Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"More Catholic Than the Pope" — New Book Responds to Arguments Raised by Extreme Traditionalists
Envoy Encore Weblog ^ | 07-30-04 | Patrick Madrid

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.


TOPICS: Activism; Apologetics; Catholic; Current Events; Ecumenism; General Discusssion; History; Ministry/Outreach; Other Christian; Religion & Culture; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholicism; christ; church; eucharist; jesus; liturgy; mass; sspx; tradition; traditionalism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580 ... 701-705 next last
To: Maximilian

Uuuhhnnnhhh....I thought about that, too. My wife of 28 years, as well as every one of my 9 living children, would be surprised (understated) to learn that there could be more than one meaning to the terms.

Nope. I'm simply a persona non grata in an avocation-field up here, and I'm not gonna go Prot to pick up a $6K/year stipend. So I wait.


541 posted on 08/03/2004 11:59:32 AM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: Arguss

An ineffably complex enigma, wrapped in a mystery: so you think. Frankly, I think that's nuts.

The story's quite simple. Weakland used $450K of Archdiocesan funds to buy off a grifter/blackmailer.

Rome does not take kindly to such mis-appropriations.

It DOES have an interesting remainder, though. Was it legal for him to use the money and NOT report it as income? IRS and Wis DofRev might be interested in the transaction. That would be about $200K in combined State/Fed income taxes.


542 posted on 08/03/2004 12:05:28 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: GratianGasparri
I've already won it. There is no indult in our diocese.

Then it looks to me as though you've LOST.

Unless you're trying to tell us that any priest, at any time, could celebrate the Old Rite motu proprio.

543 posted on 08/03/2004 12:09:48 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]

To: Dominick
"My assumption is that you were an SSPX person."

I understand that. But look at this very carefully... on this thread there's much talk of slander. Most of the outcry against slander is, in all honesty, a most convenient way for people to distract themselves from looking at the guts of what's put on the conversation table. Instead of really honing in their efforts towards discerning the truth, it's easier to ring the town bell and cry slander. Poor, poor Vere and Madrid, suffering martyrs of the Church militant against the evil demons of traditional Catholicism, right? Wrong.

Yet these same neo-pious anti-slander people are so quick to make assumptions about any traditional Catholic's standing in or out of the Church. If they are wrong, the same principles behind slander apply just as readily, and perhaps more seriously, to their assumptions and charges that any or all traditional Catholics are outside the Church.

If fact, to make such a charge is arguably more serious in reference to the nature of slander than any of the other ones on this thread which they complain about.

Plus, the chances these people who would accuse traditional Catholics of being outside the Church are flat-out wrongheaded is extremely high, given the fact that they have very, very little knowledge of the theological principles which actually go into deciding what constitutes inside/outside of the Church.

In a word, those who would call traditional Catholics outside the Church: damnant quod non intellegunt.

This is serious business, not to be taken lightly. Distinctions must be made between things, and accuracy is indespensible.

Do I believe that there are "good NeoCatholics"? Yes I do. They say their Rosaries and would honestly like to be of genuine service to the Church. They're good people, and pleasing to God, I'm sure. But they are woefully devoid of theological knowledge and understanding, and for that reason they should refrain from deciding who is in and out of the Church, lest they lead each other off the proper path.

What's more, they should refrain from lauding material put out by the likes of Vere and Madrid, works which would take advantage of the average good Neo's good will and lack of knowledge, line the pockets of the new LayMagisterium who from all appearances seek first and foremost fame and success and only secondarily the good of Holy Mother Church, and which in effect suppress the efforts of the true proponents of the restoration of the Church and the salvific mission of the Church, who could only be one thing: traditonal Catholics.

You're apology is accepted without a blink of the eye. But the one who really needs an apology is someone like ultima ratio who has done such incredible work in this forum to uphold the Deposit of Faith and the tradition of the Church. It may be tough to swallow for most, but he's well inside the Church.
544 posted on 08/03/2004 12:12:26 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: ninenot

There may be a special Prosecutor

http://www.nationalreview.com/dreher/dreher052402.asp


545 posted on 08/03/2004 12:13:53 PM PDT by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: pascendi
Yet these same neo-pious anti-slander people are so quick to make assumptions about any traditional Catholic's standing in or out of the Church. If they are wrong, the same principles behind slander apply just as readily, and perhaps more seriously, to their assumptions and charges that any or all traditional Catholics are outside the Church

I think thats a false dichotomy. Schismatics are people who are no longer in the Church, by an action of the Church, like the SSPX. Those who are no longer in the Church by holding heterodox positions like the Novus ordo is invalid or fatally flawed are also out. Those are well within the Churches previous rulings.

