Rorate Caeli

Sodano, stay till September!

The persistent rumors regarding the resignation of Cardinal Sodano as Secretary of State and the nomination of Cardinal Bertone as his replacement have been confirmed today. The Pope has, nevertheless, asked the current Secretary to remain in his position until September 15.

The Vatican "foreign minister" and Sodano's number two, Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, has been named to replace Cardinal Szoka (also from September 15) as president of the Pontifical Commission for the Vatican City State and chairman of the Governatorate of the Vatican City State, which means Lajolo's name will probably be included in the next consistory.

70 comments:

Janice said...

Happy days are here again!

The only thing that could make me happier is if Cardinal Kasper were sent back to Germany.

Simon-Peter said...

September 15th? Hey, that's Our Lady of Sorrows.

Just a coincidence.

Still, always looking for significance...what else do we have:

Well, the birthdate of Titus Oats.
Civil War in Beirut twixt Christians & Muslims.
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain meets Adolf Hitler to negotiate a compromise over German expansionism in Europe.
NSDAP chose the Hakenkreuz as the national flag.
RAF wins the Battle of Britain.

Then we have the apparition of September 13th 1917, but that was a Thursday:

"Continue the Rosary, my children. Say it every day that the war may end. In October Our Lord will come, as well as Our Lady of Sorrows and Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. Saint Joseph will appear with the Child Jesus to bless the world."

Hmmm.

Well, we wish a fond farwell to the good Cardinal and we will miss his love of OLoF.

Simon-Peter said...

Janice, what do have have against Cardinal Kasper? You keep mentioning him. I am very interested to hear what you have to say.

thanks.

ps I have my own axe to grind with Archbishop Fitzgerald...

Simon-Peter said...

Well, they say timing is everything!

http://www.crc-internet.org/JP1/Fatima4-12.htm

Al Trovato said...

This all means nothing. What we need is the Traditional Mass and Sacraments.

Janice said...

Hi, Simon-Peter,

I agree with you about Archbishop Fitzgerald. I wish Benedict had sent him further than Cairo.

As to Cardinal Kasper. Read his debate with Cardinal Ratzinger on the local vs. the universal Church. He misuses the historical-critical method, among other things, which puts its proper use in disrepute among certain groups and makes it harder to justify it. I believe Kasper taught at Tubingen. While he's not Hans Kung, he pretty close to it.

Second, Kasper is the wrong person as head of the Ecumenical Council. He does not understand the proper approach to ecumenism, which is not to paper over differences, but to specify exactly what one believes and then go on to discover the areas in which one can cooperate with other faiths or denominations. For instance, Patriarch Alexii II of Russia has identified issues such as homosexuality, the family, and women in the priesthood as issues that the Orthodox and Roman Catholicism can work on cooperatively without sacrificing their own essential doctrines. Kasper, on the other hand, believes in a "warm, fuzzy" approach to ecumenism, the sort of "can't we all get along" approach, where we sacrifice doctrine, tradition, etc., for an un-thought out approach that ends up meaning nothing.

Third, Kasper has no principles. Years ago, he and Benedict agreed on virtually nothing. Nowadays, he is said to be "in line" with Benedict on virtually everything. I would rather work with someone who identified their principles and stuck to them, even if I disagreed with them. Kasper is just an opportunist, who wants to keep his job and his "fame," such as it is. I don't trust him and Benedict shouldn't either.

Simon-Peter said...

Do you think BXVI does trust him? Distrust him? Keeping him on a short leash?

There's always the Diocese of Northern Alaska.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Janice said...

I hope this isn't just a projection of my own contempt for Kasper, but I would doubt that Benedict really trusts him. I know that every time Kasper had gone to Russia or dealt with any Orthodox delagation, he always issues a statement, saying that things are "great" and progress is "just around the corner." Then the Orthodox invariably reply that progress is not around the corner. In other words, Kasper doesn't give the Orthodox delegations any "wiggle room." They have constituencies, too, that they must deal with. And he invariably puts them in a tight corner by maing it seem that they are ceding everything to the Roman Pontiff (and I doubt they are). Kasper is actually MAKING IT HARDER for any reconciliation of any kind to occur between Rome and Orthodoxy by shooting off his mouth this way.

Don't get me wrong. Benedict is never going to sell the store for cheap ecumenism. But the small progress that could possibly be made is hobbled by Kasper's intemperate comments.

Sandro Magister published a column recently, calling Lajolo and Kasper Benedict's "team." I don't know about Lajolo, who is now the Governor of Vatican City (which is neither here nor there), but I would be really surprised if Benedict has forgotten all of the disputes and theological differences he has had with Kasper in the past. At least I hope not.

Janice said...

In addition, I don't know if there's a vacancy in Germany that Benedict could send Kasper to at the present. I know his five-year term is up.

JAM said...

This all means nothing. What we need is the Traditional Mass and Sacraments.

Hey tone it down - there will be absolutely no optimism tolerated here.

As for Kasper, I have not been impressed with what I've seen so far. Talk about the wrong guy to put in charge of Unity and Ecumenism ... if I remember correctly, he wants to sweep Leo XII's decision vis-a-vis Anglican Orders under the rug and re-open the question for debate; he also insists on saying that Ecumenism doesn't mean "return"; finally, he says the Old Covenant is still salvific.

Certainly problematic, unless there's some grand, overarching interpretation of Kasper that I'm missing, and that would place in comments in an orthodox light.

Janice said...

You couldn't place anything Kasper says in an orthodox light.

Simon-Peter said...

And who is going to replace Lajolo?...that sounds like some chocolatey Mexican "milk" drink, oh no, thats LaYooHoo, my mistake.

Lajolo is being moved sideways?

Petrus Radii said...

Janice, what do you have against the poor Germans, that you would want to inflict Kasper the (Un)Friendly Ghost on them again? I'm sure there is some tiny speck of an island near Antarctica which is in need of a chaplain more! Now there's an idea! Apostolic Nuntius to Antarctica. Has a sort of ring to it, don't you think?

As for Lajolo, I would say it is a face-saving demotion. Vicar for Vatican City State is an important post, since it is somewhat like chief operating officer of the Vatican. But it has not nearly the power or prestige of the Substitute "ad extra" in the Secretariate of State.

Screwtape said...

Enlighten please!

Wasn't Bertone Ratzinger's right-hand ax when he chopped Fatima Secret #3 to pieces?

Half these guys names end in "e". Very confusing, especially with my memory what it is these days.

Please advise!

I know where to send Kasper, but my Glock 9mm is in the repair shop.

Janice said...

I like the idea of sending Kasper to Northern Alaska, but the bishop there is very good and he has a difficult job.

Why not send Kasper to Cairo with Archbishop Fitzgerald?

Janice said...

Dear Samizdat,

Why is the Fatima secret such a big deal? It's not a matter of doctrine or faith? I'm asking seriously.

Simon-Peter said...

This is just by way of introduction to understand the hostility to Fatima, which is actually hostility to Mary, which, is seen as far as the east goes in their categorical rejection of Marian dogma, i.e. the truth.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a007ht.htm

Two things.

A. The consecration of Russia, by name, particularly, publicly, solemnly, by the Pope in union with all the Bishops is in the context of Russia and ALL her errors. The consecration itself is a JUDGEMENT and a CONDEMNATION by God.
B. It was made clear by the Mother of God that the third part of the secret should be revealed by 1960 at the latest because THEN it's meaning would become clear...would BECOME clear, that is, over time, it's meaning would beceome clear and clearer.
C. Russian has not been consecrated as required by Heaven, not at all.
D. The fact that the third part of the secret was not revealed is also in direct defiance of Heaven.

The Mother of God has said "Only I can help you." That is pretty exclusive, quite absolute. It is a stumbling block. This matter is part of God's will that Mary's true role in mans salvation be shown forth in no uncertain terms because whereas man has no difficulty in seeing Eve's true role on our fall, it will not see a greater than Eve restoring in Jesus what was lost. Men will not see the one-to-one correspondance in Mary because, infected by protestantism, they think that honouring Mary dishonours Jesus, forgetting that Jesus is the one from all eternity who sets the terms and conditions appropriate to honouring His Mother.

"Honour thy Father and thy Mother."

He honoured his Father from the moment of the hypostatic union, "here I am." He consumated it on the Cross. It is the will of Jesus this be done in the manner specified so as to usher in the final Marian dogma, or, put simply, so the whole truth about Mary as the second Eve will be revealed and mankind can understand that when all things will be restored in Christ it isn't a figure of speech.

The errors of Russia are not JUST limited to atheist communism, many precede it...it is these strictly theological errors that have my attention and that have been spread through all the means the soviet state and its clients and fellow travellers in the west and in the Church have had at their disposal.

There is a hostility to Mary which is demonic in inspiration. This hostility was shown forth in no uncertain terms a couple of years ago under the signature, so they say (but I hardly believe it) of the late Holy Father. In typical demonic fashion, this hostility was dressed as merely a suggestion, a proposal, for it could never be a command.

There is a gift of the Holy Spirit which few seem interested in, discerning (the) spirits.

That so many are lacking in this is evident from how many Catholics without seeming to think clearly adopted this, er, proposal, which, I assert, shows them forth as persons who have not been practising what came before with a fill appreciation of what they were doing, nor to whom they were speaking, otherwise they would have slit their own throats rather than do what was suggested.

Genesis 3:15.

Mary's Rosary has 3 mysteries, of 150 Hail Marys, correspondnig to the 150 Psalms, wherein the total is 153 Hail Mary's for the whole Rosary...and pray, what were the dates Mary appeared at Fatima? It is shocking.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the real Rosary and the fake one.

A fake one, whose real purpose is to undermine the authority of the Mother of God and break the obvious and clear link between Genesis AND the Woman Clothed With the Son AND the Rosary AND Fatima.

