Posted on 09/17/2005 6:24:38 AM PDT by NYer
Sep. 15 (CWNews.com) - A bishop of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has warned traditionalist Catholics the "heresy of neo-modernism" which, he says, now controls the Vatican.
In an email message to his supporters, Bishop Richard Williamson, an English-born prelate who now serves the SSPX in Argentina, said that there are enormous differences "between Catholic Tradition and the position's of today's Rome." He continued: "Between these positions, any reconciliation is impossible."
Bishop Williamson conceded that some traditionalists might accept an offer of reconciliation with the Vatican, but "the conciliar positions of today's Rome would still be as false as 2 and 2 are 5, while the Traditional positions would still be as true as 2 and 2 are 4."
The Lefebvrist bishop wrote his email message to explain why he had said-- prior to the September 1 meeting between Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) and Bishop Bernard Fellay, the head of the SSPX-- that traditionalists would not be reconciled with the Vatican. He explained that if some traditionalists were to reach an agreement with the Vatican, others would resist-- "that if the Society [of St. Pius X] were to rejoin Rome, the resistance of Catholic Tradition would carry on without it."
Bishop Williamson, the most outspoken figure in the SSPX, is one of the four bishops consecrated by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in June 1988, in defiance of an order from the Vatican, prompting Pope John Paul II (bio - news) to announce the excommunication of the traditionalist leaders.
Since you have not yet become a Catholic (that's perfectly obvious), you would have some gilt-edged nerve suggesting that someone who Catholic for nearly six decades take a hike from a Church not yet and not likely to become your own.
It is hard to resist the obvious conclusion that you do not know what you are talking about, a common condition among the adherents of the schism.
If you think you are becoming a Catholic while your actual motive is to be an SSPX-adhering dissenter and schismatic, don't bother. Our quota of self-defined, make-believe Catholics adhering to Marcel's schism and/or others has been satisfied and needs no additions. You can be a Marcellian. You can be a Roman Catholic. You cannot be both. The choice is yours.
It is stunning to notice how much you think you know compared with how little you actually know.
BTW, the language you quoted was meant to be an opportunity for you to have a soft-landing if you were naive in your errors. Instead, you rose to what you perceived as bait and did not blame the priest who denied dogma, Scripture and his own obligations. That says a lot. None of what it says is at all flattering to you.
You are either Catholic or you are not.
BTTT. It's really as simple as that, isn't it?
"I mention this strange opposition between the Passover and sacrifice, because it represents the architectonic principle of a book recently published by the Society of St. Pius X, claiming that a dogmatic rupture exists between the new liturgy of Paul VI and the preceding catholic liturgical tradition. This rupture is seen precisely in the fact that everything is interpreted henceforth on the basis of the "paschal mystery," instead of the redeeming sacrifice of expiation of Christ; the category of the paschal mystery is said to be the heart of the liturgical reform, and it is precisely that which appears to be the proof of the rupture with the classical doctrine of the Church. It is clear that there are authors who lay themselves open to such a misunderstanding; but that it is a misunderstanding is completely evident for those who look more closely."
Nicely said. As an aside and at the risk of being tangential, I would hasten to add that I believe a sitcking point for the Sedes and SSPXers is that truth (and moreso Truth, for that matter) exists and is unchanging regardless of personal assent or preference. Noise or no noise.
Defending the traditional liturgy is NOT coequal to defending the SSPX. You have an idee fixe, BE, maybe its time to dismount your high hobbyhorse.
. Not a single response to the examples of rank antisemitism in the sspx.
The silence speaks volumes.
When I hear someone extolling the virtues of PETA and shouting "Meat is Murder" and "Fur Shame" I am not convinced when he claims, "I was just about to purchase a deer hunting license. Honest"
Similarly, there ain't a Catholic worth his salt who thinks you were actually in RCIA and about to convert. All the claptrap about the CPA, all the opposition to those in union with Rome, all the atacks on the Magisterium are dead give-aways. You have been here a short time and your position is already calcified in oppposition to the Pope and the Magisterium. Truly, it was concretized before you arived here.