Do I believe that there are "good NeoCatholics"?

I find this term offensive. We are Catholics or not. There are no Traditional Catholics, and NeoCatholics. Unless we do something publicly to put ourselves out of the Church we are in it as long as we like. I don't even like the term Roman Catholics, Latin Rite Catholic is more accurate. Universal means universal.

You're apology is accepted without a blink of the eye.

Thank you

But the one who really needs an apology is someone like ultima ratio who has done such incredible work in this forum to uphold the Deposit of Faith and the tradition of the Church. It may be tough to swallow for most, but he's well inside the Church.

The bottom like is someone who maligns the Pope and yet professes loyalty, while staying attached to a Schismatic organization like the SSPX should be considered a Catholic in good standing? I stated Ratzinger's opinion, upheld by the Pope is that people attached to the SSPX are in schism. I take that as a statement of fact. If I wrong an SSPX member, then I have wronged them, but repeating a lawful ruling from our Pope is not slander.
546 posted on 08/03/2004 12:25:35 PM PDT by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: Dominick
"I find this term [NeoCatholic] offensive."

Well of course. It's standard fare for people act all offended after you point out the fact they are speaking hypocritically, and after you've hung their claims out to dry on the Deposit of Faith.
547 posted on 08/03/2004 12:38:29 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: pascendi
"I find this term [NeoCatholic] offensive."

Well of course. It's standard fare for people act all offended after you point out the fact they are speaking hypocritically, and after you've hung their claims out to dry on the Deposit of Faith.

No claims were refuted. What I said has not been withdrawn by the See, and loyal Catholics all agree the Pope is the head of the Church. I mine the deposit of Faith as all Catholics do, trying to scratch out the Truth of God, and "working out our Salvation." Claiming the Pope is unable to declare a person acting in disobedience a schismatic, is a false claim.

I find it offensive because it implies a division in the Church that does not exist. We all are striving for an ideal, as taught by Christ, and implemented in the Catholic Church. The term NeoCatholic is offensive because it denigrates the fabric of the Church. There are no adjective Catholics, there are only Catholics in union with Rome, and others.

I see with one eye you blink to my apology, and the other eye you shoot a dagger. Even so, you have not demonstrated you are less Catholic than I.
548 posted on 08/03/2004 12:47:52 PM PDT by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: Dominick
"No claims were refuted."

No claims were supported. One who assists at a Latin Mass offered by SSPX is not, for that fact, in schism. Rome has backed up the veracity of this statement. True, Rome has in the same pen-stroke made known it's displeasure at having it's current love of novelty rebuffed. However, Rome was compelled to state the truth it seems: there's no sin in attending them, and dropping a little financial support to boot.

Nor is it the case that any person who, after examining the document Ecclesia Dei carefully and finds it to be incongruous with a formal declaration of schism, are in schism for determining as much. The document does in point of fact invoke latae sentencia as opposed to declaring excommunication outright, and the ratio is placed squarely upon rejection of the papacy.

"What I said has not been withdrawn by the See, and loyal Catholics all agree the Pope is the head of the Church."

As does any traditional Catholic agree that the Pope is the head of the Church. One cannot be Catholic and posit otherwise. But you fail distinctions, and erroniously apply the universal truth to the particular individual. Like I said, accuracy and precision, and distinction, are indispensible. Especially if one insists, for whatever reason, upon judging the condition of another's soul.

"I mine the deposit of Faith as all Catholics do, trying to scratch out the Truth of God, and "working out our Salvation." Claiming the Pope is unable to declare a person acting in disobedience a schismatic, is a false claim."

In this paragraph, you use a strawman, implying that someone claimed that "the Pope is unable to declare a person acting in disobedience a schismatic..." which was, of course, never claimed by anyone on this thread.

"I find it offensive because it implies a division in the Church that does not exist. We all are striving for an ideal, as taught by Christ, and implemented in the Catholic Church."

We are not to be "striving for ideals". We are to be defending the divinely revealed truths of the Deposit of Faith, and living in accord with them. We are seeking to maintain that which we already have possession of, not running after ideals which we do not yet have possession of.

"The term NeoCatholic is offensive because it denigrates the fabric of the Church. There are no adjective Catholics, there are only Catholics in union with Rome, and others."