At worst, it invalidates every single Rosary offered, at best, one so-called cycle is unacceptable to heaven and all this, even leaving substance aside, because of the attitude of those who rushed off and couldn't wait to adopt another novelty because from the get go they never really did have a clue what and WHO the Rosary is about.

But all this is just my opinion, of course.

The counter plan is so pathetic, I still cannot believe anyone actually fell for it. How obvious does it have to be?

Of course, Janice, it has been said to my face with a mixture of anger and guilt ('cos they've been busted) that the rosary has developed over the centuries. This statement, or similar, hides more than it reveals.

Guided by Heaven over the centuries at the petitioning of the Mother of God for the salvation of her weak children and confirmed by the Mother of God as unquestionably perfect and acceptable, the latest time at Fatima, there was nothing left to add, nothing to change, nothing to be said. The change is a slap at Our Lady of Fatima. Another one.

This new Rosary bears all the marks of the enemies of Mary. Read ROSARIUM VIRGINIS MARIAE in its entirety, all of it. You'll shudder at what is actually proposed and the reasoning is so far from being authentically Catholic it makes me cold. Read it very slowly, the creation of a dichotomy is attempted between Mother and Son even as the Rosary is reduced to just one of many.

Yet another divide created almongst Catholics where one did not previously exist.

In anycase, the entire reasoning behind the letter is spurious. It is as illogical as the indulgence offered during the year of the Eucharist for those who would just spend a moment (with the correct disposition etc) with the Blessed Sacrament. They are cut from the same clothe.

What does this have to do with Fatima and the third secret?

Everything.

ThePublican said...

Simon-Peter,

I understand your frustration on the Rosary, and I understand the arguments against changing something given by Our Lady as supremely efficient in obtaining Her favor. Even if one assumes the theological correctness of the "development" of the Rosary, the mere fact that such a tradition is changed should call into question the prudential judgement of the Holy See, specially in light of the fact that what was developed was mentioned as "optional" (like the NO Mass!). I would not go as far in my criticism of the papal enciclycal Rosarium Virgine Mariae in itself (I mean its teachings outside of the changing of the prayer), but it has been a while since I last read it, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt and read it again to see your point. Note that the new mysteries echo much of what Saint Louis Marie de Montfort preached about as included in the meditations on the initial Joyous Mysteries...

However, my point was: do not absolutize the prayer itself as if it was something unchangeable and absolute in nature and necessary for salvation. It was given only to "Western" Catholics and does not exist as a devotion in the Eastern Churches that have the Akathist and other similar beautiful devotions just as dear to Our Lady. Maybe JAM can chime in on this one: did the Hail Mary itself not develop into its final iteration over time? I am asking here. I seem to recall someone making that point to me. But I repeat: I do understand your point and frustration.

Janice,

The idea of the Fatima secret is not as much the secret itself as the downplaying of the whole thing as a neutral, no big deal matter we should all forget about as anacronistic and go on. If one thinks that things have gotten so bad that only an intervention from Heaven can save us, then Fatima is the one, clear, accepted intervention where a clear cut and simple solution to the whole thing was given to end all crisis, convert most people, and give the Church much needed peace: the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Period. (As to the secret and its revelation: I am with Malachi Martin on this one -- John XXIII had the either/or choice on the matter. He chose. Now we are on the "or" option and all we can do is limit the punishment but not avoid it). So, Janice, if you had this incredible tool in your power and arsenal against the evil one, and had the power to use it and did not use it for whatever reason (and what reason can there be, given the benefits promised?) your judgment would rightly be called into question or else your faith would be called into question.

While the secret itself is not necessary for salvation, ignorance of the message and its promises is arguably causing the loss of countless souls by ommission. Hence S-P's tirade against the whole anti-Fatima establishment and people rightly questioning the prudence and judgment of those who do not think Fatima is important.

The situation reminds me of the apparitions of the Sacred Heart to Saint Margaret Mary Alacocque telling her to let king Louis XIII in France know that if he placed the Sacred Heart in the flag and dedicated France to it, France would be spared many wars, would be granted peace and be once again made great. This, one hundred years before the French Revolution. That was all that was requested of the King at the time in order to save France what came after and to make it once again the beacon of Faith and eldest daughter of the Church as it once was. Did the king do it? No. What did a simple nun know? Chuckled his advisors. Did his son do it? No. What about his grand son? No. Louis XVI practically on his way to the guillotine consecrated France to the Saced Heart (hence the flag of the Catholic resistance in La Vendée -- the only region that listened to Saint Louis Marie de Montfort, BTW). Not good enough. Too little, too late. By then there was no act of faith involved as the facts were plain for all to see. The dice had been cast.

Christ seems to always ask for a small token of faith before performing a miracle. We seem to always think that matters are more complicated than that and stupidly ignore simple favors from Heaven like the important man who, in his pride, refuses to do a simple penance for a great sin, thinking the penance is below his dignity!

In any event, we all know what happened to France... Saint Margaret Mary Alacocque, pray for us, pray for our prelates and the Pope!

Peace.

Screwtape said...

Janice:

S-P has actually answered your question, but I'll approach it from a more simplistic angle.

It is important because the Mother of God delivered it for all of us to hear.

It is important because the Church declared that it is true. We should accept all truth, no matter the source simply because it is truth. Truth is not something you feel or think or want or have opinions about, it is something found. One may deliberately ignore or reject the truth, and many do, but that way lies "the primrose path to the everlasting bonfire."

Finally, the "secret" must be important because of the ridiculous and extraordinary measures the Vatican and its leprechauns are taking to keep it hidden. They don't want it known because it would expose Vatican II and all that followed as the fraud it is.

You need to read the very large three volumes on the subject written by Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité of the Little Brothers of the Sacred Heart, "The Whole Truth About Fatima, the Secret and the Church." In it you will learn, among other things, the tergiversations of Ratzinger and why it is that the "secret's" content is pretty well knowable from a variety of sources and for variable reasons. "Secret" is really a misnomer. It is what might be called the peroration of a whole message, intended to be released incrementally according to a time table for which only Heaven knows the reason.

It took me a long time to accept Fatima, primarily because I was nearly totally ignorant of what transpired there and the subsequent occurrences involving Sister Lucy.

There are those who conflate this sort of intervention from Heaven with Divine Revelation that ended with the Apocalypse of St. John. Then they proceed to reject it on that basis, deluding only themselves.

Janice said...

Thanks Simon-Peter, Publican, and Samizdat. I'll think about all of this. What I had heard about Our Lady of Fatima always cast her in a sinister light, at least for me. It seemed so unlike her general persona. I have a problem, however, believing that Ratzinger would be less than truthful about the secret, however. For many reasons, I believe that he is a saint.

Sixtus V said...

I think portions of this conversation demonstrate a lack of understanding between public and private revelation and a very protestant attitude in placing individual subjective judgments in a position of superiority over the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium of the Church. Christ's promise was to Peter and those who follow after him in the See of Rome. That's it folks. No promise was made to any other individual or group that feels it has some sort of gnostic key to true orthodoxy or revelation.

Screwtape said...

Janice & Sixtus:

Janice, you really need to do some homework regarding the history of Ratzinger and his works. If he's a saint, I tell time by winding my turnip. He's lied so many times he can't keep track of where he's at on any given subject, especially Fatima. He KEPT Mahoney and Sodano and Kasper; he APPOINTED the nut who is now in charge of his old job and the poofter-lover who used to be bishop in my bailiwick to the Archbishopric of San Francisco. That should be sufficient to discourage a saint!

I can't see how any of the messages delivered at Fatima could be construed as "sinister," any more so than the second half of the Sermon on the Mount. Perhaps you have Medjugorje in mind?

Ah, there is more in Heaven and Earth, Sixtus, than is dreamt of in your Magisterium, ordinary or extraordinary. Actually, it was the Magisterium that declared the visions of Fatima to be true and worthy of adherence, thereby putting an imprimatur on what the Mother of God said there.

Remember the Mother of God?

Also there have been a Council or two where God has spoken through his Church to man.

To what subjective judgments do you refer? I didn't know Heaven indulged in such. Or are you suggesting Heaven has retired for the duration? If that were so, how the hell did we end up with the Rosary, or was Dominic, too, a victim of subjective judgment?

If that's it, you're more than slightly in grievous error; so much so, it is hardly worth arguing about.

Sixtus V said...

Samizdat

I think you should take a look at the First Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, session IV, July 18, 1870. "If, then, anyone shall say that it is not by institution of Christ the Lord, or by divine right, that Blessed Peter has a perpetual line of successors in the primacy over the universal Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy; let him be anathema."
Benedict (the same chap you dissed above)is the Roman Pontiff if you hadn't noticed. Perhaps you should turn your attention to public revelation.

Petrus Radii said...

My dear Sixtus V,

You seem to be of that notorious Ultramontanist ilk who erroneously believe that EVERYTHING a Pope says or does is inerrant. However, you even appear to apply that "infallibility" retroactively to the time when the Pope was only a Cardinal (in re: Third Secret of Fatima). Such a belief, however, is NOT Catholic dogma. Infallibility has specific limits, which are well described. It does not allow a Pope to call black, white (as with Fatima), nor to square the circle (as with Vatican II's errors on religious liberty). The notion that a Pope never errs at all is called "indefectibility", and it is a heresy. It is also just sheer stupidity, if some one were to believe that every thing a Pope or the Magisterium does is good, right, holy, and just.

As wrong and wrong-headed as is such papolatrous superstition, it is even more ridiculous to attempt to extend the cloak of semi-deity to the Pope's subordinates. This shows a real lack of understanding, not only of Catholic teaching, but of history and human nature.