You are sspx and have probably been one for quite some time.
btw, who was this priest? Name the priest, name the parish and give us the date this alleged heresy happened
btw, who was this priest? Name the priest, name the parish and give us the date this alleged heresy happened
We are both well aware of Christ's promise and to that I only say amen. As to who is right and wrong, it is a lot more complex than Pope said this ergo, everyone else is wrong. Both sides in this debate can selectively quote from their own personal favorite dead Pope up to and including John Paul II. The idividuals mentioned in Ecclesia Dei are excommunicated. The Pope used his authority here because of the illicit ordination of bishops. As far as I know, no other reason pertaining to the beliefs and practices of the SSPX has been used to justify the excommunication. Indeed, I can think of no other. The SSPX ought to seek regularization of these bishops before it seeks anything else. I would love to see that. Until then, I tolerate the Novus Ordo which is easy enough as long as the parish folkies aren't doing the liturgical music which happens every other month or so.
* Denzinger doesn't list this. Other than a schismatic website, do you have a source?
All the other wreitings from the saints are immaterial. Unless baptized and approved and promoted as Doctrine by the Maagisterium, they have no authority.
Now, in the meantime, if you think the Jews cursed, if you think Vatican Two was a Jewish conspiracy, if you think 911 was a Jewish conspiracy, I am not surprised. The rad-trads have a deep, dark, and deadly disease called antisemitism.
It msut be repudiated, not defended. God have mercy on your soul. Repent while you still have time.
P.S. Do you have a single referent from a Papal Encyclical, a Document from any Ecumenical Council, a citation from any approved Catechism teaching what the Jews as a race are guilty of deicide and consequently cursed.
Don't you even read the Bible "And Jesus said: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.
Our first Pope p[roclaimed their ignorance 12 But Peter seeing, made answer to the people: Ye men of Israel, why wonder you at this? Or why look you upon us, as if by our strength or power we had made this man to walk?
13 The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus, whom you indeed delivered up and denied before the face of Pilate, when he judged he should be released.
14 But you denied the Holy One and the Just: and desired a murderer to be granted unto you.
15 But the author of life you killed, whom God hath raised from the dead: of which we are witnesses.
16 And in the faith of his name, this man, whom you have seen and known, hath his name strengthened. And the faith which is by him hath given this perfect soundness in the sight of you all.
17 And now, brethren, I know that you did it through ignorance: as did also your rulers.
*Some Jewish individuals acted out of ignorance and this means the ENTIRE Jewish race is cursed?
I have heard that Mel got these nutball ideas from his Daddy. Mayb ehe did and maybe he didnt. But they sure as hell aint Catholic Doctrine.
Catholic Catechism 597 The historical complexity of Jesus' trial is apparent in the Gospel accounts. The personal sin of the participants (Judas, the Sanhedrin, Pilate) is known to God alone. Hence we cannot lay responsibility for the trial on the Jews in Jerusalem as a whole, despite the outcry of a manipulated crowd and the global reproaches contained in the apostles' calls to conversion after Pentecost.[385] Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept "the ignorance" of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders.[386] Still less can we extend responsibility to other Jews of different times and places, based merely on the crowd's cry: "His blood be on us and on our children!", a formula for ratifying a judicial sentence.[387] As the Church declared at the Second Vatican Council: . . . neither all Jews indiscriminately at that time, nor Jews today, can be charged with the crimes committed during his Passion. . . the Jews should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed as if this followed from holy Scripture.[388] All sinners were the authors of Christ's Passion
598 In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured."[389] Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself,[390] the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone:
We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." We, however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him.[391]
Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.[392]
*Semper...flee the schism it has already posioned your mind and it is destroying your soul.
You have now arrived at that place where you will try and publicly claim the Catholic Church Teaches Racism - Can it truly be said that the Jewish race is guilty - and a particularly ugly racism at that - that God's chosen people are cursed.
I certainly concede that you are far more the scholar than am I and I never claimed to be a scholar, just a street-fighting elk from the wrong side of the tracks by comparison with the many more scholarly posters here such as you.
I am not being sarcastic toward you (now or ever) and I do value your every post. Occasionally (verrrrrry occasionally) I may disagree with a nuance here and/or a suggestion there but you have my sincere respect regardless.
