Posted on 11/22/2004 4:51:06 PM PST by Land of the Irish
In addition to his book, Dr. Allen White is a professor of literature at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD.
In view of the following:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1276658/posts
Dr. White called it right on the money.
It's odd to read vitriol coming from some quarters when a bishop expresses his solidarity with the Vicar of Christ.
Maybe it's just advanced constipation.
Flap, flap, squawk, plop, plop, flap, flap
The Vatican's dealings with both Campos and the FSSP prove Archbishop Lefebvre was right. Rome can't be trusted.
Hic.
Of course it can't, Dickie.
Let's repeat the mantra: "JPII is a miserable failure."
Gee, I guess the Catholic faith has nothing to do with being in full communion with the successor of Peter. Funny how I thought that that was part of Sacred Tradition, e.g. in my eponymous bull about the necessity to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
You may protest that you will maintain Traditionalism in your diocese, that you will still celebrate the Mass of All Time and teach the old catechisms and carry on in the Traditional ways.
I guess this new Lefebvrist religion is called "Traditionalism" -- I'm not surprised, since it certainly isn't Catholic in its rejection of the Pope and the Magisterium, whose authority is part and parcel of Sacred Tradition. But do you not understand that in compromising you accept an absurd contradiction, an illogical proposition that any sane mind must condemn that Mother Church in Her Divine Authority can teach contradictory ideas at different times and pretend they are both true.
Teachings of the Deposit of Faith cannot be reversed. The authentic magisterium can elaborate and apply and make explicit the same. Obviously statements that are not part of the Deposit of Faith or infallibly defined by the authentic magisterium might be at odds with statements at different times.
How can your Traditionalism co-exist with Modernism?
The Pope is not a modernist and is fighting it and deserves our support in that struggle. To say that orthodox Catholics are "modernists" is wrong and slanderous. The Pope fully supports Sacred Tradition. Small "t" tradition outside of Sacred Tradition is not irreformable, and is neither modernist nor heretical as such. But then I forgot, the SSPX doesn't care about Catholicism, they only care about their new religion of "Traditionalism," which is whatever they subjectively say it is.
But then I How can the Mass of All Time be equivalent with the newfangled human contrivance?
I didn't know the apostles and martyrs of the early Church celebrated the Tridentine Mass? I thought the form of that rite was only formalized in the 1500s. Of course there are elements of the liturgy, e.g., the sacrifice of the eucharist, etc., that must be present, but the specific form of the liturgy is not part of the Deposit of Faith, or there would have been no varied rites within the Church. The liturgical legislation of one pope can be altered by another pope, as it was done several times after the Council of Trent and prior to the Council of Vatican II, as for instance adding St. Joseph to the canon.
How can Catholics be forbidden from ecumenical prayer at one time and then encouraged in such actions at a later time?
Because obviously there is a hierarchy of teaching, and not every word of a pope is irreformable or infallible. Infallibility relates to the protection of error of papal dogmatic definitions and in a broader sense the general concepts taught as part of the ordinary and universal magisterium, even if not reduced to a specific verbal formula. Rules about whether to meet or be polite with members of other ecclesial bodies or religions are not part of the Deposit of Faith or the ordinary and universal magisterium and are reformable.
Tell that to your fellow Mao worshipers, Mr. Clear Conscience.
What a hypocrite: a true schismatic calling a traditional Catholic "schismatic".
I thought we hashed out the CCPA issue yesterday -- why are you harping on it again?
Why do you think?
By the way, nothing was ironed out. You said you still have a clear conscience.
Did the apostles and martyrs "celebrate" (as you like to say) gay masses, clown masses, hockey masses, Halloween masses and cookie masses?
1. "Gee, I guess the Catholic faith has nothing to do with being in full communion with the successor of Peter"
Not these days when the faith itself is being compromised by the Pope himself. No Catholic is obliged to follow a pope who does not preach or practice Church doctrine.