To question a statement or action of a Pope or other ecclesiastic when it is at odds with known facts, or because it is opposed to what the Church has always traditionally taught, is NOT Protestantism. It is fidelity to the Truth.

Those who falsely claim that we may never criticise the words or actions of a Pope---or even of the rest of the "Magisterium" (rather loosely defined by such types, I must say!)---when he is wrong, do so because they have a wrong idea of obedience and truth. Such "Neo-Catholicism" (Novus Ordo conservatism) is really a crypto-Liberalism which falls into the heresy of legal positivism---one of the evil spawn of Nominalism and Modernism. Legal positivism is a very pernicious heresy because it claims that the Law is unquestionable (whether relating to doctrine or discipline) because the Lawgiver has commanded it. This is contrary to the Catholic and Natural Law teaching, which requires that a command accord with the Truth and the Good.

Things are not true because the Pope says so, but because they accord with the Truth which is God. The Pope can confirm the truth or error of certain subjects, in light of Sacred Tradition, but he cannot "make" some thing true by claiming an "infallible" expression of it---still less by others claiming it for him. The infallibility is rather the guaranty stamp of what was always believed. If the Pope teaches or does something contrary to Tradition (as did Pope John XXII), he can even be an heretic. It is then necessary to correct the Pope in error from the basis of Sacred Tradition, whose guardian and trustee the Sovereign Pontiff is supposed to be. He is not its Master, but its custodian.

Now, I am not trying to say that you are an heretic, but I do want to point out what is an error of thought which you seem to express (and not you alone). Your exaggerated notion of the authority of the Magisterium will land you in real predicaments. I am simply trying to point out the truth of such matters.

Sixtus V said...

My dear Petrus radii,

Let us stop for a moment and consider Chapter III of the First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. I will not quote the whole chapter, but will merely cite this portion:

"Hence We teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord the Roman Church possesses a sovereignty of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatsoever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world... ."

Now aside from calling my thought papalotrous (which has delightful shades of Luther - perhaps we could throw a "whore of Babylon drunk with the blood of the saints" in there somewhere), tell me by quoting a council or any dogmatic statement how individuals who do not submit to the See of Rome in matters disciplinary are not in direct contravention of an ecumenical council of the Church? I like the zest of your argument, but in the end I think it is merely a rationalization for some to do things their own way. Not a new problem by far in the Church. I look forward to your response.

Sixtus V

Screwtape said...

P-R:

Thanks for doing my work for me, even if it is in a futile cause.

We all believe the clause he sites. Sixtus V can't see that in the present context it's irrelevant.

Apparently the poor sod never heard of the Council of Trent and St. Robert Bellarmine, who wrote about the "duty" to disobey the pope when the pope goes against the Magisterium.

Nice try, but you're beating a dead horse.

Sixtus V said...

My Dear Samizdat,

I have been adressed as many things, but a poor sod is a first. I am, in fact, a poor sod and the least amongest the brethren, however you have not refuted a thing I said. Put substance behind your supposed quotes and analysis behind your conclusions, or give up. If you want to debate, then I am more then ready to defend the Truth.

Yours,

Sixtus V

Simon-Peter said...

Hey Janice,

The Church herself, in exhaustive investigation of Fatima, has declared it worthy of belief, which is why I do.

It should be front and centre given the nature of the miracle used by God to demonstrate its validity.

Not only that, the Five First Saturdays. Why is THIS not trumpeted every day from Rome? Final perseverance? Worried? Five First Saturdays. NEVER has such a promise been made in such terms to mankind. Why the relative silence in Novus Ordo parishes?

It is true Fatima is not "public revelation": but public just means closed canon, it does not mean that which is shown to lots and lots and lots of folks in the same place and at the same time is not public as we ordinarily use that term, and that is the difference: what the Church means by "public revelation" and "revelation to the public" (or single persons, or a few) are not the same thing and placing a thing in the latter class does not mean it is any less true than a thing in the former.

Now Medjugore, which stands condemned by the local ordinary and the local conference (in so far as that has standing) is Satan apeing God in no uncertain terms.

The consistent contradictory statements of the publicity-seeking "seers", not merely contradictory on their own terms, but contradicting Church teaching, the lack of clear signs of personal sanctity, the outright disobediance of them and the "franciscans" ought to be sufficient to make anyone wonder...and the simply amazing fact that no-one has ever seen "Our Lady of Medjugore['s]" feet....

think about it.

NO FEET.

This is a restrictive sign placed on Satan by God only for those who have been paying attention to the real Marian visits (and their sequential nature)to her children:

no feet.

And yet, throughout novus ordo land, statues, badges, books, medals and all manner of money-spinners abound.

Like I said, discernment of spirits.

"But, she does say things that are true."

Yes, she does.

And if this is the measure of Divine prerogative, then we all might as well fall down and worship the Angel of Light.

Supporters of Medj. never tire in propounding two proofs of authenticity, one raises questions of their sensus catholicus, one actually refutes itself or stands as an admission of ignorance.

Proof One:
"I know in my heart" \ "look at the fruit" (I laugh when I hear this one) or words to the effect.
Proof Two:
"Some of it is true" or "It is true" [when they are oblivious to the false] or words to the effect.

The Church has established criteria for determining the vaidlty of any "apparition." Fatima passes the test. If the Church has determined it worthy of belief, then, what does it mean when one refuses so to do?

Guadalupe Guard said...

Dear Janice,

Pax Christi. Please don't be infected by the traditionalist's specific "occupational hazard," uncharitableness. You are indeed more traditional than those that criticize your attribution of sancity to Pope Benedict, for you are in keeping with the traditional Catholic spirituality that exhorts us to see ourselves as the worst of sinners and to think well of others.

Those that spout-off against the present pope or the last, especially in regards to a lack of sanctity are either lacking in Catholicity or fools indeed. Though I am certain that some of the positions of the past pontiff were wrong (and I have published in scholarly journals accordingly) I would never impugn his sanctity. For John Paul, like Benedict, is a man who gave his entire life to the service of the Church: more than can be said of, I dare venture, any of his detractors on this site.

Sixtus V said...

My dear Guadalupe guard,

Thank you for injecting the most "traditional" of Christian virtues into this discussion, love of neighbor. Skimming these post makes on think that the folks at The National Catholic Reporter and some here arrive at the same point by different roads. Both claim to be Catholic, but .... .

Sixtus V

Simon-Peter said...

Please, people, people, people!

Is this pompous verbiage?

"Please don't be infected"

Is this charitable?

" "occupational hazard," uncharitableness." "

Is this not judgmental? If it is, what of it so long as it is not condemnatory.

Who is the man who is the sine qua non of what is and what is not charitable? Do you not do the very thing you decry?

Yet, do I not do something similar when I say "This hostility was shown forth in no uncertain terms a couple of years ago under the signature, so they say (but I hardly believe it) of the late Holy Father."

Thus, rather than accuse the Pope, I accuse unamed others of acting under his signature when the man was not in his right mind, because it is "safer" that way? Is it safer to accuse lay Catholics too?

Are we all using figures of speech, hyperbole, trying to make points? Are we not all, to a degree, using language in the hope it will arrest and perhaps shock? Is it the truth, or being right that concerns us? Is it the truth or being seen to be right?

As a certain Argentinian lawyer just reminded me:

Friend of Socrates, but friend of the truth more.

I assume she wasn't talking about the ex-Captain of Brasil.

Whether Pope or lay Catholic...friend: and even if not friend but sadly, enemy, pray.

For THAT, right there, ENEMY, is where the proof of one's catholic pudding hits the road :-)...

Will you spend seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks of your short temporal existence praying for those who persecute you etc, and do so not by asking that they do what you want, or do what you think is right, but just that they do whatever God's positive Will is for them?

Hmmmm.

Try this:

"If the actions of our neighbours have a hundred aspects, we ought always to consider them from the best point of view"
St. Teresa Margaret OCD.

"fools".

Not risking hell-fire are we? Or are you just spouting off and don't really mean it? I don't think you DO really mean it: you are annoyed, fine, but you don't really mean "fools".

"traditional Catholic spirituality that exhorts us to see ourselves as the worst of sinners"

Now come on, rightly understood is not traditional catholic spirituality

-- and isn't that begging the question? Is there such a thing? There is more than one, though all tending to the same end and bearing necessary common characteristics. So what DID you mean? I think I know, and I think you know I know ;-) --

that it is false humility, it is pride that where one cannot be the best of men, one can at least be the worst.

Unless, of course, you didn't actually mean "the very worst sinner that ever drew breathe" which, of course, I know you did NOT MEAN...

Define "sanctity" without looking it up.
Define "detractor" and the sin of detraction without looking it up.
Define charitable in like manner.

Is this:

"My dear Guadalupe guard,

Thank you for injecting the most "traditional" of Christian virtues into this discussion, love of neighbor."

pompous verbiage? Nooooo. No. It is mere annoyance showing forth. Annoyance and anger are NOT the same thing by a long shot...at least in my subjective world.

I would disagree in anycase, the most traditional is Love of God, who IS Charity (and humility, by the way, subsists in Charity), and after first seeking the KOG, then and only then can we expect love of neighbour to become genuine over time and NOT a self-serving parody.

"When an action is blamable, let us excuse the intention."

"Skimming" if you ARE skimming, it is possible that you are reading in, not letting what is written speak for itself, so far as we always recall:

"When an action is blamable, let us excuse the intention."
St. Teresa Margaret OCD.

Are there any of us who do this consistently? I know I don't. I know I ought to do what I do not do.

"Both claim to be Catholic"

And there we have it.

Who is NOT guilty to some degree of this thinking? It reminds me of something, something to do with Pharisees, publicans, wagging fingers and beating breasts.

