Posted on 08/06/2002 5:10:58 PM PDT by nickcarraway
One picture told it all: At Toronto's airport, the world's eye caught little ten-year-old Georgia Rae Giddings as she emotionally burst into tears after Pope John Paul II embraced her. For the next hour, she recalled the moment repeatedly before crowds of journalists. "When I stood in front of the Pope, I just got dizzier and dizzier," she said.
"Out of Step" with the Contemporary World
She's not the only one. Many of the million or so attending the World Youth Day celebrations reported the same phenomenon.
Most people would be astonished to hear that the Holy Father might be the most beloved person in the world among young people. After all, we're always told the Catholic Church's message is irrelevant, outmoded and - worst of all - square. Cynics charge it has nothing meaningful to say to today's fun-loving, hedonistic youth.
According to the press, polls repeatedly show the Pope's relentless opposition to contraception, abortion, homosexuality, pornography, pre-marital sex, easy divorce and other fruits of the sexual revolution is anathema to the modern and fashionable. (It goes without saying that no one knows the mind of the modern and fashionable like the media.) The Holy Father, they conclude, is out of step with the contemporary world.
A Rebuke to the Modern Age
Okay, then how do you explain nearly a million kids at the Pope's World Youth Day? And where else would the gathering of that many youngsters be termed a "disappointing" turnout?
Perhaps it's because young people's love for the Holy Father is a direct rebuke to the modern age, and thus to its primary megaphone, the modern journalist. No institution has been a more powerful force for secularism, materialism or sexual freedom than the media.
Most reporters today are alienated from religion, looking at faith as little more than an ancient superstition. They don't understand it, so they don't cover it - unless a "religious" story involving scandal or human weakness pops up. That they comprehend.
In listening to World Youth Day participants speak, their deep affection for the Holy Father is clear. The same words keep popping up over and over to describe him - "radiance," "hero" "world's role model," "leader of youth," "our rock," "following in St. Peter's footsteps," and "the person closest to Jesus."
Thus, reasons for the Pope's youthful legions are quite simple: When young people see the weary, lined, rugged, leathern visage of the Holy Father, they see the face of love. Not love the way Hollywood loves them - as walking wallets, rear ends in movie theaters, pairs of ears to listen to the latest CDs - but real affection, from someone who sees them rightfully as precious individuals with eternal souls. And when the Vicar of Christ's deep, aged, honeyed voice is intoned, it seems they're hearing the very Words of God.
An Inexhaustible Treasure of Grace
This, then, is the Papal appeal to the young: faith, as the steadfast leader of the Church, the eternal Bride of Christ; hope, offering refuge for the restless heart; and love, from a elderly man walking in persona Christi. Of these, as St. Paul says, the greatest is love.
This is what Georgia Rae Giddings reacted to. After telling the Pope she loved him, he tenderly stroked her head and whispered gently that he loved her too, the perfect personification of Cardinal Newman's great motto of "Heart Speaketh to Heart." It's hard to imagine any other world leader reacting this way to the presence of an unexpected young stranger - so fearless, so compassionate, so Christlike.
No wonder kids love him.
Catholicism may be known as the Old Faith, it's the Young Faith too, with a remarkable, time-tested ability to outlive every fad that mocks it as passe. Each Catholic generation discovers anew the richness and power of their ancient religion, finding within it an inexhaustible treasure of grace and beauty, boundless as the sea. Once that discovery is made, as a million young pilgrims recently learned, no worldly interest can ever again quite satisfy.
Pope John Paul II is not a liberal. Neither does he speak the language of a liberal.
Let me ask you: what was the Pope saying? Can you remember?
Yes; be of good faith, be of good cheer: There is always reason for hope when one places one’s living trust in the Lord. The book is an extended meditation on the three cardinal theological virtues of faith, hope, and love.
It is not good to idolize the pope to the extent of rationalizing away his deficiencies as a leader. But this is what Catholics do: they blame middle management, but not the boss.
With all due respect, The Holy Father is a spiritual leader, not an earthly one. He’s the Vicar of Christ, not the district attorney. I think you may be mixing your metaphors….
