Time to eliminate all confusion about Vatican II

[JKirkLVNV]

Can you show exactly where the NO crowd shows total and complete submission to the Holy Father? Oh sure, they all buy tickets to watch him move his hands and go live but OBEY??? Give me a break.

Again, a diversion having nothing to do with anything, as well as an overstatement. Lots of the “NO” crowd (by that I mean those who frequent the normative Mass of the Latin Rite) obey the Holy Father. Do you, with your constants aspersions against Christ’s Church? Do you obey the Holy Father by commiting the sin of calumny against a man not here to defend himself, who denied he was a mason, who the Holy See denied was a freemason? Please.

 

[buffalo]

Just read the documents.

 

[Michael_C]

I didn’t just stand by and watch the Freemasons take over the control of the Church. Yes, it was well-documented that there were Freemasons in the Church. The websites are too numerous to fit on this board. But that probably wouldn’t satisfy you.

Can you produce the well documented evidence. Anyone can launch a website.

 

[BobP123]

Can you produce the well documented evidence. Anyone can launch a website.

Actually I could and I have.

Of course anyone can launch a website but what’s your point? Probably a ton of people have for the sheer enjoyment. But there is so much corroboration among them, even two witnesses to the same car crash couldn’t agree more.

Ok, deny it if you want. But go ask a priest or bishop if one is still excommunicated for being a Freemason? Today there are many “Catholic” politicians who will even brag about their lodge meetings, forget their pro-abortion stand. Wouldn’t have been that way 50 years ago.

 

[BobP123]

Again, a diversion having nothing to do with anything, as well as an overstatement. Lots of the “NO” crowd (by that I mean those who frequent the normative Mass of the Latin Rite) obey the Holy Father. Do you, with your constants aspersions against Christ’s Church? Do you obey the Holy Father by commiting the sin of calumny against a man not here to defend himself, who denied he was a mason, who the Holy See denied was a freemason? Please.

Really? Ask how many of your NO friends do penance on all Fridays as the Holy Father has asked. Or attend the liturgy during all Holydays? What exactly do they obey?

And speaking of people who can’t defend themselves, what about your cohorts’ judgements against Lefebrve? Supposedly he cited Canon Laws in his defense but you NO guys would have none of that.

Edited by moderator: Please be mindful of the charity level.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Really? Ask how many of your NO friends do penance on all Fridays as the Holy Father has asked. Or attend the liturgy during all Holydays? What exactly do they obey?

And speaking of people who can’t defend themselves, what about your cohorts’ judgements against Lefebrve? Supposedly he cited Canon Laws in his defense but you NO guys would have none of that.

Edited by moderator: Please be mindful of the charity level.

First of all, I don’t belong to a cohort. I’m a Catholic, plain and simple.

Second, I have no window into anyone’s soul (which prevents me from making painting with too broad a brush, ie, I don’t make calls on the moral standing of a whole “crowd,” to use YOUR word). I know many people who would not self-identify as traditionalists who do just what you mention.

Third, I don’t see anyone dumping on Archbishop Lefebrve. I DO see a lot of people defending the Church’s authority against the Archbishop’s actions. OBJECTIVELY, the Archbishop committed an act which the Supreme Legislator (the term canon law employs to refer to the Pope as the final interpreter of that law) determined to be schismatic (the Servant of God Pope John Paul II did not excommunicate the Archbishop, he merely confirmed that he had excommunicated himself). OBJECTIVELY, the Archbishop made a claim that there was an emergency, which the same Supreme Legislator stated did NOT exist. OBJECTIVELY, the Archbishop was guilty of schism and died excommunicate (again, not having a window into any man’s soul, I don’t speculate on his eternal destiny as a result, I merely point out an OBJECTIVE fact). The difference OBJECTIVELY between the Archbishop and Buggsy is this: not only did Buggsy deny it (might or might not be questionable), the Holy See itself denied it. OBJECTIVELY, Buggsy wasn’t a Freemason and it takes an X-File, “second gunmen on the green” mentality to make him one, just as it takes the same to say that Freemasonry has infilitrated or taken over the Church. We don’t KNOW why Pope Paul VI sent him to Iran, but we do KNOW the Holy See didn’t and doesn’t think he was a mason.

 

[bear06]

First of all, I don’t belong to a cohort. I’m a Catholic, plain and simple.

Darn, Kirk. I thought we had a club.

Third, I don’t see anyone dumping on Archbishop Lefebrve. I DO see a lot of people defending the Church’s authority against the Archbishop’s actions. OBJECTIVELY, the Archbishop committed an act which the Supreme Legislator (the term canon law employs to refer to the Pope as the final interpreter of that law) determined to be schismatic (the Servant of God Pope John Paul II did not excommunicate the Archbishop, he merely confirmed that he had excommunicated himself). OBJECTIVELY, the Archbishop made a claim that there was an emergency, which the same Supreme Legislator stated did NOT exist. OBJECTIVELY, the Archbishop was guilty of schism and died excommunicate (again, not having a window into any man’s soul, I don’t speculate on his eternal destiny as a result, I merely point out an OBJECTIVE fact). The difference OBJECTIVELY between the Archbishop and Buggsy is this: not only did Buggsy deny it (might or might not be questionable), the Holy See itself denied it. OBJECTIVELY, Buggsy wasn’t a Freemason and it takes an X-File, “second gunmen on the green” mentality to make him one, just as it takes the same to say that Freemasonry has infilitrated or taken over the Church. We don’t KNOW why Pope Paul VI sent him to Iran, but we do KNOW the Holy See didn’t and doesn’t think he was a mason

 

[AlexV]

Actually, we can’t state Lefebvre was “objectively” guilty of schism.