Each and everyone of us has a postive obligation to bear one anothers burdens and make prayers and supplications to the Most High for one another.

As I have said before, so long as our answers to any questions not definitive and exhaustive (so far as shown to man) are in keeping with the faith and reason, then I think God the Father is more concerned with how we get to whatever the answer is, rather than the answer itself.

So, to be boring I suppose and to risk the accusation of begging three questions,

On the essentials...on the non-essentials, but in all things...

AMDG.

Simon-Peter said...

Well, then, apparently on June 22nd 2006 this happened, or did it?

"During the Mass, Kerry, who supports keeping abortion legal, received Communion in the hand from Archbishop Pietro Sambi, apostolic nuncio to the United States and Pope Benedict XVI's representative to the U.S. bishops. Archbishop Wuerl distributed Communion alongside the nuncio."

Comments?

John Kerry falls within the meaning of canon 915 however you slice it, thus: "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are forbidden by law from receiving Holy Communion."

Canon 912 says in part: "Any baptized person who is not forbidden by law may and must be admitted to Holy Commuion" and the official comment to 912 says in pertinant part "unless the existence of some impediment is evidenced in the external forum of canon 915."

Can anyone think of a presently existing impediment in the external forum vis-a-vis John Kerry and falling within the meaning of canon 915's "[obstinately persist in] manifest grave sin" clause?

Pietro Sambi is objectively guilty of the sin of sacrilege here isn't he? John Kerry is excommunicated latae sentiae isn't he? If he isn't, then he still falls within the external forum impediment clause (re cannon 912, comment therto) ["manifest grave sin"] of canon 915. He is, de minimis, a material heretic of the first water, isn't he?

Pietro Sambi either knows canon 915, or he knows basic Catholic teaching on sin, confession and the Eucharist doesn't he? He knows John Kerry, doesn't he? If yes...then what does it mean?

But if no, to either of these questions, either he is not fit to be a priest, or he is not fit to be Nuncio.

John Kerry is manifest, that is public, known. John Kerry is obstinate and persistent, isn't he? Is he not actually a formal heretic? Canon 915 which mandated a positive obligation on the Nuncio apparently does not apply to the Nuncio. Neither does it apply to any Bishop or priest present at this Mass, apparently.

I assume John Kerry said "Amen" when Jesus was put into his hand. Perhaps he also gave at least some nod of the head. I wonder if he is also guilty of idolatry (does he believe?) and bearing false witness (does he believe?). If so, then the Nuncio may share in this too.

Nine Ways.
1. By counsel.
2. By command.
3. By consent.
4. By provocation.
5. By praise or flattery.
6. By concealment.
7. By partaking.
8. By silence.
9. By defense of the ill done.

If anyone here has a direct line to the Holy Father, that is not subject to interdiction, perhaps they can ask for an investigation into this matter.

Charity to Jesus.
Charity to the Pope.
Charity to the Nuncio.
Charity to the Archibishop.
Charity to the Priests.
Charity to John Kerry.
Charity to the not scandalized.
Charity to the scandalized.

ps
According to the same reports, after the Mass, Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who is Catholic and described himself as a former altar boy, read a proclamation from Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich establishing June 22 as a day of tribute to Archbishop Wuerl.

Well, did you know, that less than one week ago, Robert J. Smith. a Gov. Robert Ehrlich appointee on the Metro Transit Authority board, was summarily dismissed because he refused to recant his public statements that sodomites are deviants saying he would not recant because "I'm a Roman Catholic."

Far be it from me to make any sort of connection between all these people in their thinking or attitudes...far be it, that would be uncharitable. After all the proclamation is probably standard procedure, as standard as "unoffical" Church approved sacrilege, sodomite coddling and the persecution of anti-sodomite / traditional Catholics.

I wonder if the Nuncio has ever heard of Jacob Parker? Naaaah.

Simon-Peter said...

Ooops, almost did a McBrien:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0603607.htm

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=20313

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15670

and at the end beginning "according to" until "Archbishop [Visualize] Wuerl[ed Peas]" should have been in quotation marks.

Petrus Radii said...

My dear Sixtus V,

You have made a very unsubstantive and non-responsive answer to my last post. To quote the well-known passage from Vatican I, completely out of context, either of the remaining document or of Sacred Tradition as a whole, in the manner of the Jehovah's Witnesses, is hardly an adequate counter-argument to the many points I made.

You should have read a little further into Denzinger and studied the Letter of the English Bishops (approved by the Holy Office), which gave an official explanation of the meaning and limits of papal infallibility. Also refer to Canon Law regarding the various levels of the Magisterium, as well as more traditional sources, like Ludwig Ott. Additionally, the reigning Sovereign Pontiff wrote, whilst yet a Cardinal, that the Pope is not the master of Tradition, able to change it at will, but its servant and protector. Applying what appears to be your rule of judgement, we must accept then-Cardinal Ratzinger's statement without question.

I did not accuse you of papolatry, but used that term as a description of the views about which I wrote. But you do seem to accept the errors and heresies I described previously, as being your own views (since you do not deny holding them). If that is the case, you are condemned out of your own mouth, and I need say nothing further.

But it is nothing more than sophistry to suggest that I am making rationalisations for disobedience. You may consult any pre-Vatican II text of moral theology, to see that I am quite correct in my statements relative to obedience. A rationalisation is, "But it doesn't feel like a sin!" A rational argument---in fact, several---is what I gave you.

If we accept your spurious norms of judgement, then we are obliged to believe falsehood is the truth, and that evil is good (such as Leo X's allowing the King of the Frogs---um, I mean, of France---to nominate bishops in his territory), simply because the Pope, or even some minor Curial official, "says so". I don't know about you, but I gave up "Simon says" games a very long time ago.

It is not a rejection of Papal primacy to reject bad decrees and doctrines, when even the Pope issues them, any more than it is a rejection of one's own father or that father's authority, to refuse to obey him when he tells his son to commit suicide.

So...stop rushing over the cliff like the other lemmings, and stop to look at where the crowd is carrying you!

Sixtus V said...

My Dear Simon-Peter,

So there are problems in the Church - tell me something new. The history of the Church is a story of problems, betrayal, and sin. It's the human condition. This is not the Geneva church of the elect. We got to our current situation because of the rot that existed in the Church before the Second Vatican Council (when it was all Trendy all the time).

Sixtus V

Sixtus V said...

My dear Petrus-radii,

Thank you for your contribution to our ongoing conversation.

I think we agree that what I quoted from Vatican I is correct. I could quote from Unam Sanctam which is more direct, but also in line with the language cited in my earlier remarks. To say that I am taking this out of context is an intersting argument, but you do not cite anything to substantiate that the language I quoted does not mean what it clearly states. Let's argue specifics. Did Paul VI have the authority, as Roman Pontiff, to issue the Novus Ordo missal for universal application in the Latin Rite (the wisdom of the whole thing is a different matter)?

Sixtus V

Simon-Peter said...

Oh, well, I know there are problems with the human elements, and then there are problemmatic human elements.

But there are problems and then there are PROBLEMS, just as there are sins venial and mortal.

If you were refering to the Nuncio, all things being equal (i.e. the killing (not murder of course) of hundreds of millions of babies across the world, him being the personal representative of the Author of Life's Vicar, the loss of belief in transubstantiation generally...) then I would class his act, that is the external forum, as something really very serious indeed.

But I am not the Pope, which IS good news for the Nuncio, because upon having him brought before me bound and gagged, and just after I told him I was going to put him on trial for heresy -- out of filial love you understand -- I'd ask him how it feels to be bound and gagged and powerless and used "unjustly" by me, the Pope, someone who is supposed to love him, the Nuncio: I'd ask him how it feels, knowing of course that he couldn't actually answer, which would serve to reinforce my point, I hope.

Upon removing the gag, I'd ask him if we now had an understanding. If yes, the trial would be over. If no...

"light the faggots Georgio!"

Sixtus V said...

My dear Simon-Peter,

First laugh I've had all day.

Sixtus V

Screwtape said...

Sixtus the Whatever:

I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Go to the library. Look up the works of St. Robert Belarmine. It's there somewere.

Or: call up Michael Matt at The Remnant and ask him about the Belarmine quote in question (your welcome, Michael).

Or: but what the hey, Petrus Radii already did for me the job you asked me to do.

I have never, do not now, and never will bother to take the time to repudiate the obvious - in spite of Orwell's admonition that things have come to such a pass that this is the responsibility of all intelligent men.

I'm 68 years old, and have done my homework. I don't carry the textbooks or articles around in my head, my mnemonic powers having somewhat let me down lately.

Last word: you may not be guilty of papolotry, but you are mistaken and mixed up regarding a very important truth: there's no shame in that (for 50 years I was an atheist), but there is shame and sin both in steadfastly adhering to what amounts to a lie. These people are material heretics beyond doubt; you are going to follow them for no other reason than that their titles give them prerogatives in special instances (only) we others do not have?

The late Malachi Martin, regarding whom I would not imply ignorance, stated categorically that during his entire pontificate, JP II never once uttered anything that was ex cathedra or de fide.



Oi Vei!

Petrus Radii said...

Friend Sixtus,

Are you sure you're not a Jehovah's Witness?! Your style of polemic and sophistry (it is NOT rational argument!) is identical to theirs: cite proof-texts ad nauseam, without responding to justified criticism in any rational way, and cite another proof-text, instead; change the subject when beaten on a topic.

Either that, or you're an Irish-American CUF-groupie. :-)~

But, seriously, you have never once responded in a substantial way to any of my arguments. Are you going to do so? and when? If I hold my breath while waiting, there will be a Requiem shortly.

You have been shown categorically to be in error, but provide nothing close to an adequate response.