If we have a problem with lousy bishops and cardinals, then there is only one man to charge with this: John Paul II, that lovable old grandfather of a man. It is also on his watch that there has been a world-wide collapse of Catholicism in the West. He has not disciplined apostate bishops, he has elevated men to the cardinalate of very doubtful orthodoxy. No one else is responsible.
It would be lovely to have some one person to blame for the hideous disaster that has befallen the Church. But the fact of the matter is the corruption was widespread and endemic before the elevation of His Holiness. Pope Paul VI worried about it out loud, conscious of the evil that had taken root inside the Church.
Paul's answer was to further liberalize, I gather: Isn’t that what Vatican II was really all about? I also gather that then-Cardinal Vojtila [sp?] (before he became Pope), along with now-Cardinal Ratzinger, were very active behind the scenes at Vatican II, trying to hold the line on Orthodoxy. However, Vatican II was all about “modernization,” of bringing the Church “up to date.” Thus a trendy liberalism was legitimated at that conclave. If you want to know where homosexuality (the root of the current scandal) got its open welcome in the Church, it was from this liberalism – not from the Pope’s orthodoxy.
He’s damned if he does, and damned if he doesn’t: He’s way too orthodox for many American Catholics; but they’re glad to blame him for the very fruits of the “liberalizing tendencies” in the Church that he’s battled against all his life.
Cardinal Law is a man who allowed a priest in his diocese to act as an activist for NAMBLA, a priest he KNEW had raped a six year old boy. A thousand page dossier was on his desk on this guy--yet he covered up for him for two decades. You would think the Pope would be curious as to why this went on for so long--and at a minimum ask for his resignation. Granted the Pope is a kind man--but in this case, his kindness has been harmful to hundreds of Catholic kids.
I hold no brief for Cardinal Law. I believe he will be removed in due course. The Pope is not only a kind man, as you say; he is also a deeply spiritual, just and loving and forgiving man. When it comes to a prince of the Church, such as Cardinal Law, perhaps His Holiness prefers to leave matters up to the civil authorities, on the one hand; and up to the judgment of Jesus Christ on the other.
BTW, I share your outrage RE: the paedophiliac/homosexual scourging of the Holy Church. But trust in the Lord: We have it on good authority that anyone who injures “the least of my little ones” has an absolutely hideous future in store for him…. No merely human punishment can equal it, certainly not removal from office, defrocking or excommunication...which is all the Pope can do.
I understand he spends most of his time praying for us sinners, for God's mercy and forgiveness. He is frail, in failing health; perhaps he’s saving his strength for what he believes matters most: the salvation of his flock. Going after Cardinal Law isn’t going to save anybody’s soul, as far as I can tell.
JMHO. FWIW. Thanks for writing.
Oh really? Which one?
How many seminarians has the Society worldwide? In May of 1982, Archbishop Lefebvre gave a talk at St. Mary's, Kansas where the Society has an indoctrination center euphemistically referred to as a college and academy. During that talk he said that among the, at that time, five seminaries, the Society had about 250 seminarians. The Society has an in house publication called "Cor Unum." In the mid 1993 issue there was printed a list of the seminarians in the Society's now six seminaries. Low and behold, where 11 years previously they had 250 seminarians, that number is down to 192 - a drop of almost 24%. And that's with six seminaries instead of five. (Wow, what growth)
As if to underscore this point we also have testimony from the head of the Society as well. In a letter dated February 1992, Fr. Schmidberger, the then Superior General of the Society, admitted that they were not experiencing any increase in vocations. I suspect there will be even fewer in the years to come. The best, I believe, the Society can hope for is to maintain the level they have. For true Catholics who come across this group will want to maintain fidelity to the Church and the barque of Peter and, so, as they find out the truth about the Society, they will leave and come back to the Church.
