has shown toward egregious clerical offenders over the last 40 years has either won them back or spared the faithful untold sufferings in the meantime. The "ignore it till it goes away" approach just does not work anymore (my theories on why to be explained elsewhere) and I think the time has come to implement a "no more nonsense" approach when we are faced with blatant betrayals of fundamental Christian truths in the very ranks of the men ordained to preach it.
Talk about simple.
PS: If you are looking for silver lining to Fr. Dresser's cloud, check out Fr. Anthony Robbie's summation of Dresser's tract: "The Council of Nicaea settled the question that Christ was God in 325, so [Dresser] is 1,700 years out of date. The rest [of his tract] is a regurgitation of every discredited 19th century liberal Protestant German cliche in the book." Well put, that!
Cardinal Pell needs to act swiftly. Sign, seal and deliver the papers today!
In response to your earlier thread.
Alex was rather generous in one of his other threads when it was pointed out that the parish is not considered in communion with the Catholic Church.
He needs to get rid of this immediately. Islam was based on a blend of Arianism and paganism. It’s a heresy that never dies.
It is clear that Ed Peters, a canon lawyer, understands the situation, and notes that Fr. Dresser has already excommunicated himself automatically (latae sententiae)according to canon 1364. However, in his second paragraph, Mr. Peters says, speaking colloquially, that Dresser "is a Catholic priest." This is confusing. It would have been better stated that Dresser "was a Catholic priest." I want to make that "absolutely clear" for the benefit of those who habitually jump on such things, thinking that they have a "gotcha moment" to hit Catholicism over the head with.
Such is not the case! This Fr. Dresser is an apostate, and his congregation, to the extent that they knowingly agree with him, is in the same boat. Their association with "Catholicism" is now a mere accident of history, and is not an accurate assessment of their current status. They are no more Catholic than any former Catholic who formally embraces atheism. May God have mercy on them, and bring them to repentance. Their status as "Catholics" can be re-established only after their repentance and sacramental confession of their apostasy. Until then, they might as well be Hindus, for all the good their "faith" affords them.
A sad truth - and an unfortunate choice of words, given this week's news...
Vatican cardinal calls for teaching of non-violence as Hindus celebrate Diwali
The latest violence led Cardinal Tauran to remind Christians and Hindus of their shared belief in non-violence. "In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus called on His disciples to love their enemies, to pray for those who hated them....The cardinal closed his letter for Diwali with an appeal to Hindus to help Christians “do all we can to promote the sacredness of human life, the good of the poor and lowly in our midst and collaborate, through dialogue, to foster the dignity of the human person regardless of race or caste, creed or class.” “As Hindus and Christians, especially in the present situation, let us be won over by love without reserve, with the conviction that non-violence is the only way to build a global society that is more compassionate, more just and more caring."
Yeah, because it’s SO SAD to join with non-Christians to promote the sacredness of all human life.
HOW DARE HE!
Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it.
- Proverbs 3:7Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
- Romans 13:8 (ESV)You are not restricted by us, but you are restricted in your own affections.
- 2 Corinthians 6:12
Those verses speak of duty, not generosity.
Sometimes, it is true that things said by various Catholic personages, in an attempt to be "ecumenical," can be construed as engaging in the very "false irenicism" that Vatican II decries. But this isn't one of them. It is not particularly ecumenical, and it certainly is not an engagement in syncretism, indifferentism or any other "ism."
Ol' Cardinal Tauron...he did alright.
Strip him, dump him.
Do you disagree with that? "Revenge is mine", said the Lord. It's not for us to dole out no matter how vicious the attacks. From the cross, Jesus forgave those who persecuted Him. For one who reveres Scripture as you do, I would suggest you spend some time in quiet prayer and reflection and ask our Lord to help you with this issue.
Amen to that.
Allow me to introduce you to some of your fellow Catholics. Which of you am I supposed to take at their word?
To: marshmallowI’m surprised and disappointed by the number of FR bloggers who seem to take such glee at bashing Catholics, even though some may camouflage the bashing in terms of “innocent” questions (Chesley), outright contempt (CharlesWayneCT), and trick questions (Guyin40s). They all represent the same contemptible attitude, however. I wouldn’t have thought people posing as conservative would stoop so low. I’m not even sure it’s worth the time to address them directly, since they clearly want only an opportunity to score a cheap 15 or so seconds of fame, like the dirtbag who stole the Eucharist. And let’s be frank: He didn’t do it because someone chased him. He’s a liar.
I hope I’m not the only Catholic who believes there is a growing sentiment that there are plenty of us who will not turn the other cheek. I draw for inspiration the example of Islam it its willingness to exact a price for public contempt of my religion, and Meir Kahane and the Jewish Defense League, and their willingness to strike back and strike often. Creeps like the three I mentioned nominate themselves as natural targets of payback for their blatant and public stoning of Catholics for entertainment. I’m not advocating bombs or beheadings. I do advocate fighting, and don’t draw the line at mere words.
And to pre-empt their expected judgment of a Catholic who believes in not turning the other cheek, as the Bible recommends, the state of my soul is between me and my Saviour. They don’t get a vote.
To: DPMDre are plenty of us who will not turn the other cheekThe commandment to turn another cheek applies when someone is attacking you. When someone is attacking Christ, His Saints, or His Church, we are to strike back because we love God and one another. Including the attacker, whose soul is perishing.
115 posted on 07/08/2008 1:00:51 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
To: annalexThe commandment to turn another cheek applies when someone is attacking you. When someone is attacking Christ, His Saints, or His Church, we are to strike back because we love God and one another. Including the attacker, whose soul is perishing.AMEN!
116 posted on 07/08/2008 1:03:29 PM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If the angels could be jealous of men, they would be so for one reason: Holy Communion." -M. Kolbe)To: annalexExcellent.
The theologian, of course.
Some of us, in these times of strife, would do well to remember these things. It is one thing to defeat Bin Laden and those actively associated with his designs on the West. It is something else again to simplistically advocate a "nuke 'em all back to the stone age" mentality against the entire populations of the areas in question, and the reasons should be obvious to anyone professing to be a Christian. Yet, particularly on the political forum, we often see disturbing signs of "excess" along these lines.
We may also want to consider that, while we certainly have a right to defend ourselves against unjust attack, it is also true that any claim we might have had, as a nation, to be The Sword of the Lord has long since passed us by, due to our own collective sins. The reasons here should also be obvious, yet there are millions who still think that, somehow, we are "anointed" by God to do what ever we want, and all of our national actions are blessed and ratified by God when projected against other nations. This, too, is highly questionable these days.
The day may come when we will need to defend this nation against whole nations' worth of Muslim hordes seeking our destruction. But it is not this day. For now, we should be trying to destroy Bin Laden, and stamp out his actual following. What we are currently doing is tending to breed more resentment against us, which will only serve to fuel the acceleration of the events that will bring the Muslim hordes down upon the West betimes. Much of this is motivated now by revenge. See paragraph one.
How creepy.
I get the feeling that it’s going to be mostly devout Catholics again who are going to be left defending the West, since too many “Reformed” folk can’t be bothered, since their too busy pointing out the supposed hypocrisy of the Catholic Church and Catholics. The Protestant German states and Elizabethan England were too occupied or paranoid to see the forest from the trees when Eastern and Southern Europe was attacked by the Ottoman Muslims. It was up to Catholic Austria, Venice, Genoa, and the Papal States to stand up to them at Lepanto, and the Catholic Poles at the Battle of Vienna in 1683.
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.