I am probably more familiar with "Unam sanctam" than you are, and I can tell you certainly, that it does NOT mean what you imply it does. There is NOTHING in that Bull which suggests that absolutely anything a Roman Pontiff says or does is all good, all the time, and absolutely demanding of complete, total, servile obedience. (By the way, the servile obedience you advocate is a mortal sin! Just check the established authorities.) You will not find a single approved theological manual, anywhere in the world, which teaches what you claim about papal primacy.

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, it is your own position which is wrong, and not that of Fathers, Doctors, Popes, and approved theologians of the Catholic Church? Hmmm....Could be!

If you wish to discuss matters intelligently and rationally, fine. But proof-texts, taken out of context, do not refute right reason or traditional Catholic teaching.

In answer to your deflection onto the Nervous Disorder Mess: NO Pope has the authority (even if he has the power) to establish a new "Rite" of the Sacred Liturgy, to the exclusion of one or more of the patriarchal Liturgies. Suppressing the Apostolic Rite of Rome would be schismatic. That is why it was not done. But the Pope and his Freemasonic minions sure did a bang-up propaganda job convincing everybody that the Roman Rite is forbidden. It is theoretically possible that a Pope could introduce a new "Rite" "ad experimentum" ONLY, alongside the Catholic Rites. But he cannot impose it as an obligation to the exclusion of the received Tradition. Please do not waste my time by trying to claim that the Novus Ordo is merely a legitimate "reform" of the Roman Rite, and is therefore the same Roman Rite. Such a demented, unrealistic view---ignorant as it is of theological and liturgical principles and historical facts---would be indicative of a deep-seated psychosis requiring professional treatment. Sadly, it is all too widespread amongst so-called "conservative" and "orthodox" Catholics. Hope you're not one of them!

Petrus Radii said...

Friend Sixtus,

Are you sure you're not a Jehovah's Witness?! Your style of polemic and sophistry (it is NOT rational argument!) is identical to theirs: cite proof-texts ad nauseam, without responding to justified criticism in any rational way, and cite another proof-text, instead; change the subject when beaten on a topic.

Either that, or you're an Irish-American CUF-groupie. :-)~

But, seriously, you have never once responded in a substantial way to any of my arguments. Are you going to do so? and when? If I hold my breath while waiting, there will be a Requiem shortly.

You have been shown categorically to be in error, but provide nothing close to an adequate response.

I am probably more familiar with "Unam sanctam" than you are, and I can tell you certainly, that it does NOT mean what you imply it does. There is NOTHING in that Bull which suggests that absolutely anything a Roman Pontiff says or does is all good, all the time, and absolutely demanding of complete, total, servile obedience. (By the way, the servile obedience you advocate is a mortal sin! Just check the established authorities.) You will not find a single approved theological manual, anywhere in the world, which teaches what you claim about papal primacy.

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, it is your own position which is wrong, and not that of Fathers, Doctors, Popes, and approved theologians of the Catholic Church? Hmmm....Could be!

If you wish to discuss matters intelligently and rationally, fine. But proof-texts, taken out of context, do not refute right reason or traditional Catholic teaching.

In answer to your deflection onto the Nervous Disorder Mess: NO Pope has the authority (even if he has the power) to establish a new "Rite" of the Sacred Liturgy, to the exclusion of one or more of the patriarchal Liturgies. Suppressing the Apostolic Rite of Rome would be schismatic. That is why it was not done. But the Pope and his Freemasonic minions sure did a bang-up propaganda job convincing everybody that the Roman Rite is forbidden. It is theoretically possible that a Pope could introduce a new "Rite" "ad experimentum" ONLY, alongside the Catholic Rites. But he cannot impose it as an obligation to the exclusion of the received Tradition. Please do not waste my time by trying to claim that the Novus Ordo is merely a legitimate "reform" of the Roman Rite, and is therefore the same Roman Rite. Such a demented, unrealistic view---ignorant as it is of theological and liturgical principles and historical facts---would be indicative of a deep-seated psychosis requiring professional treatment. Sadly, it is all too widespread amongst so-called "conservative" and "orthodox" Catholics. Hope you're not one of them!

Sixtus V said...

My dear Petrus radii,

A Witness! No. A card carrying CUF member! No. A schismatic neo-protestant "traditionalist"? No. A sedevacantist awaiting with great hope the next ship destined for Mars where the real non-masonic pope is waiting with the twelth Imam? No. I'm just a Catholic, with some knowledge of the faith and capable of arguing with anyone who has a collar, crook or tie. Now to your points. You state that my argument style is mere sophistry and I'm merely quoting things out of context, okay but that doesn't refute my points. Two spaces back for you, and you don't collect 200 days of indulgence for passing GO! It is an old debating style to say that a cite does not prove the fact for which it is put forward, it relieves the challenger of having to prove a countervailing point. That being said I have established through the quotes I have put forwarded (I didn't even use the one from LG. I know to mention anything from VII sends some people into apoplexy and quick rush to the holy water bottle around these parts) that the Roman Pontiff has full and immediate juridical authority over the Church, even on things that do not concern faith and morals. So from your point of view what is the lawful authority of the current Roman Pontiff as defined by the sources (I'd like some cites to back up the assertions). I think (and I'll go ahead and give away my next argument, I'm a fair chap) that your conclusions lead to and are a product of a mindset given over to radical subjectivity ( i. e. I determine what the Fathers, Councils, Popes, ect. meant and not the bishops in union with the See of Peter).In the end, this is the problem Western civilization has faced since the Protestant Reformation. In this case instead of sola scriptura, any Catholic armed with Ott can contend that whole scale error has occured in the Church and be supported by a group of like minded individuals. Yes I think such arguments are the essence of the Reformation mindset (and the modern) making many adherents of such views Lutherans with a tast for lace.;)

regards,

Sixtus V

Petrus Radii said...

To Xystos the Unresponsive:

It is not a "debating technique" to assert that your "proof-texts" do not say what you, O less than infallible one, claim they do. You provide no witnesses from the Fathers, Doctors, Popes, or theologians, to support your assertions. While it is true that I have not gone and dug out all the sources, I did indeed---if you at all took the time to read my posts---give you references which disprove your theologically erroneous views on papal authority. You, on the other hand, merely assert a conclusion about a couple of quotes, but without proof. That is not even debate. That is a propaganda technique of advertisers and marketing moguls---in other words, sophistry. Go to the Cardinal-Bishop in Ostia; spend three turns rowing the papal galleys.

You have had two or three opportunities to refute my arguments, but you ignore all of them, and keep hollering out, "I'm right! I'm right!" Well, that may work for five-year-olds, but it doesn't work here. If you believe my argumentation (which I substantiated!) is in error, please disprove me from the traditional sources. I have already disproven your faulty thesis on all counts, but you refuse to give a counter-argument. Your "proof-texts" are not proof at all, since you apply to them an interpretation inconsistent with the official teaching of the Catholic Church. I need not demonstrate here what that teaching is, since it is freely available in the sources I quoted in a previous post.

(By the way, the gibe about "Lumen Gentium" is unnecessary. The text of it is also unnecessary, since it adds nothing new to the argument.)

I find it extremely odd that a subjectivist such as yourself would attribute such characteristics to some one else (myself), who made only objective arguments, verifiable from approved sources. You, on the other hand, have adduced no sources supporting your claims about the proof-texts you cite. Please do so, or concede that I am correct.

Your problem is that you employ a huge leap of logic (which is to say, you are quite illogical). There is no question that the Roman Pontiff has full, immediate, supreme, universal jurisdiction in teaching and discipline in the Catholic Church. That is, however, aeons away from your outlandish claim that we are bound to obey absolutely every decree of a Pope or his Curia (or however far out you drag your dead dog of a point), or be considered schismatics or worse.

As I noted before, a Pope who decrees some thing which is immoral, need not be obeyed. In fact, he ought not be obeyed! More than that, he must not be obeyed in those points which are immoral. The Pope is not above either the Natural Law or Divine Revelation. He has the power, but no authority, to introduce novel teachings into the Church (e.g., JPII's Assisi and capital punishment errors). Likewise for suppressing the received Traditions (as opposed to some customs), or trying to wipe out an entire Rite of the Sacred Liturgy (e.g., the imposition of a Protestantised and Protestantising/Judaising Novus Ordo).

If you were more familiar with Church history and theology, you would not invert the values of subjective and objective the way you do. The Catholic principle to follow is that of St. Prosper of Aquitaine: "Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus"..."That which [has been believed, or received] always, everywhere, by all." NOT what a lesser namesake of the great Sixtus V proclaims. NOT the Faith-destroying innovations which appeared at Vatican II and afterwards (but whose roots amongst the heretics, Freemasons, Communists, and Jews go back long before). NOT the servile obedience of the papal-Magisterial indefectibilists.

Not even a Pope has the right or authority to depart from the received Tradition of the Church. Likewise, it is quite untrue that every thing a Pope or other ecclesiastic says or does is automatically an authentic, indefectible expression of the Will of God or His Church.

As the Second Council of Constantinople decreed, "If any one should contemn [i.e., despise] either the Sacred or ecclesiastical Traditions, let him be anathema!" That applies not only to paupers and princes, but also to prelates and Popes.

So sorry, Sixtus! You lose the game. Report to the Royal Office of the Spanish Inquisition at dawn for the auto-da-fe: public confession of your errors, followed by burning at the stake. If you remain unrepentant, you will also first be drawn and quartered. ;-)

Sixtus V said...

My dear petrus radii,

Okay back to Vatican I (which was not dominated by Martians or Vulcans):

"If any one shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection and direction and not a full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread through the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate both over each and all the Churches, and over each and all the pastors and the faithful: let him be anathema."

