D
- Status
L
Layman
Guest
Re: The anti-semitism charge:
I see it as a demonic reaction to angelic news. The church has a ‘good news’ day and the Devil prods his minions to spoil it.
Supine ecumenism has had it’s day; they don’t want to change and we have changed too much. I find the idea of 40+ years of ‘dialogue’ cynically amusing; either we’re right or they are. If we’re right, we should state so boldy, and give reasons for it, and leave it at that.
People respect forthright behaviour. The truth has it’s own ring that cannot be gainsayed and causes those in the wrong to stutter and waffle in reply.
I see it as a demonic reaction to angelic news. The church has a ‘good news’ day and the Devil prods his minions to spoil it.
Supine ecumenism has had it’s day; they don’t want to change and we have changed too much. I find the idea of 40+ years of ‘dialogue’ cynically amusing; either we’re right or they are. If we’re right, we should state so boldy, and give reasons for it, and leave it at that.
People respect forthright behaviour. The truth has it’s own ring that cannot be gainsayed and causes those in the wrong to stutter and waffle in reply.
L
LilyM
Guest
B
bobzills
Guest
I’ll have to agree that it looks like the Eastern Orthodox are not too enthusiastic about a reunion with the Roman Catholic Church. And I don;t see too much enthusiasm from Protestants either.
On the other hand, it would be nice if there were projects of mutual interest where Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and others, could work together respectfully in a peaceful effort.
I don;t see where war has ever accomplished anything except for horrible sorrow and pain to many innocent people.
J
JReducation
Guest
Our holy father Francis always believed that we give the Devil far too much credit. To say that this issue is a result of diabolic influence, would be, to use Francis’ words, a denial of man’s fragility. In other words, it would be equivalent to saying that man cannot make bad choices on his own, but needs to be pushed.
Man is far more fragile than that. St. Francis said that man could not be trusted, because he is like crystal. He can be broken very easily.
In this case, we have two examples of fragility. Bishop Williamson’s callous statement, especially at a time that was so crucial for the society and the Rabbi’s inability to separate an individual bishop’s lack of common sense from the Vatican.
Both human, both fragile, and both broken by their faith in their own assumptions.
Fraternally,
JR
Man is far more fragile than that. St. Francis said that man could not be trusted, because he is like crystal. He can be broken very easily.
In this case, we have two examples of fragility. Bishop Williamson’s callous statement, especially at a time that was so crucial for the society and the Rabbi’s inability to separate an individual bishop’s lack of common sense from the Vatican.
Both human, both fragile, and both broken by their faith in their own assumptions.
Fraternally,
JR
L
Layman
Guest
To: JReducation.
The problem today is the opposite: **that many ‘progressive’ religious want to gloss over the existence of the infernal entirely. **
The problem today is the opposite: **that many ‘progressive’ religious want to gloss over the existence of the infernal entirely. **
J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t know as many as you imply and I’ve been a religious for many years. I’ve known some of this ilk, but I can count them on one hand.
Maybe I just belong to a very solid community and have very solid religious friends.
JR
L
Layman
Guest
An example:
The traditional rite of baptism includes an oath taken by the Godparents on behalf of the child. Part of it is:
**“Do you renounce Satan?”
In a baptism I happened upon recently, this was changed to:
“Do you renounce evil?”.**
This was in a parish I would describe as quite Novus Ordo indeed.
While I was in my pew an old lady came up to me and said:
“Isn’t it disgusting?”. She indicated a scantily-dressed young lady up in the sanctuary with a good many other people; not sure which of them were the godparents.
Unlike you, JReducation, I am not a religious. I used to be something of an ‘armchair occultist’, in fact, before I discovered the great treasures of traditional Catholicism.
I don’t know if it’s my old cynical nature or not, but I get the distinct impression that the Devil and his minions are having a good old laugh at what humans are getting up to these days in the temples of Christ The King.
I shall be very happy indeed if I get to the other side and am shown to be wrong.
The traditional rite of baptism includes an oath taken by the Godparents on behalf of the child. Part of it is:
**“Do you renounce Satan?”
In a baptism I happened upon recently, this was changed to:
“Do you renounce evil?”.**
This was in a parish I would describe as quite Novus Ordo indeed.
While I was in my pew an old lady came up to me and said:
“Isn’t it disgusting?”. She indicated a scantily-dressed young lady up in the sanctuary with a good many other people; not sure which of them were the godparents.
Unlike you, JReducation, I am not a religious. I used to be something of an ‘armchair occultist’, in fact, before I discovered the great treasures of traditional Catholicism.
I don’t know if it’s my old cynical nature or not, but I get the distinct impression that the Devil and his minions are having a good old laugh at what humans are getting up to these days in the temples of Christ The King.