Some Catholics, such as the late JP II, have shown a genuine opposition to capital punishment in our time. That is one of the few topics with time sensitivity. John Paul II argued that we no longer need capital punishment because we are capable of incarcerating miscreants for life with no reasonable possibility of parole. At one time or another, I have wavered on capital punishment between for and against and as to the extent of its applicability. However, I do not much trust the civil government. I do trust the Church. At this point and for fifteen or twenty years I have felt that capital punishment is morally legitimate. I have had some periods when I felt we could do without it. It is a civil question on which, given the proven guilt of defendants, the entire society may rule as opposed to abortion which cannot be morally justified by anyone or anything (in the absence of a genuine choice of lives) since the primary victim is unquestionably an innocent human being.
Heretics are not innocent. Schismatics are not innocent. The civil murderer engages in the gross injustice of depriving his/her victim of a legitimate right to temporal life here on earth. The victim may well be welcomed eternally into the presence of the Beatific Vision in which case, the victim is speeded into an ultimate destination that we all ought to seek. On the other hand, the victim who is spiritually unprepared for death and not in a state of grace has usually been deprived of the opportunity (after the murderous action) to repent and be received by God eternally. God may act in ways not familiar to us, but that would seem to be the likely outcome. What is the outcome for the unbaptized but aborted unborn????
The schismatic who makes it his or her business to seduce the poorly catechized or otherwise vulnerable Catholic into schism commits not only the sin of adherence to schism, but, if successful in that seduction, may well cause the eternal damnation of his/her victim and also the sin of scandal. I find it hard to imagine that the result of apostasizing into schism is eternal bliss or that those who seduce others into schism receive eternal reward. If I am wrong, I am wrong. At my moral blackjack table, my chips are placed on the Vatican spaces in reliance upon the promises of Christ.
I respectfully disagree with your suggestion that disturbance of the civil order may somehow be more serious than disturbance of the Faith of somewhat uninformed Catholics susceptible to the seduction that if they will just rebel against papal authority they will be as gods.
As Catholics, we believe in God, in good and evil, in temporal punishment on earth, in an afterlife with eternal punishment and eternal reward based upon how each person used the gift of free will given him or her by God. It may well be that the auto-da-fe and subsequent executions had the effect of focusing the mind of the condemned on a perfect act of contrition and eternal salvation. The eternal life and where it is lived are (objectively) infinitely more important than the conditions of temporal life. One hundred years of unbroken success in every way on earth plus eternity in hell as the consequence or`one hundred years of great temporal misery on earth ande the littel shack by the river in heaven? No brainer, give me the temporal misery and heaven. I suspect you agree.
All of that having been said, and again underlining that I am no scholar, I will rely on George Weigel who is a scholar as to your Vatican II question. I believe (and I may well be wrong) that Vatican II was a pastoral and not a doctrinal council. Even if it were merely a pastoral council, its acts deserve respect.
Weigel wrote a book on revolution against the soviets after the fall of the Iron Curtain. He claimed that the purpose of Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Freedom was primarily aimed at atheists and even communists who were not favored by communist regimes in Eastern Europe in order to convince them that the Roman Catholic Church was a desirable ally in the struggle against communist dictatorships. It took those behind the Iron Curtain more than a decade to figure out that Vatican II was serious about not trying to force them to live like Catholics much less as Catholics. It is said that a third of the martyred Fr. Jerzy Popielusczko's (who can properly spell such a name/let's call him St. Jerzy) congregation at Nova Huta were respectful agnostics and atheists who came for the sermons in solidarity against Jaruzelski and Moscow and did not approach for the Eucharist.
Not persecuting others for their legitimate religious beliefs is one thing. Allowing the excommunicated and the schismatic to publicly claim Catholicism and to seduce others into the schism and very possibly to perdition is quite another thing. I suspect that Hus and Wycliffe were not necessarily disturbing public order in the medieval era but were burnt at the stake for their reckless risk of harm to the souls of others.