Ooops wrong side of the torch for you my friend! But wait, there is more! None other then the Angelic Doctor states that the papacy is to finally decide questions of faith, so that they may be held with unshakable faith by all. S. th. 2 II I 10. So now come on and admit your a schismatic, we won't burn ya I promise. Vatican II keeps us from doing that, pity. ;)

Sixtus V

Petrus Radii said...

Tsk. Tsk. Poor, deluded Sixtus! Unable to provide a reasoned response to an intellectual argument, he resorts to accusations of "schism", not even understanding what that word means. And here I went to such great lengths to avoid accusing him of heresy, although his views are heretical. Silly me!

There is no argument about the texts you cite, sir. They are not in question. I do not deny them, but believe them fully, as a true Catholic must. But even their plain words do not possess the meaning which you, in heretical error, with gnostic epistemology, apply to them. You will not find a single jot or tittle in Vatican I, or Boniface VIII, or any other source you can think of, which demands the servile obedience and belief in papal and episcopal indefectibility, which you, dear Sixtus, attempt to impose as your new "divine revelation" on Catholics, who have NEVER in their two millenia of existence professed such patent nonsense. Nothing I have written is contrary or counter to the proof-texts you present. If it is, you have yet to demonstrate the fact. But, being unable to do so, you resort to name-calling and extremely boring repetition of the same words, over and over and over and over....


Well, you get the picture. Come back to the Catholic Faith, O Sixtus! You have long departed from it, I fear!

Sixtus V said...

My dear Petrus radii,

True or false: Prima sedes a nemine iudicatur?*1

True or false: Quamvis ordinaria jurisdictionis potestae fruantur, immediate sibi eodem Pontifice Summo impertita?*2

*1 CIC (1917)
*2 Mystici Corporis, Pius XII, PM

So if the Pope is judged by no one, how do some of your friends go about blasting the pope at every opportunity in good faith?
Second point, the bishops of SSPX are all subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, which is full and immediate - right?

Regards,

Sixtus V

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Sixtus V,

It is obvious that in understanding any magisterial statement, as the ones you have been quoting, that it is NOT CATHOLIC to presume that to fulfill them one is oblidged to reject the natural definitions of law and obedience, or to presume that by them the Church would ever demand unjust or servile obedience, or furthermore, as it seems you do, to confound the notions of infallibility in universal magisterial acts, and indefectibility in universal disciplinary acts. But as to the matters in question, which of these are universal at all.

If Vatican II imposed nothing universally, therefore nothing was protected by indefectibility or infallibility.

Of course without question we all accept Vatican I and Unam Sanctam, as I hear no one rejecting them.

As for the truthfulness of Father Ratzinger:

In a public conference in about 1988 on Scripture, he stated quite emphatically that Scripture is inerrant only in matters of faith and morals, and allowed for all other kinds of error.

Now, if a man calls the work of the Holy Spirit capable of containign lies, ....

A man is held to be trustworthy when he is worthy of trust; I am not saying that he is not worthy of trust, but that the evidence of his long rejection of traditional Catholic theological terms, positions, etc., from the moment he wrote the first version of his licential thesis (rejected for being quasi heretical) to his statements on Tradition in April-May of this year, wherein he counfounded it with Apostolic Sucession, don't bode well in my book. I conclude he is at least stupid, though I do not presume he is a liar, even though he is the Sucessor of St. Peter.

Sixtus V said...

My dear brother Bugnolo,

You stated, "If Vatican II imposed nothing universally, therefore nothing was protected by indefectibility or infallibility."

You state, "Of course without question we all accept Vatican I and Unam Sanctam, as I hear no one rejecting them."

Then by your own reasoning you must be obedient to, if not in agreement with, the lawfully promulgated documents of the Second Vatican Council and the lawful liturgical directives implemented by Paul VI.

Sixtus V

Simon-Peter said...

2 Articles, and one neat picture I found, thought it went with the content.

http://simon-peter-says.blogspot.com/

Petrus Radii said...

Poor Sixtus! If only he had studied the rules of logic more carefully! A good dictionary would have helped, too, since he doesn't seem to understand the difference between criticism and judgement, nor between judging actions and judging persons.

As the Angelic Doctor says, "Error parvulus in principiis fit error magnus in finis."

Sixtus' errors are so great, that he actually ends up in an heretical ecclesiology, opposed not only to Divine Revelation, but even to the Natural Law.

And, dear friend Sixtus, before you go back to your incessant and outrageously dull "proof-texting", the problem here is not what is said in the texts you cite, since they are all well understood by most, and have undergone many authoritative explanations by established authorities. The problem is in reality the false interpretation which you give to the texts you cite. Your personal word alone, as to what their "true" meaning is, is woefully insufficient, and completely unacceptable. You have yet to provide established, traditional authorities who support your heretical interpretations.

Since others and I have provided you with plenty of counter-evidence, more than sufficient to prove our points, the burden is on you to disprove us. Quite obviously, you cannot. Moreover, you seem stubbornly unwilling even to try. So outrageous is your position, that you honestly seem to expect a Catholic to obey immoral commands, or believe error, simply because a Pope or Council or other ecclesiastic "commands" it. That is the essence of legal positivism, and itself another heresy. You subject the One, True Religion to the whims of men in error, instead of recognising the truth that those protected by infallibility can still err in many circumstances with regard to both teaching and discipline. Your argument, such as it is, is intensely circular, and a proof of nothing more than your inability to provide a cogent and coherent syllogism.

I would never presume to judge the Sovereign Pontiff. However, I judge that, based upon the evidence presented, you have completely and irrevocably lost this argument. No amount of further discussion will be fruitful, so long as you remain hard-necked in your heretical falsehoods and sophistry. I encourage you to learn the basic principles of both logic and theology. Until then, the discussion is closed by sheer fact of your unwillingness to engage in fruitful argumentation. You have lost, and should now admit it to yourself. We commend your soul to God, but find no useful purpose in continuing the matter with an opponent who is unhearing, unresponsive, and unreasoning.

Sixtus V said...

My dear Petrus radii,

Let's get this straight and I'll break it down in the fashion of symbolic logic (will skip all of that a,b = c stuff, though):

1. I provide an authoritative text in support of a proposition;
2. You state that the proposition doesn't mean that (on the force of your own assertion);
3. I provide more authoritative texts (sourced, by the way);
4. You counter that the texts do not mean what I say they mean (without any support, except your natural and undoubted authority);
5. Repeat a couple of times; and,
6. You declare yourself the victor and conclude the debate on the assertion I could not support my authoritative texts.

Hmmmm. I like your moxey in declaring yourself the winner and cutting and running, but you're not a jedi yet my young padawan.

Sixtus V

Petrus Radii said...

Sixtus,

Such mischaracterisation is really unforgiveable. If you reverse the placement of personal pronouns in your last post, it will more accurately reflect the truth.

In point of fact, I did indeed provide several proofs of my position from several types of accepted authorities. When I did not, it was because the argument was based on well-known (except to you, it seems!) philosophical and theological principles. Others also provided citations and arguments.

On the other hand, you have cited a few documents, all of which say basically the same thing. Nothing wrong with that. The problem---and I'll type this v e r y s l o w l y for your benefit---is, to repeat ("Repetitio mater studiorum."), with your interpretation. The plain text of your citations is not in dispute. But you insist on giving them a meaning adversarial to both the plain meaning of the texts, and to the received and accepted meaning applied by the Magisterium and approved theologians. When I ask you to substantiate your position, you merely requote the same stuff. No defence of your egregious, irrational nonsense is provided by you. No examples of other approved authorities interpreting the texts as you do, whereas I long ago gave Magisterial references which concur with my position. Does that make sense, yet? Have we cleared the fog from your brain (he said, almost hopelessly)?

You are quite wrong to think that I am "cutting and running". I am merely acknowledging the unpleasant fact that I am trying to hold a discussion with a demagogue. For you, it matters not what the facts are; only that you are "right". It matters not to you that your position is absolutely contrary to reason and the Natural Law, as well as to Revealed Truth. I have made several efforts to provide reasoned argumentation, to none of which have you responded. The definition of insanity is "to repeat the same action over and over, expecting to get different results." I choose not to enter the asylum. You are welcome to enter, if you so wish.

And please do me a favour! Since you refuse to respond in any substantial manner to my criticisms, please at least mortify your pride, and refrain from trying to have the last word through some snide remark. I find this very tiresome, and I do not care to waste my time with the continued sophistry and demagoguery.

Sixtus V said...

My dear Petrus-radii,

I'm not trying to win a debate, but in all charity guide you back to where you belong (it is the vigil of Sts. Peter and Paul after all.) To expedite our discussion I have set out below all of the sources you quoted in our discussion:


1. You should have read a little further into Denzinger and studied the Letter of the English Bishops (approved by the Holy Office), which gave an official explanation of the meaning and limits of papal infallibility. Also refer to Canon Law regarding the various levels of the Magisterium, as well as more traditional sources, like Ludwig Ott. Additionally, the reigning Sovereign Pontiff wrote, whilst yet a Cardinal, that the Pope is not the master of Tradition, able to change it at will, but its servant and protector. Applying what appears to be your rule of judgement, we must accept then-Cardinal Ratzinger's statement without question;

2. As the Second Council of Constantinople decreed, "If any one should contemn [i.e., despise] either the Sacred or ecclesiastical Traditions, let him be anathema!" That applies not only to paupers and princes, but also to prelates and Popes;

3.The Catholic principle to follow is that of St. Prosper of Aquitaine: "Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus"..."That which [has been believed, or received] always, everywhere, by all; and,

4.As the Angelic Doctor says, "Error parvulus in principiis fit error magnus in finis."