I shall be very happy indeed if I get to the other side and am shown to be wrong.
J
JReducation
Guest
I will certainly agree with you that evil thrives on the absence of good, for that is the definition of evil. To say that evil is what makes man do wrong things conflicts with our theology of creation and sacraments. Because man is created in the image and likeness of God (i.e. the incarnate Son), , it has no power over the human soul, conscience or free will. Those are all human choices. That’s why Francis uses the example of man being like crystal. Man allows himself to be broken. In the absence of moral choices, there is going to e error. But the choice is made by man, not the Devil, as we clearly see in Genesis and in the Gospels.
JR
L
Layman
Guest
Errrr… then what about people who are oppressed or possessed by demons?
“I will certainly agree with you that evil thrives on the absence of good, for that is the definition of evil.”
I didn’t say this. I thought the definition of evil is that which is against the law of God(?)
“I will certainly agree with you that evil thrives on the absence of good, for that is the definition of evil.”
I didn’t say this. I thought the definition of evil is that which is against the law of God(?)
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Ah well, pnewton, the onus is on the writer to make his meaning clear, not on the reader to outguess the writer.There’s an old proverb: “Easy reading’s curst hard writing” and the corollary is, if possible, even truer: “Easy writing’s curst hard reading”.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
I admit that this is a delicate and fine point. But I stand by my original statements.The bold is mine.
Actually no. The pope must teach faith and morals as it has been revealed to the Church through Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium.
As far as Church law is concerned, it does not apply to a reigning pope. Under the title of Supreme Pontiff he is the official and formal law-giver and law-maker of the Church. Therefore he can bypass any law that he wants to by-pass. He cannot change doctrine or moral theology that has been assigned the character of infallibility. Even in morality, if it has not been assigned the character of infallibility, any pope can change, edit, add, delete or restate. What is even more interesting is that the person who has the final voice whether a previous pope spoke infallibly on a subject is the reigning pope or all the bishops in union with each other. It is the pope’s and bishop’s role to identify what is infallible. teaching.
As to the SSPX bishops, since none of the issues regarding their return has to do with dogma or infallible moral teaching, Pope Benedict can handle it any way that he wants to do so or he may just put it into the hands of the Congregation for the Bishops and oversee from a distance as he goes about his other duties.
These laws are not so difficult to deal with if you’re the pope. The people involved are more difficult to deal with.
Fraternally,
JR
The pope is the custodian of the Church, but his lawmaking is still subject to Divine Law. The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, of which the pope is [only] the Visible Head on Earth. He is the Vicar of Christ; he is not above Christ. (I’m not saying you said so, JR; I’m just setting out the argument as I see it) … The Church is not the Mystical Body of the Pope. It is not his to squander. But the pope is given no guarantee that he will never make a mistake at all. Therefore even the Pope can err, except when specifically guided by the charism of infallibility. It is possible for him to attempt to promulgate regulations and enactments that are invalid, and we are not only permitted, but required, to oppose him in these cases. Therefore yes, he can change the law of the Church tomorrow, provided he does not transgress the criteria of all law; it must be reasonable or possible, directed to the good of the church, and validly promulgated. Otherwise any shopping-list would be an infallible document. “Normally” these distinctions would have no relevance whatever; but there is always the possibility of the extreme case.
And it has happened before. The pope of the day attempted to force Bp. Grosseteste of England, in the late Middle Ages, to raise one of the pope’s favourites, but an unworthy individual, to a high position in the church (which was then becoming an increasingly widespread practice). The Bp. resisted by one after another legal device, and each time the pope was able to outmaneuver him. In the end, Bp Grosseteste was backed into a corner; there was no recourse to him, within the framework of the Church’s Positive Law (see previous posting) for further refusal. So he wrote to the Pope, firstly explaining why the candidate was unsuitable, and then concluding, “therefore as a loyal son of the Church I contradict, I disobey, I rebel. You cannot take action against me …”
The pope was beside himself when he received this communication, but when he had calmed down, his Cardinals told him, “My Lord, he is right”. And the pope backed down. (Ref: M. Davies: Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre).
S. Robert Bellarmine wrote, “We may oppose the sovereign pontiff, even to force of arms; but we may not judge him, as this office belongs to a Superior, of which the pope has none on earth.”
Some say that Mgr Lefebvre ought just to have obeyed, closed his seminary, refrained from consecrating bishops, and left it in God’s Hands. But during the Arian crisis, Athanasius did not “leave it in God’s Hands”; he preached the Faith and ordained good men as priests, against the wishes of the other bishops and even after an excommunication ratified by the pope. Now he is canonised.