This particular document was at the root of the personal falling out between Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani and his one-time disciple Albino Cardinal Luciani who became John Paul I. In spite of logtime bad relations between Ottaviani and Luciani, Ottaviani and his aged allies Carlo Cardinal Confalonieri and Amleto Cardinal Cicognani (all three banned from Conclave by Paul VI's imposition of a new age limit of 80) went to the Rome airport, greeted the incoming cardinals and actively and successfully lobbied for Luciani's election. They knew where the bodies were buried.
I trust those three old cardinals of 1978 and Luciani and Wojtlywa and Ratzinger. I also trust Weigel who has usually proven quite trustworthy as well.
I firmly believe that execution was not warranted in St. Joan of Arc's case since an English Inquisition condemned her after her capture commanding French armies against the British. It is said (although it may be merely part of the discredited and dishonest Black Legend) that the Spanish Inquisition condemned to death some who were guilty only of usury. On the other hand, it was well warranted in many other cases and not just those which disturbed the state.
In our time, some are repelled by the physical details of execution. Others subscribe to a school of "thought" that says: Who are we to decide?. The reference to a "sane world" is, among other things, a reference to a world which worries about the possible "immorality" of electrocuting or gassing to death a Charles Manson or a Jeffrey Dahlmer but have no problem with 1.4 million abortions a year for 32 years and counting.
Finally, I would probably be kinder to SSPXers if they would keep a civil tongue in their heads and a civil keyboard attached to their computers regarding recent popes and the Church itself. I thoroughly respect the efforts of others such as you to engage them on an intellecdtual or scholarly level. Under the circumstances, I personally am not interested in engaging the schismatics in civil discourse but rather in advocating that they be appropriately punished and, if they wish to be restored to the Church, subjected to appropriate public sanctions as a condition. Now, if the pope decides otherwise in his personal kindness, who am I to disagree? That ought not to require that I root for the schismatics to get gold medals for their execrably revolutionary and utterly obnoxious behavior.
If Church executions were available for at least the ringleaders, I would favor it. The decision is out of the hands of even B-XVI much less the laity. My sense of life in this respect seems to differ from yours. Life would be less interesting if we agreed on everything.
God bless you and yours and all that you do here (even when we disagree).
The old strawman arises again. No one has suggested that such Tridentine Masses as are said by validly ordained priests of SSPX are not valid Masses. Perl added that modest contributions to defray the cost of the Masses said by the schismatics were tolerable. There is a LOT more to Monsignor Perl's communications on the subject and you ought to be honest enough to admit it by publishing the UNexcerpted version. In any event, even if Perl were to flatly state (which he most certainly did not) that SSPX is not a schism, that Marcel and his co-conspirators were not excommunicated, the mere fact that he was appointed to his office by the pope does not trump the pope's direct ruling on those subjects.
Are we really going to rebuild slums from scratch???? If we do, then maybe Dubya is possessed by the shade of LBJ but I don't think so.
Be sure to let us know when you or Fellay are struck off your horse and told by God to persecute the pope and God's Church.
NOSTRA AETATE
PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
ON OCTOBER 28, 1965
... 4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock.
Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)
The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.
As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).(12)
Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.
True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.
Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.
Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows...
I know if you reply to me at all it will be with a "LOL" or some similar reply that you think passes for something witty
*The founder of the schism you defend, lefebvre, signed Nostra Aetate, no? ROTFLMAO Explain how it is that both lefebvre and the sspx opposes what its founder signed in an Ecumenical Council. This should be enlightening :)
Now, maybe you will do what the sspx used to do in re the Dignatatis Humanae controversy . It used to lie publicly that lefebvre never signed it. Of course he did yet nearly a score of years AFTER his signataure was publicly published in the Acta Synodalia the sspx continued to lie he never signed it or other "controversial" documents.
Now, they no longer defend that lie - of course, they didn't apologize for the lie, did they?
Oh yeah, LOL LOL LOL
Over the years the sspx has lied publicly and repeatedly. Well, what does one expect from a schism?
That determination of yours as to consultable sources of Catholicism is ever more obvious with each additional post of yours. Fortunately, you are, without repentance, in no danger of becoming a member of the Roman Catholic Church and therefore, these controversies are none of your beeswax since you have no horse in this race.
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.