I think, if you'll indulge me, that you have hardly refuted my interpretation of the texts that we both agree are authoritative. I feel for you on an intellectual level, you are in an untenable situation. You must twist Catholcism to justify the ideology you subscribe to. It is similar in a sad way to my discussions with Modernists. The same twisting and rationalization goes on there. Everyone (you and the modernists) has the Truth, except the poor bishops united to the See of Rome. Ah well...

Sixtus V

Petrus Radii said...

Dear deadly dull Sixtus,

Your non-responsive answers are really quite a bore. If you don't do much better, I'll soon begin to snore.

If you believe my sources (which you listed incompletely, since you ignored the mention of the moral teaching on obedience and the rules of logic, etc.) are somehow inadequate to proving my point, please demonstrate how that is the case. Show either the explicit way in which the citations are insufficient, or show how I misuse them. Your assertion of the conclusion is inadequate. Even if you---God forbid!---were the Pope, your bald assertion of a position would not make it so. Please provide PROOF! But since the English Bishops long ago destroyed your position, you try to ignore them. THAT is hardly a tolerable intellectual niveau.

I am neither twisting nor rationalising any teaching of the Catholic Church. If I am, please demonstrate how that is the case. Be explicit! Provide detailed analysis! You needn't guide me anywhere, since I have never left the bosom of the One, Holy, Roman, Apostolic, and Catholic Church. You have been provided quite a number of established sources who hold the same position as I do, and who are approved by the Catholic Church. You, on the other hand, have produced not a single one to defend your own uncatholic interpretation of Vatican I and the other sources you cite.

Since you are quite blatantly unable to defend your position, as requested, you resort to addressing me personally, instead of the arguments. Either put up, or shut up. Provide the requested proofs of the "truth" of your heretical interpretation of the Magisterium in this matter, or submit your intellect and will to the Truth of the Catholic Church which others are attempting to present you.

If you were indeed able to present a real defence of your faulty position, you would be able to convert me to your view, perhaps. But you present no defence. Instead, you simply repeat, "Petrus Radii is wrong." You must demonstrate clearly, from a variety of types of theological sources, that my proofs and arguments are wrong, and you must provide similar proofs and arguments from a variety of theological sources of the "truth" of your own position, or you must necessarily concede the argument, if you are an honest man.

If you are unwilling to do this, please cease posting on this topic, as continuing the current inanity is an uncharitable abuse of my time and patience. I have been repeatedly crystal clear in my positions, providing adequate theological proof, according to the usual norms. You have provided NONE. You have cited "proof-texts" which say absolutely NOTHING about your faulty position, to which you have applied an egregious and uncatholic interpretation, contrary to the interpretation of the Magisterium. But you have produce absolutely NO theological support for your false interpretation. Why not? Why do you ignore the proofs against your position? Why do you provide none in favour of your own? Could it be that you are, quite possibly, WRONG?! Yes, horrible as the thought may be, you may indeed be wrong! So either provide the long-requested theological substantiation of your interpretation of the Magisterium, or have the humility---difficult as that is!---to admit your fault and return to the Catholic teaching on these matters. If you are unwilling to do either of these things, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. Our Lord already indicated in the Holy Gospel how to treat those in error. I have done my part. Dixi, et salvavi animam meam. The rest is up to you.

Sixtus V said...

My dear Petrus-radii,

You sound upset, if you really believe you should be patient - unless you find this discussion disturbing? I don't, so let's continue. Let's consider this from Unam Sanctam:

"Declaratio quod subesse Romano Pontifici est omni humanae creaturae de necessitate salutis" (It is here stated that for salvation it is necessary that every human creature be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff).

Or this quote from the Fifth Ecumenical Council of the Lateran, in 1516:

"De necessitate esse salutis omnes Christi fideles Romano Pontifici subesse" (That it is of the necessity of salvation for all Christ's faithful to be subject to the Roman pontiff).

So we have "authority" and "subject" as terms used in two statement I'm sure you recognize. Yet you and your friends deny both authority and being sunjects to the Roamn Pontiff. This was admirably demonstrated by the the late French missionary bishop who conscecrated four men in contravention of the clear direction of the Holy Father. Yes, yes I know he was responding to some higher gnostic law known only to him and the faithful remainder of the true church. Never-the -less why don't you tell me what the terms "authority" and "subject" to mean to you personally?

Regards,

Sixtus V

Petrus Radii said...

Actually, Sixtus, I don't have any thing to explain, since I have been quite clear. The saintly Archbishop Lefebvre is not at issue here, so please stop with your typical diversionary tactics. I accept the standard definitions of "subject" and "authority" employed by the traditional Catholic moral theologians, prior to Vatican II. There may be some good ones since then, but I haven't found any, except, perhaps, for Fr. John Hardon.

You, on the other hand, apparently do not know what the terms mean, since you are obviously and erroneously interpreting the passages you quote to mean, "All Catholics everywhere are bound under pain of mortal sin and the delict of schism to do whatever-the-heck the Pope tells them to, even if it is to axe-murder their mothers or drink goat's blood at the altar, because absolutely everything the Pope thinks, says, and does is always absolutely morally good and necessary for salvation; not only that, but they had better do whatever in the world the Cardinals, bishops, and priests tell them, too!" I really find that meaning hard to draw from the texts you cite. Not one of them says that Catholics must do whatever the Pope or a bishop says, even when the command is morally wrong. Nor do your citations say that Catholics must submit to teachings of Popes or bishops which are contrary to Divine Revelation or right reason. If you can prove that they do say that, you will have proven your point, but not until. Pigs will fly first!

Sixtus V said...

My dear Petrus-radii,

Let's first dispense with your hyperbole, if the Pope told me to kill my mother I would, of course, decline his ill considered request. Not really the issue here. The issue is as you stated it very well,

"Nor do your citations say that Catholics must submit to teachings of Popes or bishops which are contrary to Divine Revelation or right reason."

Well, if Father Curran hasn't entered the virtual room! The exact same argument is made against Humanae Vitae. As a matter of fact old Charlie, like you and others, maintain that they are orthodox in their beliefs, but reject a teaching that is contrary to Catholic tradition and the sense of the faithful. Maybe you reject HV also, generally this is the course schisms beging to run after a bit. But both you and Charlie are arguing for the triumph of your subjective theological interpretation over the collective judgment of the bishops in union with the See of Peter.

The final endpoint of schism, is a complete rejection of even the most fundemental truths. Over at True Restoration, some young layman (with the advice of SSPX priests according to the blog) is calling for no one to attend indult masses or NO masses at all as part of their obligation for the Sunday or Holy Days. Just for one moment consider he is calling on people to break a commandment. No SSPXers in your town, stay home from Church! Madness and heresy. I'm not saying you go that far, but this is where your train is heading.
As far Lefebvre, I can't judge him. But, Augustine said the worse sin is to set up altar against altar.

Regards,

Sixtus V

Br. Alexis Bugnolo said...

Sixtus,

It really seems that you refuse to make distinctions.

St. Alphonsus, all of whose writtings were judged by the Holy Office of the Inquisition to be free from error, prior to the opening of his cause of canonization, said, and I quote:

"Who can be ignorant that the Pope can be obnoxious by his errors?"

When your other interlocutors here speak of similar things, to which you take objection, you seem to think they are speaking of Magisterial acts of the Roman Pontiff, which, when made in reference to faith and morals and impose teachings upon all the faithful, are protected by the charism of infalliblity from being subject to error; but you fail to recognize that they are not speaking of magisterial acts, because in all other circumstances the Pope is presumed to be speaking either in conformity with the perenially Faith or as a private theologian or as pastor or head of state, in none of which capcities, except the first, is guaranteed in any way of being free from error.

So you objection that they are errant, heretical or schismatics, is false, for you have falsely presumed another context of what they said.

Therefore, if you wish to continue this conversation, have the Christian charity to publically apologize, as a token of your good will, and a sign you want to speak the truth.

Simon-Peter said...

I hate to bring this up, but when I was in my salad days, but green in judgment, a couple of years ago, my friend and fellow worker in the US Army, First Sgt. Paul, resisted me respectfully to my face.

He was right so to do, not because of his authority, not because of his position, not because of his greater experience in matters military (though all that got my attention), but because I was in serious error and teaching same to all the newbies at a private class I organized in my off duty time to which they were "encouraged" to attend (if they wanted to get ahead).

Only someone who is lying, blind, or mad would deny that the history of the Church, in fact, the history of God's dealing with Israel, is replete with bad kings, highpriests, bishops, Popes etc. doing and ordering things which were either evil in themselves or to some degree utterly stupid or imprudent. So, then, they sound just like me, with one slight difference...

Petrus Radii said...

Dear, misguided Sixtus!

Unable to defend your position, you launch into another judgemental attack against my person, rather than criticising my arguments. You have completely misunderstood and mischaracterised my statement, which you quoted in your last post. Charlie Curran has nothing to do with the matter, either, except as an effort on your part to suggest guilt by association.

My criticism in the quote was not of the Magisterium, but of you, O highly erroneous one. It is now abundantly clear to all readers of good will that you have no intention of responding to my requests that you justify your faulty interpretation of your proof-texts from established theological sources. And that is for the simple reason that you cannot! It is impossible to prove the existence of some thing which does not exist. So, since your false interpretation of papal primacy and infallibility are not Catholic, you are quite evidently unable to produce Catholic sources to support your bizarre and heretical notions about said primacy and infallibility.

It is also quite clear that you have no intention of even trying to do what is here required to "prove" your position. You would much rather attack your opponents on a personal level. Sorry, but I'm very nearly certain that we have had this exchange before, on another web-site, with similar results. I do not have any more time to waste with some one who is more interested in being "right", than in finding the Truth. Blah-blah-blog as much as you like. I am leaving town and heading to Michigan to see my family for the first time in three years. It will be a much more pleasant experience, by comparison, I am sure.

ThePublican said...