TELLTALE ENEMIES
Despite the initial enthusiasm from the Society regarding the Indult Mass, they have turned on it with the fury of a demon scorned. The saying goes that you know the company you're in by the enemies you have. So, who's opposed to the restored rite - the Indult Mass. Of course there's the SSPX, then there's the TRC (Tridentine Rite Conference) people, the liberal bishops, various independent priests throughout the world and the Society of St. Pius the Fifth (that's the group that was kicked out of the SSPX back in '83) as well as others.
It's interesting to note that all too many of these groups, except the liberal bishops, have, by now, created their own little bailiwicks and, as with the SSPX, they are loath to embrace anything which will ultimately require them to come to some kind of an accommodation with Rome if they want to maintain their Catholicity; an accommodation that will probably require them to give up their independent status and submit to a higher, legitmate authority.
A PRIEST LEAVES (Early 1993)
As of early 1993, the Society has lost another priest - Fr. John Rizzo. Fr. Rizzo had been pastor at Post Falls, Idaho, and had steadily built a flourishing congregation. Like Chicago things were going along so nicely that the Society had to find out what was wrong there. To that end Fr. Scott sent Fr. Doran to Post Falls to straighten things out. Fr. Rizzo was relieved of command, sent to England, recalled from England and sent to Kansas City, Missouri and then sent to Browerville, Minnesota to minister to the Society sisters there. At that location he remained under virtual house arrest, forbidden to have any contact with lay people. In the meantime, according to people we've talked to in Post Falls, Fr. Doran went about his work of healing by promptly polarizing the congregation.
WHY DID FR. RIZZO LEAVE? HIS LETTER -
+ JMJ
June 1, 1993
SOME REASONS WHY I LEFT THE SSPX
Dear Parishioner:
It is hoped that this letter finds you and your loved ones in the best of health and benefiting from the graces of the season of Pentecost.
The season of Pentecost reminds us of the importance of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost and the indwelling of the Blessed Trinity upon the soul. I write to you amidst various rumors and accusations of being "mentally imbalanced," "bribed," "bought-off," etc. and also on account of the various letters written by Fr. Peter Scott and Fr. Doran concerning my departure from the Society of St. Pius X.
Fr. Scott in his letter to Fr. Angles of St. Marys, Kansas, and Fr. Doran in his letter to his parish express their anger, anguish and label of "scandal" concerning my departure. However, neither letter provides the reasons for my actions.
Why did I leave? For the past 20 months, I have addressed to Fr. Scott some observations which I (as well as others both priests and faithful alike) have made hoping that these issues would be investigated and rectified. Among these issues --
1) An overall "cultish" behavior on the part of some priests in the SSPX. For example: tactics of intimidation and fear on the faithful, public denunciations from the pulpit mentioning names and offenses, denying Sacraments to individuals not guilty of public sin, and a rigoristic and Jansenistic attitude. Many of these things have occurred in St. Marys, Kansas. One recent television interview of a former St. Marys' student revealed that he was among a group of students authorized and reportedly paid by the rector of St. Marys to "gang-up" on a student who was considered to be a trouble-maker, assail him, and shave his head. This was done. This incident, among others, is now being probed by the Kansas Bureau of Investigation.
2) An unhealthy attitude towards women, especially as expressed in various newsletters from the seminary. Some of these letters bring to our attention the need of modest attire, however, in an unusual way, without reference to Mary-like standards of modesty, but rather present Christian modesty in an insulting and degrading manner. Three separate letters or enclosures were devoted to the cause of modesty -- Slacks I, Slacks II , and Slacks III. In Slacks II, reference is made of the woman of the household wearing pants which means one of her sons is living with one of his own! Such statements weaken the credibility of the SSPX, especially since these letters are composed by one who holds a high position in the SSPX.
3) The use of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius as an instrument of editorializing or expressing disdain towards the United States, its history, customs, and way of life. The Spiritual Exercises are formulated to attack sin amid its causes. Its outline starts with the hard truths of eternity, the existence / immortality of the soul, flowing onto death, judgement, hell, General Confession, mercy, and then the placid meditations. Nowhere in its formula is there an outline on attacking one's country, customs or way of life.