 

[Michael_C]

Actually I could and I have.

Of course anyone can launch a website but what’s your point? Probably a ton of people have for the sheer enjoyment. But there is so much corroboration among them, even two witnesses to the same car crash couldn’t agree more.

Ok, deny it if you want. But go ask a priest or bishop if one is still excommunicated for being a Freemason? Today there are many “Catholic” politicians who will even brag about their lodge meetings, forget their pro-abortion stand. Wouldn’t have been that way 50 years ago.

So you won’t produce the “Well documented” evidence? You called a Cardinal that has passed away a freemason. I think if you make the claim you should back it up.

I would like to know how you arrived at this conclusion. Evidently it has a strong influence on your position and I would think you thought this through.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Actually, we can’t state Lefebvre was “objectively” guilty of schism.

Objectively from the point of view of the Church.

 

[AlexV]

Nope. The pope does not = “the Church”, the decree of excommunication is not infallible and could be wrong. We don’t know for sure.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Nope. The pope does not = “the Church”, the decree of excommunication is not infallible and could be wrong. We don’t know for sure.

A pope determines who is in communion with him and who is not. I’m not presuming to speak for the Archbishop’s eternal destiny. If the pope says that X is not in communion with him, the Holy See, etc., then objectively, that person is not. What God thinks is another matter (which is precisely the point. We only have what the Church, ie, the legitimate authority, says to go on, the Almighty seeming to be content to remain silent).

 

[AlexV]

The pope, by himself, cannot just say someone is not in communion with him and be declared objectively right.

That person’s communion does not depend solely on the pope’s judgment.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The pope, by himself, cannot just say someone is not in communion with him and be declared objectively right.

That person’s communion does not depend solely on the pope’s judgment.

I’m not saying “objectively right,” I’m saying “objectively excommunicated.”

And I think you’ll find, if you research it, that the pope does indeed determine who is and who is not in communion with him (esp. when he’s confirmed that person to be in schism and thus NOT in communion). This is the way it’s been throughout the history of the Church.

 

[bear06]

I’m not saying “objectively right,” I’m saying “objectively excommunicated.”

And I think you’ll find, if you research it, that the pope does indeed determine who is and who is not in communion with him (esp. when he’s confirmed that person to be in schism and thus NOT in communion). This is the way it’s been throughout the history of the Church.

Also, we are to consider them excommunicated until he says they are no longer so or some future pope declares it otherwise.

And because somebody is bound to bring up Athanasius - Pope John Paul and now Pope Benedict were not under duress and we can trace the documents around this issue to their proper source. Nobody contests that fact that the Magisterium had declared that he has excommunicated himself. They can go on and on debating on whether or not the excommunications were valid but that is not their jurisdiction and the two that have held this jurisdiction have upheld the excommunication decree.
catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9511qq.asp

 

[AlexV]

The “Magisterium” also said the four bishops were schismatic. However, last week the Cardinal President in charge of these matters, the Pope’s delegate on these matters, said they’re not. Go figure.

Also, we do not know about the duress issue.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The “Magisterium” also said the four bishops were schismatic. However, last week the Cardinal President in charge of these matters, the Pope’s delegate on these matters, said they’re not. Go figure.

Also, we do not know about the duress issue.

I’m not sure, but I think Bear has pulled up documentation that has the Servant of God Pope John Paul II saying that no emergency existed, therefore no duress existed (and it didn’t. He signed an agreement in which he was largely going to be given what he wanted, but he reneged on it).

And again, you’ve a decree by a pope not rescinded by that pope or his successor and an interview granted the media by a cardinal. In the balance scale, which should be trusted by the faithful Catholic, do you think? I’ve read statements by Cardinal Kasper that are frankly alarming, but I don’t mistake them for the Magisterium.

 

[AlexV]

If Pope Liberius had said “no emergency” existed during the Arian crisis, it wouldn’t make it so.

“Servant of God” or not, the pope is not always right. A fact that is often sorely lost on these fora by some.

The Cardinal President IN CHARGE of these matters, appointed by the pope, doesn’t say things lightly about the very area he is charged to handle. Charged by the Pope.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

If Pope Liberius had said “no emergency” existed during the Arian crisis, it wouldn’t make it so.

“Servant of God” or not, the pope is not always right. A fact that is often sorely lost on these fora by some.

The Cardinal President IN CHARGE of these matters, appointed by the pope, doesn’t say things lightly about the very area he is charged to handle. Charged by the Pope.

Look, let’s clear something up. I call him “Servant of God” because of my personal devotion to him and because that’s what he deserves to be called (his cause was opened by Rome and that’s what those undergoing the process are until they’re venerable). That doesn’t mean I think he’s always right (I’m careful to call Blessed Pius IX by his proper title, though I think he was dead wrong not to give back the little Jewish boy to his parents). In this instance, it isn’t a “dogmatic” correctness I’m citing. It’s the pope’s role as Supreme Legislator. Canon law means what HE says it means (according to canon law itself) and HE said the Archbishop had excommunicated himself according to canon law.

And AGAIN, a pope trumps a cardinal. The Servant of God Pope John Paul II seemed strangely content to let Cardinal Kasper rattle about the world, but that doesn’t mean we can ignore *Domine Jesus. *And just because Cardinal Hoyos says a thing doesn’t mean that the thing is so.

 

[jmcrae]

“Servant of God” or not, the pope is not always right.

Yes, but surely he can tell the difference, whether he is pronouncing someone to be excommunicated, or not.

He can be wrong on some things, yes, but he is not a complete imbecile.