Perhaps this will help some -- Br. Bugnolo said it best -- I think the distinction that is being made here is one between the person of the Pope and the office of the Pope. These can at times be in direct contradiction with each other. It is said that a saintly mystic once was brought before Alexander VI, that infamous example of personal fallibility in a pope, and that she went into a 20 minute tirade against his morals, to his face and while levitating, which the pope had the humility to accept as true and not to suppress the mystic. Just an illustration that may help to show what petrus-radii and Br. Bugnolo are trying to convey here. The office of the papacy is protected, not so the person of the pope.

Having said this, I understand Sixtus' suspicions (hey! "blessed be the peacemakers"[the politicians?:)]) for many have abused of this distinction to parse each phrase in order to see how much or how little they must comply with Rome. Sure, this is not a healthy attitude in general, but daily evidence seems to make it more and more prudentially necessary, as those in authority demand the absolute obedience they themselves do not give to their superiors.

Sixtus V said...

A voice of reason has entered the virtual room! Welcome thepublican! The point I have been trying to make is not that any individual pope's judgment on an issue (appointment of bishops, selection of nuncios, elevation of cardinals) is free from defect or error, but it is deserving of assent if the Church is to preserve both Her Divine monarchical structure and Her ability to function as a polity. In fact everything I cited above indicates that assent is owed to the teachings of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra. Instead what we have is SSPXers who wish to parse out an assent for dogmatic propositions and preserve their ability to disobey the lawful directives of the Roman Pontiff (because they do not fit into their particular subjective understanding of scripture and tradition). The end product is SSPXers who hold their judgment on issues to be superior to the Pope and cry out non serviam in the name of their own subjectivity. Now tell me Petrus-radii or Brother how this differs from Fathers Curran and McBrien who make the same sort of argument in a different context.To me, frankly, it appears the most mind boggling aspect of the entire movement.

Petrus-radii I've never argued with you in the past, this is my first venture into your world and frankly I'm disappointed in what I have found. I thought I would find Catholics who felt let down by the Modernist reign of terror that transpired in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, natural allies in the cause of restoration of the sacred. Nope, didn't find it. Looking through the blogs and postings here has shown me a deep ingrained spirit of schism buttresed by radical subjectivity dressed up as objective truth.

Incidentally, Petrus-radii I hope you have a safe and pleasant trip to visit your family.

Sixtus V

Petrus Radii said...

Dear Sixtus,

Thank you for your well-wishes. However, I would like to point out that you are inclined to rash judgement, as well. I, for one, am not an adherent of the SSPX, nor have I made any thing of their situation an aspect of my argument with you. It is also incorrect to characterise them, or others of similar opinion, as "schismatic". I refer you to the recent clarification sent to all the presidents of episcopal conferences, which is quite blunt on this point, and which I believe appeared recently on Rorate Caeli.

The reason you are disappointed (at least, in this topic) is that you are beginning from false principles. Based on nothing save your own personal judgement, you extend the scope of the Church's teaching on infallibility and papal primacy far beyond any thing she herself has proposed to the Faithful for belief. You have been given references from both the Magisterium and Catholic theology which prove this. It is only natural that Catholics who know the actual teaching of the Church would resist you, and forcefully so. You are perfectly free to substantiate your position, but you have yet to provide a single text in support of your erroneous interpretation of Vatican I, et al. The Church says the texts mean one thing, and you say they mean another. Now, who do you suppose is right? So long as you continue to insist on your own opinion, in opposition to the true teaching of the Catholic Church, disappointment is the very least of what you will experience.

I've given you clear guidelines on how to prove your case. So far, you have refused to do so, preferring rather to launch personal attacks against your opponents.

And I still believe we have tangled before, but in the fora of a Catholic singles web-site, not in a blog. The style of argumentation, and even certain specific statements are too similar. "Agere sequitur esse." I'd be very surprised if there were two so similar people in the world. But I'm open to new possibilities! ;-)

ThePublican said...

Sixtus,

Thanks for the compliment on the voice of reason. I am glad a certain amount of agreement was found.

Stripping most of P-R and your posts of the rethorical hyperbolae and premature classifications of oponents into camps holding onto one horrible "ism" or another, what we are left with is that both of you agree that not all words uttered by a pope (not only appointments) are coated with infallibility, but you disagree (or appear to disagree) as to the correct attitude towards those words and actions not protected by infallibility.

You find that Traditionalists use that as a loophole to select what to obey or not. If that is what you say, I can explain. If what you mean is that they use that loophole to decide "what to belive or not", as Protestants and other heretics, including a Mr. Curran, would do, I and all traditionalists would disagree. Right there is the answer to your question as to how P-R and other Traditionalists are different from Curran and company: Traditionalists assent to the whole deposit of Faith, Curran, the Protestants and other heretics do not. What Traditionalilsts don't assent to is certain "orientations" (to use a Paul VI word) that have seemingly nothing to do with the deposit of Faith. That takes us back to obedience, where I said I could explain.

Taking SSPX as the example here, at no time has Rome said to them "you are out because you don't believe in such or such doctrine". Rather, the complaint seems to be that you must assent to our [Rome] undefined and still unfound [by our own admission!] interpretation of V-II, which by our own admission and statements, had nothing infallible in it, as it was fully pastoral. A reasonable man could, rather, would object to this compliance order as it suffers from vagueness and therefore it cannot possibly be judged as being properly carried out at any time. Rather, it readily lends itself to the subjective tyrannical whims of any legitimate superior and becomes a tool of oppression or suppression. In short, it would supplant well defined doctrine with personal preference.

You stated that the Church is Monarchical, and we all agree. Yet you attributed a type of obedience for the survival of Monarchy that would not but be the flattery that destroys Monarchy and turns it into tyranny. To ask people to follow personal orientations is not monarchical in nature but tyrannical, Aristotle's definition of the corruption of monarchy. A monarch rules for the Common Good and is circumscribed by the divine and natural [and to the extent valid, positive] law and not the reverse. His position as monarch acts as a limit, not the opposite.

Let me illustrate the point a bit more:

As Br. Bugnolo said above, I do not think anyone questions those acts, statments, etc. where the Pope is presumed to be speaking or acting in conformity with the Faith. If valid, the objection against most Traditionalists would have to be circumscribed to the other instances: where we see a matter of personal opinion, preference or what-have-you that does not agree with the Faith as defined by the Church (i.e. death penalty should be abolished). You must agree that there are the times when such personal statements or acts seem, to be charitable, to contradict well defined past teachings (the death penalty example illustrates that). It is natural to ask the pontiff for a clarification of meaning in those instances, lest the faithful become confused and loose the Faith and, worst still, come to think of the Faith as something changeable.

I understand your frustration with what could be deemed Pharisaical parsing of the law to see how its adherence may be avoided, but I don't think that such is the position of P-R or at least most Traditionalists, or for that matter SSPXers. All they want is to be able to adore God the way the Church taught as the proper way for centuries. Here one must remember that the faithful are the ones who have the rights to the deposit of Faith (that is, the Way [Church/Christ], the Truth [Doctrine], and the Life [Sacraments]). The hierarchy is the custodian of these, not the owners. Thus, when discussing these matters, the rights of the Faithful must be remembered first -- the ultimate objective here is the salvation of souls! Now, think about Traditionalist's statements in this context, yet again: The Church [the Way] seemingly becomes more Protestant (that is,like what before were considered its enemies who jumped ship), thereby obscuring its nature as the Way; the Doctrine is no longer taught or taught ambiguously (thereby, the prudent man goes to the last point on the road where certainty was found); and the Sacraments (the Life) are still there but in cases all but stripped of their meaning: baptismal formula lacks exorcisms and other effective prayers, confession is no longer called that and the nature of sin is debated and its graveness minimized, communion is debased by the way it is given in the hand [I need not speak of the NO Mass], by the fact that it is given to non-Catholics and to public sinners; Holy Orders are also debased ... you get the picture. Most of these things happened due to those "prudential" judgments that may and indeed should be questioned. It is in THAT context that you encounter thinking people objecting (not disobeying) to the hierarchy's at times usurpation of their legitimate rights as faithful.

I think, in the end, the issue is: the law must be just and rational in order for it to be a law at all. Once that is the case, I think you have a point in asking for the proper assent to the laws.

I hope this helps.

Simon-Peter said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Matt said...

Publican:

I think the accusation is that some who consider themselves traditional deny, by their actions, if not words, that the reigning Pope is the Supreme Pontiff, and that those who are not "subject" to his authority are doomed.

This is not entirely unfounded.

Screwtape said...

Just two brief items:

Hyperbole, if not over used, is a dandy rhetorical device.

To learn how Satan works, Janice, I recommend two texts: "The Screwtape Letters" by C.S. Lewis (written at once on a simple level and a very sophisticated one) and "Hostage to the Devil" by the late Malachi Martin. Satan does not "do good", but he must hide behind it in such a way as to lend the impression he is doing good.

Hamlet's "I'll have proof more relative than this" is a very well-taken expression and an action to be emulated at all cost.

Sixtus V said...

My Dear thepublican and Petrus-radii,

Thank you thepublican for your analysis, I look forward to exploring it with you over the next several days if you are amenable. Petrus-radii, I have never visited a Catholic singles site (my state of life, and happiness in such, preclude such action). I am, however, amused that I have a "twin" out there patroling the virtual highway for the lost sheep (I have my work cut out for me with True Restoration, but Stephen has kindly decided to engage me here).

Sixtus V

ThePublican said...

Sixtus,

Whenever. I believe my profile has my e-mail address.

Matt, I hear ya -- I do think, though, that such people are a small minority, although the temptation is there. But, it takes two to tango. The other side is much to blame for pushing otherwise decent people into such corners, and not precisely using the most charitable to tactics.