2. "I guess this new Lefebvrist religion is called 'Traditionalism' -- I'm not surprised, since it certainly isn't Catholic in its rejection of the Pope and the Magisterium, whose authority is part and parcel of Sacred Tradition."
You make two errors. First, the Lefebvrists teach nothing new whatsoever. What they teach and practice has been what the Church has always taught and practiced. The new religion is coming out of Rome, not out of the SSPX. It is Rome, for instance, that says Jews have no need for Christ's redemption, the Pope who invites witchdoctors and voodoo priests to pray at Assisi's altars and organizes youth rallies resembling outdoor rock concerts. All this is brand new. The SSPX only protests such abominations.
Your second mistake is to suppose that the rejection of a papal novelty is the same thing as a rejection of the Magisterium--or a rejection of the pope himself. This is false. No pope can present a novelty as a magisterial teaching binding on the faithful. Only those doctrines which conform to what the Church has always believed and asserted may be considered magisterial. Nor can a pope command obedience if his command would injure the Church. So you are very confused in your theology.
As proof of this, I challenge you: name a single magisterial teaching the SSPX has ever rejected. You cannot do this--because it has rejected not a single authentic Church teaching promulgated by the Church's Magisterium. It only rejects papal novelties--and rightly so--since these have no divine protection whatsoever. Catholics are under no obligation to follow a pope in error.
3. "The Pope is not a modernist and is fighting it and deserves our support in that struggle. To say that orthodox Catholics are 'modernists' is wrong and slanderous. The Pope fully supports Sacred Tradition."
The evidence is otherwise. It's clear as a bell what he intends. It's no secret at all. After all, he is the man in charge. He is the one with plenary powers. He alone was the one who could have turned the present chaos around. He didn't do it in the days of his prime. Why? It can only be because he agreed with what has been happening for forty years. He WANTED the clown Masses. He WANTED to elevate a cardinal who doubts the Resurrection. He WANTED seminarians to be kicked out of the seminary for the crime of saying the Rosary or for being too orthodox in general. True Catholicism itself is now found only in small pockets around the world. Most of the rest of the once-mighty Catholic Church is virtually dead or dying.
Let me give you one stunning for-instance. There is the clear will to diminish faith in the Blessed Sacrament by modernist bishops everywhere. Even the Vatican itself has admitted this. It is achieved through the text of the new liturgy, through changes in its rubrics, through the priest's desacralizing attitude, through the new ways of catechizing, through handing-out Hosts like potato chips at papal Masses, through reducing genuflections, through ripping out communion rails and kneelers, through standing for Communion, through Communion in the hands, through careless confection of hosts, through a shunting-aside of the tabernacle, through inter-faith Communion services, through reception of Communion by non-Catholics--all of which has been going on for thirty years plus. Yet the Pope did nothing ever to stop any of this. So much for his love of Tradition.
4. "Rules about whether to meet or be polite with members of other ecclesial bodies or religions are not part of the Deposit of Faith or the ordinary and universal magisterium and are reformable."
Oh, come off it! There's a difference between indifferentism or syncretism--and being polite. If the Pope wants to be polite to animists, let him host a luncheon or meet them in a conference hall. What he did was PRAY with them, offer libations to the Great Thumb in their sacred forest, allow them the use of our sacred altars to pray to their false gods. That is not being polite--that is a violation of the First Commandment.
Actually, they celebrated a "Mass" very similar to the Novus Ordo. They also took the Eucharist home with them for consumption during the week.
Actually, no, I'm not going to shut up, and there is plenty of evidence the Indult is a sham set up by Rome to undermine Tradition.
FSSP, Campos, Fr. Wickens stolen chapel... the evidence abounds.
Like hell. Your comments are based on unsubstantiated claims. The fact is there is very little known about the Liturgical rituals prior to the third century.
Just please argue intelligently. Baseless accusations and conjecture or speculation do us no good. We are on the same side, but I am tired of trads being our own worst enemy.
Read "The Didache". It was written in the second century, and the Ritual of Thanksgiving mirrors the Novus Ordo almost exactly.
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.