Sins and the occasions of sin are prevalent everywhere, not just confined to the borders of one particular nation. In the practical application of the Ignatian Exercises, the retreat master helps the retreatant to overcome past vices, improve one's meditation and spiritual life, and strive for sanctity, not to reduce one to despair, or to tear down one's heritage. Patriotism is also a virtue.
There are other issues, some more serious than those listed above, which prudence dictates that I keep private. Suffice it to say, that since the superiors of the SSPX did not wish to look into these issues, the faithful affected by them have brought them to the attention of civil authorities and law enforcement.
Before I left the SSPX, I had asked three times for a temporary leave of absence so that I could think things over and "look at the Society from a different angle." It was my intention to go to Montana for three months, and hopefully within that time, these issues would have been looked into and the process of resolving them could have started. However, I was refused this request, I left.
To remain in the SSPX in the presence of all this dysfunction, was a source of disquietude for my conscience. I could no longer enable a sick system to continue. I left the order so that I would not be affected, with the hopes that the superiors would do something about it.
After a while, people will no longer accept the letters saying that there are "trouble makers who want to run things," or priests who have an "independent spirit" and want to be out on their own and "disobedient," and a "bad spirit."
More and more people are seeing what is occurring. For the time being, the superiors of the SSPX do not wish to look at the REAL issues of dysfunction within its walls. Yes, "Nobody's perfect" or "we all have faults," but such statements should indicate an effort of recovery, or improvement, not to remain in a sick system of denial.
The real issue in the Society is not Fr. Rizzo leaving, because Fr. Rizzo is easily replaceable. The real issue is WHY Fr. Rizzo left. This issue must be dealt with because SOULS ARE NOT REPLACEABLE!
In conclusion, please note that I have not solicited your support. I am simply giving you my side of the story. I humbly apologize if by my sudden departure I have caused you scandal, however, I have a conscience, formed by good parents with Catholic standards, and I'm going to follow it.
From our Mother's knee we were all taught to avoid evil and overcome by good, to think for ourselves--(a God-given ability) and to love our Catholic Faith.
Please be assured of my prayers for you and yours,
Sincerely in Christ,
REVEREND FATHER JOHN RIZZO SOCIETY HYPOCRISY A number of years ago the Society distributed a letter written by a Mrs. Barbara Keenan of Holbrook, New York to Rome to enquire as to whether or not a Catholic fulfilled his Sunday obligation by attending Mass at a Society Mass location. The Society flooded the place with copies of the letter and the response. The letter was answered by Silvio Cardinal Oddi who said, in general, that a Catholic fulfilled his Sunday obligation by attending Mass in any authorized rite of the Church on either the day of the obligation or in the evening of the previous day. He did not refer to the Society by name. The Society has used this statement as justification to those who are in doubt about attending Mass with the SSPX. Click here to see why a Catholic does not fulfill his Sunday obligation by hearing Mass at an SSPX Mass location However, what the Society leadership failed to mention was that the good Cardinal did not say that a person does not fulfill his Sunday obligation by attending either the Novus Ordo or Masses according to the Indult. As usual, the Society picks and chooses like the good liberals they are. Again, to illustrate Fr. Scott's hypocrisy we have but to look to the letter he sent to Fr. Angles in the wake of Fr. Rizzo's "surreptitious" flight from the SSPX. The duplicity of Fr. Scott is quite obvious when he asks Fr. Angles "to inform the faithful that they do not have the right to approach him (Fr. Rizzo) to receive the sacraments except in danger of death and when no other priest is available." This must be one of the Canon Laws of the new church of the Society of St. Pius the Tenth. Now here's the logic of this - see if you can follow it. The Society is not in communion with, or, under the authority of Rome, but they claim that people MAY attend Mass with them because the rite of the Mass that they use is recognized by Rome per Cardinal Oddi. But people MAY NOT attend Mass with Fr. Rizzo who has broken ranks with the SSPX though he uses the same rite of Mass that the SSPX uses and is okay per Cardinal Oddi. Not only is this hypocritical, it is illogical. But, then, the Society makes up the rules as it goes along with no reference to the authority of the Vicar of Christ. ST. MARY'S Just to clarify things for those who