Posted on 10/15/2013 7:07:57 AM PDT by markomalley
I read at Rorate about a strong speech given by SSPX Bp. Bernard Fellay which is effectively a denunciation of Pope Francis and Pope Benedict and – yawn – you know the rest.
Here is a sample:
-----
“The situation of the Church is a real disaster, and the present Pope is making it 10,000 times worse.”
[Bp. Bernard Fellay] said this in an address at the Angelus Press Conference, the weekend of Oct 11-13 in Kansas City. ...
Bishop Fellay alluded to the SSPX/Vatican drama of 2012: “When we see what is happening now we thank God, we thank God, we have been preserved from any kind of Agreement from last year. And we may say that one of the fruits of the [Rosary] Crusade we did is that we have been preserved from such a misfortune. Thank God. It is not that we don’t want to be Catholics, of course we want to be Catholics and we are Catholics, and we have a right to be recognized as Catholics. But we are not going to jeopardize our treasures for that. Of course not.” He continued, “To imagine that some people continue to pretend we are decided to get an Agreement with Rome. Poor people. I really challenge them to prove [what] they mean. They pretend that I think something else from what I do. They are not in my head.”
As for the discussions with Rome: “Any kind of direction for recognition ended when they gave me the document to sign on June 13, 2012. That very day I told them, ‘this document I cannot accept.’ I told them from the start in September the previous year that we cannot accept this ‘hermeneutic of continuity’ because it is not true, it is not real. It is against the reality. So we do not accept it. The Council is not in continuity with Tradition. It’s not. So when Pope Benedict requested that we accept that the Second Vatican Council is an integral part of Tradition, we say, ‘sorry, that’s not the reality, so we’re not going to sign it. We’re not going to recognize that’.”
“The same for the Mass. The want us to recognize not only that the [New] Mass is valid provided it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I told them: we don’t use that word. It’s a bit messy, our faithful have enough [confusion] regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period!’” Of course the Roman authorities “were not very happy with that.
He continues, “It has never been our intention to pretend either that the Council would be considered as good, or the New Mass would be ‘legitimate’”.
Imagine! Some people will dictate to the Supreme Pontiff the terms by which they will be Catholic.
I’m sure we will hear more about this.
Catholics don’t even know if they’re coming or going these days.
Why anyone would touch Catholicism with a ten foot pole under these circumstances is beyond me.
I belong to the true church, in which nothing is between me and Jesus!
All of these organizations and so-called churches have totally missed the point of the faith.
So just who are they chastising?
You are wise to read the Encylicals, and continue to be wise in recognizing what is and is not ex cathedra.
However, Catholics who are 40 and under are conditioned to the very formal and academic statements of both Bl. John Paul II and Pope Benedict. When faced with unscripted, and informal remarks, as well as the inaccurate commentary of an ill-intentioned media, we often find ourselves uneasy.
The Papacy is about continuity of the teachings of the Apostles. While prepared, precise statements reduce the room for doubt, they also increase, at least intellectually, the distance between the “average” person and the Pope.
I also believe you are correct that Cardinal Electors are capable of ignoring the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, however, Jesus promises the Gates of Hell won’t prevail against it. That is one heck of a promise!
Regarding Pope Paul VI and the pledge against Modernism, that is before my time and I can’t speak to it, except to say I must trust in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Bible, and holy priests who present the Sacrifice of the Mass.
I disagree, as your statement is not consistent with Christian unity. Additionally, there may individuals, or groups of individuals who don’t cleave to the Magisterium, (I think that will always be the case), but that doesn’t mean the Pope is leading is leading us down the primrose path
The Gates of Hell have not prevailed. That doesn’t mean that a pope can not fall into heresy.
You make some pretty sweeping generalizations, though you also make some valid points.
However, your first point is incorrect. Even though Alexander VI was a notorious person, he was not elected according to the “modern” rules, but by the powers of the time, over 500 years ago. Fortunately, he did very little in the realm of religious matters.
As I stated previously, Popes, by their nature as men, are not impeccable, though some have certainly been saints!
Regarding the Inquisition (again, 500 years in the past), they offered more legal rights to the accused then any court of the time. It is easy to view ancient history with the eyes of a modern man, and criticize it.
Finally, the Church is the creation of Jesus Christ, though it is manned by sinful people. As sinners, we should strive to perfection, though many of us have a lot more striving to do than others.
Conservative evangelicals would do well to read the Church fathers. In them, they will find the primary explanations of Church teachings, with their Biblical references. They will also recognize the continuity of teaching from the Apostles, and immediate students of the Apostles, through today.
Finally, as a mental exercise, when do Protestants think the time for protestation will be over?
One correction if I could...Pope Francis is not the first "Modern" pope. What the Cardinals voted in was their first unabashed Post-Modern pope. I think that is a BIG difference.
One correction if I could...Pope Francis is not the first "Modern" pope. What the Cardinals voted in was their first unabashed Post-Modern pope. I think that is a BIG difference.
Agreed. Francis doesn’t even try to hide it.
Thanks to the Reformers, the RC ecclesiastical community returned at least partway to that which was original, with the problem being some of the duplicitous doctrinal description & language adhered to as much for reason of not being able to admit ever making a mistake, which resulted in such things as doctrinal statements saying one can merit grace, when also denying that same concept, both prior to where that is found, and by demonstration, a "saint" disavowing the idea right afterwards. CCC 2010, I think it is.
