When The Pope's Friends Walk Away

TCRnews.com ^ | 7-25-2002 | Stephen Hand

[sitetest]

Dear Bud McDuell,

"Where's all the charity from the Vatican II, Novus Ordo crowd? They constantly call for charity towards the Pope and turn around and hurl epithets at people who are trying to defend the Faith."

Don't you think that's an unfair generalization?

sitetest

[Polycarp]

It is only when people ignore the N.O. rubrics that we get the capricious variations we both loathe.

Actually, the ICEL English translations of the Latin standard of the Novus Ordo provide much to loathe also.

The problem is not only in disobedience to rubrics.

It lies alsi in the vernacular translations themselves which are loaded with liberal agendas and the watering down of any Latin phrases that bespeak "sacrifice."

[narses]

We are all called to be Saints. Nor is the measure brains (if it were, there are certainly some saintly people here). :)

[patent]

But John Paul II's own 1983 Code of Cannon law said that the penalty could not be applied.

Where? The Canon does not say that, it says if he acted in a state of necessity, unless the “the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls” First of all, this is presuming the penalty is meted out under Canon law. JPII did not resort to Canon law, he issued the excommunication by his own authority, so this Canon law argument is facially irrelevant.

Second, since he is the supreme judge, he determines what is or is not necessity. He determines when this canon applies in the first place, not you. Unless he states Lefebvre acted in necessity, you can’t make any claim that this necessity thing overrides HIS excommunication. No Bishop, priest, theologian, canon lawyer, or layman can make a decree overriding the Pope.

Third, schism is intrinsically evil, and it clearly tends to be harmful to souls. There can be no doubt on this point. Therefore, schisming was not the answer, and having done so Lefebvre cannot turn to this Canon.

patent  +AMDG

[patent]

Vatican I made it clear that the Pope is circumscribed in his power.

You have been previously asked for a quote supporting this statement. I again ask for it. Please provide the quote to support or demonstrate what you mean. Again, Vatican I was quite broad in describing the Pope’s power:

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff. (Vatican I, Session 4 , Ch. 3, 8.)

His infallibility is narrow, his jurisdictional power is not.

He must speak ex cathedra to be infallible. Otherwise he can err.

Of course he can err, but he still has jurisidiction over you. His excommunication of Lefebvre could have, prudentially, been a stupid thing to do. But he did it, and its valid.

A good example, by the way, of the double standard employed by the Vatican these days is its attitude toward China's Catholic Patriotic Association headed by President Jiang. This is a Communist- created organization that is decidedly pro-abortion, and it recently had its puppet bishop illicitly consecrate new bishops, despite papal disaproval. What was Jn Paul's reaction? A Vatican spokesman expressed "surprise" and "disappointment." Pius XII had reproved the same organization for doing the exact same thing some decades ago, only he called the consecrations "criminal and sacriligious."

Oh, MY WORD! JPII didn’t use the same exact words to describe new Consecrations! Surely, the chair is empty.

patent  +AMDG

[narses]

See patent and polycarp and sitetest for examples of charity in their posts to me. Sadly Catholicguy acts as if he has decided that attacks, lectures, arrogance and slanders are the way to defend the faith.

[ultima ratio]

Shanley was given free reign AFTER ordination--after Vatican II. Does anybody think the pre-conciliar Church would have tolerated a priest who openly preached on behalf of NAMBLA? Look, you guys won't even admit there's a problem. There are gay dances of young men cheek to cheek on parish property, seminarians spend weekends cruising gay bars, the 1992 Gay Symposium in Chicago which was attended by priests and bishops and which openly urged gay priests to be sexually active was subsidized by no less than 92 diocesan offices and religious orders. (Atila Sinke Guimaraes.) This is not the Catholicism our parents grew up in. This is profound corruption under the aegis of a new sexual morality that mirrors the world's--all of it promulgated after Vatican II. It is profoundly uncatholic. Not that I think there was no corruption before the Council. But not on this scale, not with so little effort by the episcopacy to stem the floodtide.

[Antoninus]

S.H. has never judged another's soul nor is he judging motive. He is describing actions that indicate, to him, the path that certain individuals are on.

And the difference is? I don't see much of one. Calling someone "a former friend of the Pope" is a very serious accusation which attempts to defame and give sinister motives to the person in question. If I called you a "former friend of the Pope," I suspect that you'd be more than slightly annoyed, particularly as the accusation is unjustified. Such terms are not the language of honest debate. They are the language of slander.