aren't familiar with the situation, St. Mary's is a town in Pottawatomie County of Kansas. The SSPX does not own it, although there's no doubt in my mind that they'd like to add it to their long list of properties. St. Mary's College and Academy is located inside (or just outside depending on who you talk to) the city limits of the town. The Topeka Capital-Journal newspaper for March 26th, 1993 ran a couple of stories regarding St. Mary's (the SSPX's property). The articles reported that fifteen families "have broken away" from St. Mary's and the SSPX. Some view the matter so seriously that "a member of one of those families said the situation could become 'another Waco at any moment.'" A death threat was made against Fr. Rizzo on February 13th. The caller said "If you come near us you're a dead priest." The newspaper reported that a one million dollar life insurance policy had been taken out for Fr. Rizzo's protection. I spoke to the person involved in obtaining the insurance and he said that if anything happened to Fr. Rizzo the money would go toward bringing other priests in from the outside to continue Fr. Rizzo's work. So those who would consider violence against Fr. Rizzo, were it to be fatal, would then have several "independent" priests to contend with instead of just one. Fr. Rizzo had been scheduled to say Mass in the St. Mary's (the town) Community Room but according to police, someone used Super Glue on the locks of the doors so no one could get in. The room is located in the lower level of the 1st National Bank building. You can imagine what the Methodist bank president must have thought of all this! To keep the peace, Fr. Rizzo's people paid for the repair of the locks. A ten thousand dollar reward was offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person who made the death threat. An additional reward of two thousand dollars was offered for those who glued the locks. While a couple of St. Mary's partisans admitted guilt they later recanted when they found out the penalty for their vandalism - there was not enough evidence for trial without the confessions. The St. Mary's PTA also had to cancel their meeting for that day. The bank vandalism was being investigated by the Kansas Bureau of Investigation. Another Mass location was hastily arranged by Fr. Rizzo's supporters. Fr. Rizzo then held traditional Good Friday services in a Catholic Church of the local diocese. Attendance consisted of about 190 people from St. Mary's. This number represents about 15-20% of those who would normally attend Mass at St. Mary's. It is evident that Fr. Rizzo had much support despite the efforts of apparent Fr. Angles loyalists to prevent it. Others with children attending St. Mary's may have wished to give support to Fr. Rizzo but were afraid to do so lest the powers that be hold up report cards or diplomas for politically incorrect activities as the Society has been heard to do. One individual who feared for his life has said, according to the newspaper report, that the SSPX has "begun resembling a cult in the past several years." The article noted that "Members of the breakaway group want to start their own church and school. They say the Pius X Order doesn't want them to do that." One woman interviewed has said that "They are after utter, total control of everything in our lives. They won't let us go." Others interviewed have noted that the SSPX has gone over the line from "conservative Catholicism to cult practices." As reported in the article, evidences of alleged cult practices cited are these: children are told the teachings of the priests and nuns of the Pius X order take precedent over what their parents tell them; priests call people sinners by name from the pulpit; followers are taught the only way to salvation is through the Pius X order; followers are taught to avoid watching television, listening to the radio and socializing with people who aren't followers; some loyalists (of Fr. Angles and company) have armed themselves with "assault" rifles; a youth group known as the Knights of the Precious Blood is really a paramilitary training group; loyalists have loosened lug nuts on the wheels of cars driven by those who have broken away. Fr. Rizzo when asked why he left the SSPX replied that "there was something sick or dysfunctional taking place there." Fr. Rizzo stated in the article that despite the death threat he was not afraid to go back to St. Mary's to say Mass for anyone who wishes to attend. Fr. Rizzo said "I just want to do my best to save souls." Reports that came in from St. Mary's have told of a verbal harangue by Fr. Angles toward Fr. Rizzo's twin brother Joseph. During the half hour to forty-five minute tirade, reportedly in front of other priests and deacons, Fr. Angles apparently made an offhand threat to Joe. In view of the climate of vandalism and violence occurring at St. Mary's Joe took the threat seriously and called the cops. It is understood that Fr. Angles went in for questioning which lasted for three or four hours. I think that more strange and bizarre behavior can be expected on the part of the Society and / or its supporters in the future. As if to support that belief Fr. Hewko some time later allegedly said to students at St. Mary's that they must learn to hate those who are opposed to Fr. Angles and what he is trying to do at St. Mary's. That's funny. I always thought it was love the sinner and hate the sin, if, indeed, a sin was committed. But as many have found out, it has become a sin to oppose Society policies. The eleventh commandment - "Thou shalt not criticize the Society for they are an elite." ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE At Nuremburg the refrain from the Nazis on trial for war crimes was "Befehl is befehl," "orders are orders!" Anyone even vaguely familiar with the history of Nazi Germany, knows that the members of the Wehrmacht (German army), unlike those of the United States and other countries, were required to swear allegiance not to the state but to the person of Adolf Hitler. Such allegiance was considered absolute; a promise of perfect submission to the Fuhrer. I've been told that according to the SSPX, the Knights of the Precious Blood (KPB) at St. Mary's had to promise perfect (that is, absolute) submission (obedience) not to the Church, but to the Society of St. Pius the Tenth. The SSPX has told us that outside the Society you will lose your faith and your soul. What they are saying is that outside the Society, rather than the Church, there is no salvation. The Society, it appears, is claiming to be the Church. In the case of the German soldier the morality of the Ten Commandments and other laws of God were replaced with a subservience to the tyrant Hitler who, obviously, was guaranteed no freedom from error. Likewise, we find that the members of the KPB are required to promise absolute obedience to the tyrannical leadership of the SSPX which also has no guarantee against error. Or does the Society now claim to have the protection of the Holy Ghost? That would seem to be a prerequisite in order to assume the Papacy, wouldn't it? AND FR. RIZZO'S FATE? As of the latter part of 1993 Fr. Rizzo had sought a reconciliation with the Church and Rome. In September of 1993 he received a letter from the Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz, Bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska. He was writing in response to a letter Fr. Rizzo had sent him in mid August concerning that subject. The Bishop acknowledged that "I am very sympathetic toward traditional priests and those of a more conservative bent..." Bishop Bruskewitz suggested that Fr. Rizzo should approach Archbishop Keleher of Kansas City, Kansas. He also recommended contacting Archbishop Beltran in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The reason for this was so that Fr. Rizzo might be able to make appropriate arrangements in order to continue the ministry he had embarked upon after leaving the SSPX. Father had a chapel under the name of Our Lady of Compassion, in Maple Hill, a town not far from St. Mary's, which he operated for the benefit of those that had their fill of St. Mary's and the SSPX. Fr. Rizzo was warmly received by both Bishops Keleher and Beltran. Early plans were made through Bishop Keleher to place Fr. Rizzo in a community or parish of his own. He was granted faculties and given permission to serve, additionally, the town of Bethany outside of Oklahoma City for the benefit of about sixty-five traditional Catholics there. But problems developed in the diocese of Kansas City among the priests there involving resentment against Fr. Rizzo. As a solution Bishop Keleher and Fr. Rizzo opened contact with the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSP). As a result the FSP came in, Fr. Rizzo joined them, and he was assigned to Topeka to work in the parish of Most Pure Heart of Mary where he has since assumed the duties of associate pastor. Fr. Rizzo continues to serve Our Lady of Compassion as well. While all this is certainly good news, nevertheless, I urge you to keep all these good men continually in your prayers - Fr. Rizzo and Bishops Bruskewitz, Keleher and Beltran as well as the members of the Fraternity of St. Peter. Also keep in your prayers the many good priests within the Society of St. Pius X who are now wrestling with leaving and possibly becoming reconciled with the Church. This may be a faint glimmer of the light at the end of the tunnel. Please pray hard for the shepherds of the Church. As of 1998, Fr. Rizzo was located at a church in Sacramento, California and doing very nicely. As of the year 2000, Fr. Rizzo has been stationed in Melbourne, Australia. SSPX HYPOCRISY AGAIN Mr. Joe Maurer, who was fired from his voluntary position as trainer and schedular of altar boys at the Society's Chicago mission, Our Lady Immaculate, by Fr. Scott, because of Mr. Maurer's