Posted on 07/31/2004 3:18:06 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid
You are wrong, from start to finish.
1. You say "Since the magisterium is a living entity and it is entirely composed of ACTIONS" etc...
But the Magisterium is composed purely of DOCTRINES, not actions as you state--doctrines, moreover, which all Catholics are bound to accept, even popes. Why? Because they have been defined de fide as perennial truths by previous popes and councils. This is why a novel teaching--that the Jews have no need of Jesus as their redeemer, for instance--cannot qualify as Magisterial and binding, no matter how politically correct and diplomatically expedient it may be. Such a doctrine can have no guarantee of Divine protection from error, since it contradicts a truth already established by the Church. No official-sounding statement by the Vatican can ever make it true.
You also say, I "PERSONALLY INTERPRET as heterodox" these actions you speak of as "magisterial"--which is even more ridiculous. Why? Because I have plenty of authoritative backing for my criticism of such actions--Assisi I and II, for instance. Syncretism and Indifferentism had already been defined as heresies and absolutely prohibited by previous popes of the Church. These are not my judgments, they are the judgments of the Magisterial Church, repeated over and over.
Therefore, I ask you: When had it ever been permitted for a pope to enter into a ceremony designed to showcase all the world's religions praying for peace to their separate gods, Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Voodoo priests, witchdoctors, whatever? Or, for that matter, when had the Church ever allowed a pontiff to pour out a libation to the Great Thumb while visiting animists in their sacred forest? Or when had it been permitted for a pope to pray with rabbis in their synagogue for the coming of another Messiah? How are such actions not heterodox to say the least? Do you believe popes routinely behaved in such ways in the past?
If calling attention to some of this (and he has done much much more that has raised the eyebrows of knowledgable Catholics,) marks me as "interpreting the Pope personally"--then so be it. But to me your attitude is the simple denial of truth. This Pope is not acting as a Catholic pontiff should. Give it whatever spin you want--his are heterodox actions which had been previously condemned by the Church. I don't say this--the Catholic Church does.
He's a "former" warlock according to his own words from IRC
Welcome to Free Republic!
Two new members on the same thread .... this is a first!
So, "he's a former warlock", and I'm a former hippie. It's known as youthful indiscretion.
It is considered proper form, that when one accuses someone of something, to provide specific and clear references. I am sure you would expect the same courtesy if the tables were reversed, right?
"I never believe people when they say these things."
Yep, it is pure phony baloney.
"We still have this issue of virtually all the prelates of the Church suppressing the Deposit of Faith, suppressing the traditional Mass, and giving us all kinds of new stuff instead that's not working, and making the Mystical Body of Christ suffer, but still nobody can figure out what the problem is."
"Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good." Thomas Sowell
"Asinine."
I agree. Barring the door after the gates have been overcome is stupid. So why were you call for doing just that?
As for the satanism charge, this is like...er...well documented? Although he seldom discusses it outside of a small group of traditionalist friends (some of who are sede and SSPX btw) who at one time were satanists, Pete does mention it in passing in Surprised by Truth 3, once in the Wanderer, and some charismatic magazine if I am not mistaken. That being said, this took place in his early-to-mid teens.
And there you have it, Bead, "youthful indiscretion", from clearly referenced documentation.
"KATY BAR THE DOOR! THE GATES HAVE BEEN OVERCOME!"
Don't close the barn door after the horse has escaped.
I guess you've answered your own question then.
Of course you won't recognize or acknowledge it, but at least in my opinion, it is the majority of Bishops that have abandoned the Church, much as the Democrats have abandoned the "Grand Old Party" and America in favor of their own philosophy. And like the democrats, the Bishops have retained the name, in their case, Catholic.
The SSPX are not schismatic, they have remained on the narrow path, while the mainstream Church, unquestionably, has taken another path. They don't deny the Chair of Peter, as say, the Eastern and Russian Orthodox. (whom the Church is courting vigorously) They rather deny the teaching of several Popes who have wandered from the straight and narrow.
While the Libertarian and Constitution parties may be small and opposed to certain practices of the larger, mainstream parties, no one calls them unamerican, because they are American. The same with the SSPX. They are Catholic, and, at least in theory,dedicated to pure Catholicism.
Just because the majority of people think the Church is teaching what it always taught, doesn't make it so. St. Athanasius was clearly in the minority also, but prevailed against the majority perceptions, because the majority was wrong.
Well, we have to choose between following Pope John Paul II and following a dead French archbishop who has been formally excommunicated from the Church.
The SSPX has the same attitude that Luther had: we're right, you're wrong.
Sounds like Madrid's book was made exactly for folks like you.
Yes. But seeing the devil in John Paul II indicates some sort of pathology.
Dear Dominick,
"Confessions (Absolution) by SSPX Priests are invalidly performed"
Except in cases where the penitent is in danger of immediate death, of course.
sitetest
Why? Is G*d changing?
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus, ch. 3, 9)note to pinged: I did not receive a correction otherwise, so I'm going on the assumption that my mental anathema roster isn't sinful.
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." [269] The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism [270] - do not occur without human sin...
Catechism
I believe that is the ACLU position.
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.