It USED to be considered a "traditional" idea that one would warn others of the proximate danger their actions might lead to.

Generally, this was not done in a public forum so that the entire world might hear it....

I think you are "too close" to the conflict to judge it accurately.

I'm not close to the situation at all, yet I agree with Polycarp completely (having been unjustly called "an enemy of the Pope" myself, recently, simply for advocating the use of Latin occasionally!).

[sitetest]

Dear Bud McDuell,

Apology accepted.

However, my impression is that there are some rude posters on both sides, here. I've noticed that some of your posts, in particular, here at FR have been combative in the extreme.

But you are correct in noting that not all the defenders of the Magisterium have done so charitably.

sitetest

[patent]

Shanley was given free reign AFTER ordination--after Vatican II.

He was well taught in the seminary, and was ordained in 1960. His abuse started nearly immediately. Plus, you are ignoring James Porter, who was mostly pre Vatican II, and was coddled by pre Vatican II Bishops, etc.

Does anybody think the pre-conciliar Church would have tolerated a priest who openly preached on behalf of NAMBLA?

When did the first Bishop who tolerated him get ordained and Consecrated? Where do you think all this stuff came from in the 1960s? Vatican II was written, and poof, the poofters appeared? Before the Novus Ordo even? The seminary out in Boston was rife with homosexuality long before these events.

Look, you guys won't even admit there's a problem.

There are huge problems, but you aren’t even close to the source.

But not on this scale, not with so little effort by the episcopacy to stem the floodtide.

It was out in Boston.

patent

[patent]

"Unless he states Lefebvre acted in necessity, you can’t make any claim that this necessity thing overrides HIS excommunication"

Why would he need to state that it was a necessity. If the Pope believed it was a necessity, then there would be no excommunication.

Exactly. Therefore, he is excommunicated.

I hate using analogies but it's as if a cop pulled you over on the side of the road and told you he wasn't going to give you a speeding ticket beacuase you weren't speeding.

Right, by the very act of giving the speeding ticket, he is saying he believes you were speeding.

As it is here. By the very act of excommunicating Archbishop Lefebvre, JPII states he believed there was no necessity, and that Archbishop Lefebvre is no longer in communion with him.

patent  +AMDG

[Notwithstanding]

You mentioned caprice of the pastors in saying Mass.
I accurately pointed out that no pastor licitly has such caprice.
And then you changed the subject to avoid acknowledging your error of fact.

[Notwithstanding]

Sorry - to both. It was not Poly who was the original poster - nevertheless the same criticism.

[Polycarp]

Not many of us are qualified to determine whether something is or is not harmful to the Church.

I agree, myself included.

However, we are all qualified to view the present crisis and discern its roots.

Every orthodox Catholic knows the current scandal revolve around laxity in sexual morality, and particularly homosexuality.

All of us agree this is harmful to the Church.

The evidence is too overwhelming to argue otherwise.

Some few lay people, Michael Rose for instance, have attempted to take a closer look.

For this, the "establishment" Catholic media and Catholic commentators like Steve Hand have eviscerated Rose.

This is frustrating, especially when those critics use slurs regarding the company Rose and others keep to discredit the facts instead of acknowledging the underlying crisis and the Truths Rose has revealed.

[Antoninus]

So if one is faithful as above yet questions only the quality, quantity, and fruitfullness of a new liturgy in catechizing one is in no way being an extreme trad or integrist or schismatic or heretic. If however, one denies the liturgy's validity or licitness or the authority of the Pope to change matters of discipline one is indeed in error. Steve Hand purposely blurs this essential distinction, and brands the former as belonging in the same group as the latter.

He has indeed. And your words have brought clarity to the situation. Well done and well put!

[Polycarp]

nevertheless the same criticism.

???

[Notwithstanding]

Taking acloser look is fine.

Doing it so publicly (publishing a book) - without substantiating all of the accusations is what?
Fine?
Not fine?
Something else?

[Nubbin]

I wonder if it's worth it

It would be easy for me to say to you "just ignore those hateful emails" I suppose, since I am not the one receiving them. I have read your posts for awhile and they clearly show the love you have for our faith.

There aren't many Catholics where I live and it is such a joy to come here where there are so many sincere, faithful catholics. Look...I'm just an average person of average intelligence who doesn't post often because I'm sure to say the wrong thing, misspell something or use the wrong term. (I can't imagine why Siobhan thinks so highly of me, but she couldn't be more right about you and patent. GEMS you are. Anyway, I just wanted you to know that I, for one, greatly appreciate your contributions here.