Toss out singular "papacy" and much of the theology that goes with it (there would need be some readjustment in that regard, more than an entire tossing-out) along with claim that the RC ecclesiastical community be the sole Universal, or even just "the center of all things" with all else at best some sort of satellite (whether other ecclesiastical communities recognize it or not) and continue reducing the language down and away from describing "Mary" as "font from whom all blessings flow" as some sort of aqueduct (not the source, per se, but most definitely declared to be THE channel, in many Romish quarters) and then you may be have something.
Until then --- the statement highlighted above is just so much Romish fantasy.
“Pope Fellay.”
I’m sure it has a nice ring to him.
“I find it hilarious how Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said - and this pope said in the beginning, go out into the streets, create a mess, bringing Jesus’ message of love and mercy to sinners of all types and degrees.”
Yeah, Francis is so merciful he doesn’t even require Jews or other types of infidels to convert.
That was DEFINITELY Christ’s message. /s
“Last time I checked, Judas himself was selected by Christ.”
Selected to betray Him. Does that mean the Popes are selected to tear down Christianity?
“And Jesus himself warned that bad ones would be selected. (Lk 12:41-48). Again, what’s your point?”
How are you finding “There will be heretic Popes selected who will rule over the church of God” out of those passages? It’s not there. Do you have the authority to imagine that interpretation? If not, who dreamed up that fiction and who are they within the RCC?
And Jesus himself warned that bad ones would be selected. (Lk 12:41-48). Again, what's your point?
You are either playing dumb or fail to see the point. They are not qualified to be even pastors, and while allowed by God for His purposes, that does not validate men knowingly electing manifestly immoral and impenitent men )or heretics) as succeeding Peter, but ends up invalidating them both and validating dissent from such presumption, (though till replaced conditional obedience is enjoined). Such dissent is not disallowed on the basis that the laymen has "no authority to declare either heresy or heretic," as was stated. No authority is autocratic, but is subject to Scripture as supreme.
Thus the church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses and would not be reformed, being replaced by those who had no authority to do so, according to them. But who established their claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. "For every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 18:14)
So the Holy Spirit did not inspire the choice of a pope. At least we agree on this. As for election, the fact is that none of the popes were elected by the method that was used for the only known apostolic successor, which was by the OT means of casting lots. No politicking or delay.
Regarding the Inquisition (again, 500 years in the past), they offered more legal rights to the accused then any court of the time. It is easy to view ancient history with the eyes of a modern man, and criticize it.
I was aware it was preferred over cultural courts, but was the lesser of 2 evils in theological matters, and rationalizing or minimizing its unScriptural use of the sword of men in that regard, but comparing it to the times is akin to rationalizing or minimizing clerical pedophilia in these times. We are not to be conformed to the world, not a little less evil.
Conservative evangelicals would do well to read the Church fathers. In them, they will find the primary explanations of Church teachings, with their Biblical references. They will also recognize the continuity of teaching from the Apostles, and immediate students of the Apostles, through today.
Rather than seeing continuity with Scriptural apostolicity, many Prots do read them more than you think (and most of what is seen on the web is from the work of Protestants), often to the chagrin of RC apologists, who end up being educated in things they overlooked or marginalized, and their unScriptural teachings, as well as seeing the lacking of uniformity among them and lack of the often-claimed "unanimous consent
And Rome judges them more than they judge here, for as said by Manning (while not denying the RC claim to antiquity) in the light of appeal to the CF's,
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.. . — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227 .
Finally, as a mental exercise, when do Protestants think the time for protestation will be over?
Actually, i see RCs doing the most protesting, from the use of RCC to challenges of her claims due to her incessant advertizing/promoting Rome, as if more indoctrination would overcome her being exposed as she has been here, as being the fraud she is. But i have never seen you on these very frequent (about 10 these week) threads.
Very true. Not all of them voted for him, of that I am sure. Our task now is to pray for the Cardinals who did not vote for him and who are faithful to the Magisterium. They have to be going through literal hell.
To your last point, I tire of hearing about “Romish fantasies,” name calling, and heresy finger-pointing games. I am not interested in non-discussion.
Now, to address your points ceriatem.
God allows free will. People will make both good and bad decisions. While in many cases, there is an appearance of frustration in God’s will, we can’t see the big picture, with His eyes. In my opinion, that is how we got Alexander.
Regarding the casting of lots, while there may have been an OT precedent, like many OT precedents, it wasn’t binding. I know of no Christian body that picks a leader by lot.
I don’t think pedophilia can ever be excused or diminished, regardless of century. However, I think the Inquisition can be reasoned to, meaning, educated people of the time considered the Inquisition and its methods appropriate (though wrongly)for the preservation of faith the protection of souls. Does that excuse them for killing people of conscience, no.
Regarding the Church Fathers, I am glad you and others read them, as they often cast light on the true beliefs of the Church, and dispel commonly held misconceptions.
A former Anglican priest, now a Catholic priest, wisely pointed out that converts bring gifts to the Church, whether pastoral, knowledge, or experiential. In each case, the Church is built up.
May God’s peace fill you day!
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.