Marian T. Horvat

Status
Not open for further replies.
what kind of Catholics are the Tradition in Action people? They seem to be criticizing a lot of things, including the Pope. Do people actually take them seriously?
 
fin said:
what kind of Catholics are the Tradition in Action people? They seem to be criticizing a lot of things, including the Pope. Do people actually take them seriously?
Click to expand...
They are sedevacantists. They do not believe that the Pope is the Pope.
 
lak611 said:
I do not see where “resistance” is much different than denial. traditioninaction.org/Questions/F002_Resist.shtml
Click to expand...
So you are contending that the Pope is “irresistible”?

What do you think then of St. Paul?

“But when Cephas came to Antioch,** I resisted him **to the face, because he stood condemned.”

The People at TIA even responded clearly, concisely and respectfully to the person who sent the letter in your referenced.

(excerpt)
The principles that inspire us are expressed in that same work. Summarizing:
1)We are enthusiast of all Catholic dogmas, including that of Papal Infallibility.
Click to expand...
2)Holy Mother Church teaches that all Catholic dogmas must be understood in an ensemble wherein they stand in perfect harmony and never in contradiction. This ensemble is proposed to men as the very core of the Catholic Faith. No Catholic can deny any of them.
Click to expand...
3)Therefore, if someone says, “You should deny this dogma in order to obey another one,” that person is wrong. He is misunderstanding some doctrine of the Catholic Faith. So also the one who says, “You should obey the Pope even when he appears to contradict various dogmas of Faith and to be destroying the Church.” This also is wrong. No Pope has the power to do these things.
Click to expand...
4)Several points of the teachings of the conciliar Popes are very similar to a denial of the Catholic Faith;
Click to expand...
5)Many points of the actions of the conciliar Popes seem directly or indirectly oriented to destroy the past of the Catholic Church;
Click to expand...
  1. Therefore, such Popes should be warned that they are going in the wrong direction, and after that, they should be resisted.
    This is what the authors of the declaration We Resist You to the Face did. They addressed John Paul II and listed the main points in which they thought the conciliar Popes are wrong. They sent him their work asking him in good faith for a dialogue, and saying that until such dialogue would begin and their doubts be resolved, they would take the position of resistance to those points that appear to be objectively contrary to the Catholic Faith or Tradition. It was an honest and legitimate position that shows good will. No answer was given. Therefore, the authors continue to hold the same position of resistance that they had previously stated.
Click to expand...
That statement of resistance was clearly explained in chapter 5 of the document (if you have the book by TIA, you can find it on pages 55-58). **This position was duly based on the teaching of famous theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Augustine, Fr. Francisco Suarez and Fr. Francisco Vitoria. **The book also transcribed two articles by Guimarães in which he pointed out seven historical precedents of Popes who erred in the past regarding the teaching of the Catholic Faith, Morals, or Liturgy.
Click to expand...
These are the principles upon which TIA bases itself in its position of resistance.
Click to expand...
Your opinion that one should submit to everything coming from a Pope, because “to resist the Pope is to resist God” seems to us quite simplistic. It is perhaps a way to avoid seeing reality as it is and reacting in face of error
Click to expand...
 
GerardP said:
So you are contending that the Pope is “irresistible”?

What do you think then of St. Paul?

“But when Cephas came to Antioch,** I resisted him **to the face, because he stood condemned.”

The People at TIA even responded clearly, concisely and respectfully to the person who sent the letter in your referenced.

(excerpt)
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing fraternal correction with disobedience. Peter gave no command to Paul. Irrestistibility in regards to Church teaching was not an issue here. Want to try another story?
 
bear06 said:
I think you are confusing fraternal correction with disobedience. Peter gave no command to Paul. Irrestistibility in regards to Church teaching was not an issue here. Want to try another story?
Click to expand...
You’re getting all confused here. What “disobedience” are you charging the people at TIA with?

What command of the Pope’s have the people at TIA disobeyed?

Aren’t the people at TIA (as stated above) resisting what they percieve to be practices contradictory to traditional Church teachings until the contradictions can be resolved?
 
GerardP said:
You’re getting all confused here. What “disobedience” are you charging the people at TIA with?

What command of the Pope’s have the people at TIA disobeyed?

Aren’t the people at TIA (as stated above) resisting what they percieve to be practices contradictory to traditional Church teachings until the contradictions can be resolved?
Click to expand...
I’m simply saying that you think that Paul vs. Peter really has no bearing on Marian Horvat resisting Peter because many of the things she “resisted” JPII on aren’t personal errors of the Pope but public teachings. Is it safe to say that she resists official teachings of the Church?