political beliefs (Joe doesn't think a monarchy would be a good idea for this country), brought this to my attention. To understand this you have to keep in mind what Pope Leo XIII said about the Church and other organizations: "the Church, which is of Divine Right, and all other associations which subsist by the free will of men." The Society goes absolutely ballistic when you mention the part of the Declaration of Independence where its author spoke of governments "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." How the Society proposes governments be formed without the consent of the governed is anyone's guess. According to them you cannot claim to have a right in the formation or workings of a government in spite of what Pope Leo XIII said. They say your consent has no weight or authority; it cannot confer validity regardless of the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and Robert Cardinal Bellarmine and others. Now if one accepts such nonsense at face value then he is faced, logically, with a dilemma. In the Angelus supplement of February 1993 there was an article entitled "Supplied Jurisdiction and Traditional Priests." The supplement was created from the notes of a meeting of "Traditional Catholic Study Groups" in Paris, France held on the 9th and 10th of March, 1991. The meeting was chaired by no less a luminary than one of the Society's excommunicated bishops, Tissier de Mallerais. At that meeting Mallerais said "It is inasmuch as you do not refuse to receive from your priests the ministry which they have the right to exercise for your good, that is to say for the good of the Church, that the jurisdiction that you in a certain way give them will be able to be fully exercised." Say what? "...that the jurisdiction that you in a certain way give them..." What did I miss? Has the right hand of the Society not been grasping the left? Fr. Scott in his introduction to this puff piece bit of propaganda for their jurisdictional claim (which is non-existent) said in the matter of "supplied jurisdiction" that "All depends on whether the crisis in the Church is recognized or not. Those who refuse to see it will refuse the recourse to..." old and new canon law. The point here is not whether a "crisis" exists within the Church, but the nature of the "crisis" and the proper response to it. In this case the Society defines the problem in its own terms and then proposes a solution which is designed to convince the uninformed that they (the SSPX) are the legitimate heirs of Christ and not excommunicated schismatics. The Society having lost all credibility needs this blather about "supplied jurisdiction" to convince its supporters that by following the SSPX they are good Catholics. We have the picture of the Society desperately searching for the magic bullet that will destroy its critics. So they appeal to Canon Law (both the old and new) to find in its letter their salvation; a way that will prove to everyone that they are the Church and that they are the only ones who can properly interpret Canon Law for the layman. The last time I looked at that tactic it was called "private interpretation." Now isn't that what the Protestants do - read the law the way THEY want it to be? But to tie all this together we have the specter of the SSPX saying that they derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed. The laity, then, not Rome or the local ordinaries, give the priests of the Society their jurisdiction, even though Lefebvre clearly indicated that the Society was not out to claim jurisdiction. In other words, in the secular matter of the formation of government, which is the right of laymen, according to Pope Leo XIII, we have the Society of St. Pius the Tenth saying it is not their right. But in matters of jurisdiction, which is not a layman's prerogative according to Leo XIII, the Society says it is. Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
These are the ones that are going to "save" the Church? Please
Name one
So, your suggestion is we need heresy and you desire to imitate heretics. Interesting perspective. No wonder you attract the admiration of calvinists.
He must have felt right at home.
As suspected, Williamson is an anti-semitic admirer of Hitler. He also admires the work of Ted Kasczynski.
These are the people who will "save" the Church?
So, is it your idea that one ought to be cautious of one who has abandoned a schism and returned to the Catholic Church while on the other hand one must trust an excommunicated Bishop?
It is so hard to figure these things out. BTW, if you discover that the links on his site deliver us forged or false information,let us know
Nice try, but Ted Kennedy's not actually aborting babies.
Why are you so sensitive about Tim McVeigh? Seems you'd be proud to have a skinhead at an SSPX Mass, given the propensity of so many of the clerics in your sect to admire Hitler.
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.