Posted on 07/31/2004 3:18:06 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid
Catholic canon lawyer Peter Vere and I have co-authored a new book critiquing the claims and controversies of extreme traditionalism that will come out in September, published by Our Sunday Visitor Publishing.
Written in a popular and accessible style, More Catholic Than the Pope provides a detailed analysis of and response to common arguments raised by extreme traditionalist Catholics (in particular, adherents of the Society of St. Pius X) against the Second Vatican Council, Pope John Paul II, the fact that the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre committed a schismatic act by illicitly ordaining four bishops in 1988, and more. Chapters include a history of the SSPX, a background on the controversy between the SSPX and the so-called "Conciliar Church," and answers to several standard canon-law and historical arguments often raised by extreme traditionalists.
Our hope is that, by God's grace, the evidence presented in this new 224-page book will inform, encourage, and strengthen Catholics who have been shaken or confused by the misguided arguments raised against the Catholic Church by some extreme traditionalists and, with regard to those who have adopted a schismatic mindset, that this book will help them recognize the errors of extreme traditionalist groups, help them to see why they should abandon those errors, and help them come home to the Catholic Church.
Additional details on More Catholic Than the Pope will be available soon at Envoy Encore weblog.
VERY interesting. Do you have a cc. of the opinion?
Your explanation seems fair and reasonable. It should serve as an object lesson regarding being fooled by charismatic personalities and allowing them to overcome one's principles. Or as an object lesson regarding an even greater problem, not knowing the principles in the first place, so you don't realize that this charming character has just charmed your pants off.
For example, Bill Clinton is supposedly a very winning person. If one had him for a professor, I'm sure even many hardened traditionalists would be won over. My Dad met Ted Kennedy one time, and he said that he could easily get Eskimoes to buy iceboxes from him.
We see the world-wide spectacle of a cult of personality revolving around the current pontiff. But is he really upholding Catholic principles, or has he charmed the pants right off the Catholic population?
And to get back to Huels, at the same time that he was winning over the enthusiasm of his students, he was teaching liturgical functionaries in virtually every diocese of the US and Canada how they could overcome any pesky canonical restrictions that stood in the way of liturgical wreckovation. He was clearly an agent of the revolution, even if he was fair in his grading. These are the most dangerous of all characters. I'm sure that one would have found Kim Philby to be an outstanding teacher if one happened to take a course from him.
And the hardest thing of all is to take a stand against a popular and charming person because you recognize that his principles are fundamentally flawed. Everyone will look askance at your "attacks" on this wonderful person. My own wife used to be shocked by the things I would say about the pope -- namely that his principles are fundamentally not Catholic. And to take an example that's even more controversial here on FR, try saying that George Bush is not really pro-life, he's only marginally less pro-death than Al Gore or John Kerry.
John Huels was an evil double agent working within the Church for its own destruction. Someone with Catholic principles would have recognized that before he was exposed as a homosexual rapist of novice seminarians. This post-conciliar revolution has been a learning experience for all of us, and I know that I've been fooled before by those who claimed they were fixing the problems in the Church when really they were undermining Catholic doctrine and practice. But at least I hope I've learned enough from that experience to avoid writing books that accuse others of being "More Catholic than the Pope."
Personally, I don't care if Vere is CURRENTLY a Satanist.
However, your logic is sadly lacking.
If Vere presents a solidly-documented TRUTH, it is the TRUTH we must pay attention to; not Vere.
Your line of argumentation is used by FutureChurch: 'since the Bishops played hide-the-boy-rapist, the Bishops are incapable of moral judgments in all affairs.'
Ridiculous.
I have no qualms whatsoever with the prospect of burning heretics while admitting sins. Keeps the confessional warm during the winter.
An outstanding post, outstanding! You fight the good fight well, and there's no doubt about that.
A perfect post.
See if I have this straight. I offhandedly set up a logic discussion by stating that I don't care if X is a satanist, as long as his documentation and case is irrefutable.
OTOH, YOU claim that the entire Hierarchy is [apostate.]
And you think MY post is ridiculous.
Hmmmmm...
I do hope you're not placing the saintly Pope John Paul II in the same category as Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy...
Yes, I do think your post was ridiculous.
Apostasy is the complete and total repudiation of the Catholic Faith.
Now is this what was put forth, or was the idea put forth that the hierarchy, from top to bottom, has deviated in varying degrees from the Deposit of Faith and proper liturgical practice?
Whether or not the enemy futurechurch believes this, it is how I was taught... you're either credible or you're not.
A broker I worked with, who was also a pastor (who had a great deal of influence over me in business) told me a story once.
They were getting ready to put together a deal that was worth at that time (around 1992) several millions dollars, and they decided to go to lunch to discuss some of the details.
The one who was to be on the receiving end of the several million ordered a piece of pie and later discovered the waitress had forgotten to put it on his bill. He told the others how he had gotten away with paying for the pie (around $1.50).
The other party to the transaction informed my broker that the $1.50 piece of pie had just cost the guy who ate it several million dollars. If you can't trust someone to not rip-off a shop owner for a buck fifty, how are you going to trust them with the big bucks.
That was a very expensive piece of pie.
If you can't trust a supposed man of God to protect big things such as the protecting the lives of children against criminal homosexual predators, how on earth can you trust him with anything at any time ever?
They deserve millstones around their necks, never trust.
You miss the point that this thread is a reaction to the self-promotion of the book, "More Catholic than the Pope." Madrid and Vere have started the argument by making it a matter of personalities. They are directly attacking traditional Catholics. That is the purpose of their book. So it's only fair that we look at these people who are setting themselves up as arbiters of others qualifications to be considered "Catholic."
It's just common sense, that's all.
Cardinal Arinze,at the end of Ted Turner's Milliniel One World Religion Jubilee in the year 2000 which was timed to coincide and support some U.N. sponsored conference's announcement about the new age and who rules the one world said something very interesting then.
He and the Catholic contingent sat through three days of listening to every little cult leader in the world advocate for universal brotherhood,more spirituality and more yada,blah.,he finally rose to speak.
It was very short and to the point.He said: "I have listened to all of you talk about the wonders of this beautiful spirituality and peace that this one world religion will bring to earth. The Catholic Church is very much iin favor of this,as long as that one religion is Catholicism." I understand there was utter silence and the convocation broke up immediately. I thought it was so funny. I was following these events closely for several personal reasons. The religious celebration as well as the big U.N. sponsored one,fizzled with little fanfare.
Looks to me like your forte is trying to win debates by discrediting the opposition ("cranky lot," traddy," "traddy knickers," "traddyland," "conspiracy theories") rather than on the merits.
I don't know who you are in real life, or what you may have accomplished, but your contemptuous writing style in this thread is obnoxious.
At this time,the Church,led by Peter,under Peter,never not united with Peter is going where Christ told him to lead us.IMHO.It also includes the reason we all should be listening very closely and watching which Bishops are with the Pope. We should be there together with him/them.
Read John:Chapter 21:Verses 15 to 23.
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.