So, in review, Paul was fine and dandy with the teachings of Peter. He didn’t resists those. He resisted Peter ignoring his own teachings. Like I said, the Peter and Paul story can’t be applied to much of what Horvat says.
 
bear06 said:
I’m simply saying that you think that Paul vs. Peter really has no bearing on Marian Horvat resisting Peter because many of the things she “resisted” JPII on aren’t personal errors of the Pope but public teachings.
Click to expand...
No. I’m saying that Paul’s rebuke of Peter’s “policies” was justified just as Dr. Horvat and the rest of TIA resist and rebuke the post-conciliar Popes’ “policies” regarding ecumenism, liturgical abuse and public relations. I haven’t heard or read of any “resistance” to any magisterial pronouncements by Paul VI, JPII, or Benedict XVI.
Is it safe to say that she resists official teachings of the Church?
Click to expand...
No. Unless you can point out something.
So, in review, Paul was fine and dandy with the teachings of Peter. He didn’t resists those.
Click to expand...
Paul was also infallible by the way, being an inspired Apostle. St. Peter was the only Pope who could actually reveal doctrine through inspiration.
He resisted Peter ignoring his own teachings.
Click to expand...
And likewise any other Pope who ignores or undermines Peter’s teachings is to be resisted.
Like I said, the Peter and Paul story can’t be applied to much of what Horvat says.
Click to expand...
The burden of proof is for you to provide what “teachings” of the Church Dr. Horvat is disobedient to.
 
GerardP said:
No. I’m saying that Paul’s rebuke of Peter’s “policies” was justified just as Dr. Horvat and the rest of TIA resist and rebuke the post-conciliar Popes’ “policies” regarding ecumenism, liturgical abuse and public relations. I haven’t heard or read of any “resistance” to any magisterial pronouncements by Paul VI, JPII, or Benedict XVI.

No. Unless you can point out something.

Paul was also infallible by the way, being an inspired Apostle. St. Peter was the only Pope who could actually reveal doctrine through inspiration.

And likewise any other Pope who ignores or undermines Peter’s teachings is to be resisted.

The burden of proof is for you to provide what “teachings” of the Church Dr. Horvat is disobedient to.
Click to expand...
Okie dokie. I have to re-order the 2001 CLSA book which has a nice little opinion in it on Horvat and company. Also, I’ll have to dig out my copy of “We Resist…” I haven’t seen it in a while so you’ll have to be patient.
 
bear06 said:
Okie dokie. I have to re-order the 2001 CLSA book which has a nice little opinion in it on Horvat and company. Also, I’ll have to dig out my copy of “We Resist…” I haven’t seen it in a while so you’ll have to be patient.
Click to expand...
Is this what you’re referring to?

traditioninaction.org/polemics/CHAL002_CLSA.htm

If you’ve got a copy of “We Resist” by all means bring it to the discussion. We can at least debate with the same materials and bring the conversation up to a new level.
 
GerardP said:
Is this what you’re referring to?

traditioninaction.org/polemics/CHAL002_CLSA.htm

If you’ve got a copy of “We Resist” by all means bring it to the discussion. We can at least debate with the same materials and bring the conversation up to a new level.
Click to expand...
Actually, there are several quotes missing from the article you gave. I’ve seen the CLSA citation and I’ve seen the pamplet in questionand the link you gave. TIA leaves a whole lot out. Wonder if they ever got in touch with the CLSA. Somebody never returned my copy of the 2001 CLSA book. I’ve been wanting to get a new one anyway. Hopefully it’s still in print. I did find the Fr. Ontenello stuff interesting. My radical traditionalist friends conveniently left out that info.
 
bear06 said:
Actually, there are several quotes missing from the article you gave. I’ve seen the CLSA citation and I’ve seen the pamplet in questionand the link you gave. TIA leaves a whole lot out. Wonder if they ever got in touch with the CLSA. Somebody never returned my copy of the 2001 CLSA book. I’ve been wanting to get a new one anyway. Hopefully it’s still in print. I did find the Fr. Ontenello stuff interesting. My radical traditionalist friends conveniently left out that info.
Click to expand...
Do you remember what it was that you believe they left out?
 