This is true in the most precise meaning of the word Catholic. But when a new theology begins to take shape, a new way of thinking and living as a Catholic which is deviation from the immutable truth and standard, then the introduction of qualifiers is inevitable. When two diverse things lay claim to the same definition, distinctions are in order, and the attachment of modifiers are useful on a field of verbal battle, that's all.

"I see with one eye you blink to my apology, and the other eye you shoot a dagger."

Exactly. Time's wasting, and people need to wake up.
549 posted on 08/03/2004 1:22:15 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]

To: pascendi
One who assists at a Latin Mass offered by SSPX is not, for that fact, in schism.

Attachment to the SSPX is evidence of schism, only the bishops are excommunicated. You are talking out both sides of your mouth though, just a bit ago you said I was making false statements.

However, Rome was compelled to state the truth it seems: there's no sin in attending them, and dropping a little financial support to boot.

I would take that as attachment.

TO the important issue:
When two diverse things lay claim to the same definition, distinctions are in order, and the attachment of modifiers are useful on a field of verbal battle, that's all.

Being in Union with the Pope, and following his teachings is living as a Catholic, traditionalists are no different from other Catholics. Someone who prefers to sing at Church is just as Catholic as a African who dances at Mass in the Congo, Someone who is at a Tridentine Indult Mass is still as Catholic as someone at a Novus Ordo Mass. There should be no battle.

The field of Verbal battle here is between those who say the Mass is wrong, and that we must fully return to the Tridentine. This has been condemned by the See. We can reform the Novus Ordo, and Ratzinger has made some suggestions of late, but, the Tridentine 1962 Mass will not be coming back as the primary rite for the Latin rite.

What is worse is the fairy talk that the Church will somehow return to a pristine state and thing will change when we change the Mass. Some accuse me of talking about the Magic Pope, and yet they talk like this is true. It is not going to happen that way either. I agree time is wasting, and whatever Mass you prefer, the other must be recognized as totally valid worship of our Creator.

The damage has been done to the Church and we don't repair the walls by installing a garage door opener. We need bricks of teaching, and a lot of real work to help recatachieze a whole generation.
550 posted on 08/03/2004 1:44:20 PM PDT by Dominick ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]

To: pascendi
The document does in point of fact invoke latae sentencia as opposed to declaring excommunication outright, and the ratio is placed squarely upon rejection of the papacy.

No it does NOT place 'the ratio' squarely on "rejection of the Papacy."

It states that "those who are attached to the Society" are excommunicated. Nothing whatsoever about the Papacy (which is implied, of course.)

Those who vigorously defend the SSPX, to the point of denying what SSPX has ON ITS OWN WEBSITE, are objectively "attached," and are thus, objectively, in schism. See Canon 915.

551 posted on 08/03/2004 2:01:27 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]

To: Dominick
and dropping a little financial support to boot.

I would take that as attachment.

Don't. The governing Vatican document SPECIFICALLY allows a minimal contribution for offset of expenses without penalty of excommunication.

552 posted on 08/03/2004 2:04:11 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: Dominick
"Attachment to the SSPX is evidence of schism, only the bishops are excommunicated. You are talking out both sides of your mouth though, just a bit ago you said I was making false statements."

No sir. Talking outside of both sides of a mouth would be to on one hand deliniate the boundaries of "The Church" ecumenistically in such as way as to allow ample room within the Mystical Body of Christ for protestant denominations and even other religions, while at the same time, holding those who are adherents to Catholic doctrine and tradition at arm's length, and call them nonCatholics. That is what's "talking out of both sides".

Note that you would be absolutely unable to procure for me any specific meaning for the phrase "attached to the SSPX" which would be anything more than nebulous, rendering it incapable of being rooted in any principle of Catholic doctrine. "Rejection of the papacy" is concrete and readily identifiable, on the other hand. But the question is, does somebody really reject the papacy? That's an entirely different question than whether someone is attached to anything.

I said: "However, Rome was compelled to state the truth it seems: there's no sin in attending them [sspx masses], and dropping a little financial support to boot." You say

"I would take that as attachment."

Well then, Rome has been compelled to admit that said attachment doesn't really constitute schism. So see, it appears you have been wrong in your assumption that an attachment to the SSPX (whatever the heck that specifically refers to) was wrong. In Rome's eyes, no less.

"Being in Union with the Pope, and following his teachings is living as a Catholic, traditionalists are no different from other Catholics."

Watch this carefully: what are the Pope's teachings? Guess what. The pope has no new teachings. I'm serious. People talk about the teachings of Pope John Paul II constantly, and badger others as whether they accept these teachings. But nobody knows what those teachings are.