It is a separate issue whether Mgr Lefebvre was correct in the individual situation of 1988; but there is plenty of support, both theologically and historically, for the principles behind his action.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Good man. Did it take 40 years to ‘dialogue’ on this point: Is Jesus Christ the Messiah, or not?
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
That is why laypeople are regularly and frequently going along to SSPX priest to have the Novus Ordo sacraments topped up. In the case of Baptism, there are many exorcisms that are simply missed out in the ‘New Rite’. Thus the SSPX are fulfiling the role of Emergency Surgery that the times required. I thank God for their perceptiveness and courage against the ‘Spirit of the Times’.
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello again,
Just a couple points. First, I would like to know of a few names of among the “many who make” the point you are making. Second, in order to make sense of any canon we have to read it in context. So, the canon speaks of someone being coerced by grave fear…or due to necessity. This would presume some external force acting on a person, right? At least, in the case at hand, you say the archbishop was coerced by some necessity. Ok, fine. Then, the burden is (was) on the archbishop to demonstrate the reality of this necessity and that it coerced him to act.
Also, if in July of 1988, the archbishop was claiming that he was acting out of necessity and attempted to prove it to the Holy Father, he apparently failed to do so. That is why the excommunication was declared. Certainly, ecclesiastical penal law gives a wide latitude to the subjective state of the “offender.” This is merciful and just. Nevertheless, simply claiming necessity or ignorance or whatever other mitigating factor you choose is not enough when it comes to an actual ecclesiastical trial. You need proof, like in any other juridical system.
I can’t speak for others but I am not denying anything. I am asking for a clear demonstration that this supposed necessity actually existed and forced the archbishop to ordain other bishops. It seems to me that a tipping point is the “protocol” that the archbishop and Cardinal Ratzinger agreed to in May of 1988. If there was no necessity in May, why was there one a month later?
If you haven’t read it, I again suggest you read the commentary I linked to earlier. It is more convincing than these ramblings of mine.
Thanks for your time.
Dan
C
chosen_people
Guest
The pope has managed to give legitimacy to the views of the SSPX with their classic Catholic anti-semitism against the Jews (deicide, the Jew as cursed and rejecting “god”, the Jew as undermining Christianity '[Jewish naturalism"], given legitimacy to Holocaust denial and set back Vatican II reforms toward Jews as well as Catholic-Jewish dialog fifty years. Quite an accomplishment, especially at a time when anti-semitism is reaching levels unprecendented since the 1930’s. Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.
C
chosen_people
Guest
Here’s a little something from sspx.org:
" International Judaism wants to radically defeat Christianity and to be its substitute. Its chief armies are the masons and the communists. This process of the Revolution began at the end of the Middle Ages, developed itself by pagan Renaissance, jumped forwards by leaps and bounds with the Reformation, destroyed the political and social basis of the Church by the French Revolution, tried to overthrow the Holy See with by an attack on the Papal States, emptied the Church’s resources on the occasion of the secularization of the goods of religious (orders -Ed’s) and dioceses, was the cause of a very grave internal crisis with the advance of Modernism, and finally, with communism, it invented the decisive instrument to delete the name of Christian from the very face of the earth."
sspx.org/MISCELLANEOUS/wh…ldhavedone.htm
" International Judaism wants to radically defeat Christianity and to be its substitute. Its chief armies are the masons and the communists. This process of the Revolution began at the end of the Middle Ages, developed itself by pagan Renaissance, jumped forwards by leaps and bounds with the Reformation, destroyed the political and social basis of the Church by the French Revolution, tried to overthrow the Holy See with by an attack on the Papal States, emptied the Church’s resources on the occasion of the secularization of the goods of religious (orders -Ed’s) and dioceses, was the cause of a very grave internal crisis with the advance of Modernism, and finally, with communism, it invented the decisive instrument to delete the name of Christian from the very face of the earth."
sspx.org/MISCELLANEOUS/wh…ldhavedone.htm
R
redrosetea
Guest
This is the truth right from the mouth of Bishop Fellay
He acknowledged “with great sadness” the damage done to the fraternity by Bishop Williamson, whose views “do not reflect in any sense the position of our Fraternity. For this reason I have prohibited him, pending any new orders, from taking any public positions on political or historical questions. We ask the forgiveness of the Supreme Pontiff, and of all people of good will, for the dramatic consequences of this act.”
timesonline.co.uk/tol/com…cle5604166.ece
He acknowledged “with great sadness” the damage done to the fraternity by Bishop Williamson, whose views “do not reflect in any sense the position of our Fraternity. For this reason I have prohibited him, pending any new orders, from taking any public positions on political or historical questions. We ask the forgiveness of the Supreme Pontiff, and of all people of good will, for the dramatic consequences of this act.”
timesonline.co.uk/tol/com…cle5604166.ece
- Status