They don’t just disagree with the Popes; they slander them. Read this article, BUT BE CAREFUL, because these people do a great job of sounding authoritative when telling bald-faced lies:

traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f007ht_Abomination_Somerville.htm

I’m going to point out a few errors in their accusations against each Pope:

John XXIII: one can question the effectiveness of his policies, but to call him “an impious wretch and no priest” (with no empirical justification whatsoever) is a grossly uncharitable charge that, as those who have read his autobiography can attest, is patently false.

Paul VI: The Novus Ordo cannot be the abomination of desolation unless it is invalid; to claim that it is invalid represents a denial of papal infallibility when it comes to faith and morals (and if the Mass isn’t a matter of faith and morals, I don’t know what is)

John Paul I: If, indeed, he was killed because of secret Vatican financial dealings, it was because he was planning to unveil these dealings and get rid of the corruption; in other words, if he was murdered, it was for his moral integrity, not his corruption (BTW, he would have been a great Pope if he had lasted longer)

John Paul II: He didn’t “mingle with the pagans,” but rather tried to establish a relationship of mutual respect between Catholics and adherents of other religions; after all, you can’t convert someone unless you convince them of your own good will; John Paul II opened people’s hearts to the Church (and now Benedict is filling them)
 
Mickey_Jackson said:
They don’t just disagree with the Popes; they slander them. Read this article, BUT BE CAREFUL, because these people do a great job of sounding authoritative when telling bald-faced lies:

traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f007ht_Abomination_Somerville.htm

I’m going to point out a few errors in their accusations against each Pope:

John XXIII: one can question the effectiveness of his policies, but to call him “an impious wretch and no priest” (with no empirical justification whatsoever) is a grossly uncharitable charge that, as those who have read his autobiography can attest, is patently false.

Paul VI: The Novus Ordo cannot be the abomination of desolation unless it is invalid; to claim that it is invalid represents a denial of papal infallibility when it comes to faith and morals (and if the Mass isn’t a matter of faith and morals, I don’t know what is)

John Paul I: If, indeed, he was killed because of secret Vatican financial dealings, it was because he was planning to unveil these dealings and get rid of the corruption; in other words, if he was murdered, it was for his moral integrity, not his corruption (BTW, he would have been a great Pope if he had lasted longer)

John Paul II: He didn’t “mingle with the pagans,” but rather tried to establish a relationship of mutual respect between Catholics and adherents of other religions; after all, you can’t convert someone unless you convince them of your own good will; John Paul II opened people’s hearts to the Church (and now Benedict is filling them)
Click to expand...
You’ve totally misprepresented the article. I suggest you go back and re read it.

Fr. Somerville actually doesn’t call John XXIII “an impious wretch and no priest.” He says that II Machabees describes Jason as “King Johnny” and “wore a wide brimmed hat” the conclusion about whether John also fits the description in II Machabees is left to be made by the reader.

Also there is often a charge about his autobiography containing boastful comments about his chastity. Is this true?

Your particularly spin on the Popes and speculations about JPI are no more valid than TIA’s opinions.

John Paul II never asked anyone to convert to Catholicism as far as I know. And from my experience, many people who did convert to Catholicism because of him don’t actually hold the Catholic faith on many points.
 
From bear06:
Is it safe to say that she resists official teachings of the Church?
Click to expand...
From Gerard:
No. Unless you can point out something.
Click to expand...
From “We resist…”
…] the lay Catholics who direct this document to Your Holiness [John Paul II] are obliged in conscience to declare themselves in a state of resistance relative to the teachings of Vatican Council II, Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, and your teachings and actions that are objectively opposed to the prior ordinary and extraordinary Papal Magisterium.
Click to expand...
So they are saying that there are teachings that are opposed to prior Magisterium that they are resisting.

From “We resist…” again:
“Suspension of obedience to the aforementioned progressivist teachings and the authorities who desire to impose them on us.”
Click to expand...
So, from their very own mouths, they are resisting teachings that have been made by the past few Magisteriums because THEY feel that they are in conflict with previous Magisterium.

And here’s what the CSLA says on the matter (you can PM me if you’d like more from them):
Within the above context, the violation of the law was indeed public, for the declaration of suspension of obedience was published in a newspaper with a fairly wide circulation within North American traditionalist circles. Moreover, canon 1321 §3, presumes imputability, stating: “Where there has been an external violation, imputability is presumed, unless it appears otherwise.” Finally, it would appear that malice (dolus) is at the root of imputability within this public declaration, for there is a deliberate public intention on the part of its authors to withdraw submission to the Roman Pontiff, in spite of the fact that their expressed intention in so doing is only temporary
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top