That's because there are no new teachings. Pope John Paul II has not introduced anything new that the Universal Church didn't already know. That's actually the solid truth.

"The field of Verbal battle here is between those who say the Mass is wrong, and that we must fully return to the Tridentine."

Note your wording. You said "those who say the Mass is wrong". That kind of lack of precision leaves someone nothing to work with at all. Wrong in what sense? Without precision and distinction, the phrase is meaningless, so therefore to say that...

"This has been condemned by the See."

...is impossible. "The Mass is wrong" is as ambiguous a statement one could make, and nobody said anything like that anyways.

"We can reform the Novus Ordo, and Ratzinger has made some suggestions of late, but, the Tridentine 1962 Mass will not be coming back as the primary rite for the Latin rite."

You're guessing. You don't know this.
553 posted on 08/03/2004 3:18:47 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 550 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
"No it does NOT place 'the ratio' squarely on "rejection of the Papacy."

Yes it DOES place 'the ratio' squarely on "rejection of the Papacy".

Go grab it and post it up.
554 posted on 08/03/2004 3:20:59 PM PDT by pascendi (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: ninenot; Dominick; BlackElk; pascendi

What strikes me most forcefully, is how little you and Dominick and Black Elk understand the matter--or care to understand. To you it begins and ends with a papal letter--which has no claim to infallibility whatsoever--and which makes no mention of the Pope's assaults against Tradition--which was the genesis for the Archbishop's own actions in defense of his Church. The Pope's legal authority alone is sufficient for you, regardless of the claims of justice, regardless of the claims of reason, regardless of the claims of faith. But it is not at all sufficient for me or anyone else interested in the truth.


555 posted on 08/03/2004 5:05:17 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: GratianGasparri

"I'm just making a few observations. I'm not trying to win any debate. I've already won it. There is no indult in our diocese."

That's a very odd statement. I can't make heads or tails of it, absent the assumption that your goal is to stomp out the Tridentine Mass completely.


556 posted on 08/03/2004 6:23:38 PM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio

Yeah. That's it. I lack SUBTLETY.

Truth is a 0 or 1 proposition. It is or it ain't. There's no requirement for "infallibility" attached to a Papal proclamation of excommunication. Never was. Never will be.

All the Pope needs is schism, which LeFebvre and his boyzzz were kind enough to provide.

BadaBing BadaBang BadaBoom!

You're OUTTA here!


557 posted on 08/03/2004 7:00:41 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, TomasTorquemadaGentlemen'sClub)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 555 | View Replies]

To: ninenot; Dominick; BlackElk

Stupid response to a reasoned argument--which is what I've come to expect from you and Dominick and Black Elk. It's as if you've surrendered your minds and souls willingly--which is about as unCatholic a stance I can imagine, since the Church had always traditionally taught that faith and reason should go hand-in-hand. You, instead, seem relieved not to have to think at all.


558 posted on 08/03/2004 7:16:31 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: dsc
Never did I imagine that there would come a day when one would feel a sense of accomplishment and pride because he or she successfully stomped out the Latin Mass.

Will no one rid us of these Meddlesome Priests and Such?

559 posted on 08/03/2004 7:34:20 PM PDT by AlbionGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 556 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
Unless you're trying to tell us that any priest, at any time, could celebrate the Old Rite motu proprio.

Nah... what I'm saying is that traditionalists must respect the process. Where they do not, they do themselves more harm than good. In the case of our diocese, the bishop offered a weekly indult, since he felt this best reflected the needs of our diocese. I strongly suggested to the traditionalists that they take it and build on it.

They did not. This is because a neighboring diocese has a full tridentine indult parish, and those in our diocese demanded the same. What our local traddies forgot is that we have a much smaller, older and more spread-out population than the other diocese, which makes it harder to sustain a full parish. Additionally, the traddy population next door goes back further. The bishop knows this. He also knows that a parish is not sustainable to begin with, because with no competition the SSPX have not been able to get a parish going in our diocese and they have been at it for fifteen years. (I think their mass is offered once a month and draws about fifteen people.)

Rather than say no, however, the bishop simply gave the traddies a copy of what the average small parish budgets in a year, and asked them to show him a bank account balance with the money to sustain a parish for a year. (He didn't ask for the money personally or for the diocese, just proof that they could sustain their own small parish). Three or four years' later, he's still waiting and there is no indult.

Had the traditionalists yielded to my advice, there would be.
560 posted on 08/04/2004 5:19:18 AM PDT by GratianGasparri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 521-540541-560561-580 ... 701-705 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson