FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Pope's Preacher: Has Unitarianism Infected the Catholic Church?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(10-30-2010, 11:19 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: [ -> ]This is indeed pretty disturbing.  It's difficult to see how his statements could be reconciled with even liberal interpretations of Church teaching. 

(One glaring warning sign of a confused Catholic is one who refers to the true Church as a "denomination".)

It would be heartening indeed to see this man replaced or even censured by the supreme pontiff.  It is a fact he does not share these views.

Heretics like Cantalamessa continue to be "in communion" with Rome, happily unharmed and in positions to do much damage, whilst the SSPX is not "in perfect communion" nor exercises any "legitimate ministry."

What a circus.
(10-30-2010, 11:50 PM)Unum Sint Wrote: [ -> ]Wait I thought that this was a statement by Cantalamessa at first then I read further and the article is written by a David J. Snyder.so this is rather the account of a third party which may or may not be accurate.

I think that once again people read way too much in to things like this.

Maybe so, but this author, who is presumably familiar with Cantalamessa is pretty confused, and as we know, this isn't the first really bizarre thing Cantalamessa has said that would indicate that this is in fact his point of view, fyi:

http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9614&sid=e1f5174ac5ebf3cd887affdb0b2253ac

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/05...under.html
Okay in your examples the first, I don't know why you would have a problem with it, there have been bad Popes as well as bad Bishops (the floor of hell is paved with the skull of bad Bishops said St. Augustin) after all we are all human and flawed.

As far as your second example it seems that he is making scholastic errors.

These two do not equate with the out right heretical thought that was expressed by the author of the article, which claims Cantalamessa shares in his heresy.

The problem is that he did not say, Cantalamessa did not make those statements the fact is that a heretic who claims to know him says that he has said so, yet there is no evidence of that, at the same time everybody on this thread has posted and acted as if the very words were a quote from his very mouth. I do not think this is fair.

To accuse somebody so close to the Holy Father of outright heresy one would need more than a third person account from a heretic.
(10-31-2010, 09:48 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-30-2010, 11:19 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: [ -> ]This is indeed pretty disturbing.  It's difficult to see how his statements could be reconciled with even liberal interpretations of Church teaching. 

(One glaring warning sign of a confused Catholic is one who refers to the true Church as a "denomination".)

It would be heartening indeed to see this man replaced or even censured by the supreme pontiff.  It is a fact he does not share these views.

Heretics like Cantalamessa continue to be "in communion" with Rome, happily unharmed and in positions to do much damage, whilst the SSPX is not "in perfect communion" nor exercises any "legitimate ministry."

What a circus.

We need to wait to see what happens before judgments are made.  Nobody seems to allow for the fact that the Pope might be privy to information we're not.

Levebvre invited the excommunications with direct and intentional disobedience on a very serious matter and that is how what started started.  The pope had no choice: to have done nothing would have been to surrender to anarchy.  So, comparing that matter to something like this is difficult.

I didn't open a can of worms there, did I?
On a "very serious matter"? A matter that prior to the 50's did not warrant excommunication? Are you being serious? You should know full well the context of the situation that led Abp. Lefebvre to consecrate those bishops. It was and still is a situation of grave emergency to the Church. Lefebvre did a service to the Pope and the Church. What a saint! What an example! On the other hand, dissidents like Cantalamessa destroy her from within everyday without any one raising a finger.

But speaking of worms and serious matters, what of the countless clergy on the Pope's watch that publicly profess heresy and disobey? What about that can of worms? What about heretics like Abp. Zollitsch or Card. Kasper that continue to be to this day honourable prelates? What's done to reprimand them and punish their actions? Nothing, absolutely nothing. What a defeaning and telling silence! What a sad joke!

You're trying to justify the unjustifiable when comparing this circus to the grave injustice that was done to Abp. Lefebvre.
(10-31-2010, 11:11 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]On a "very serious matter"? A matter that prior to the 50's did not warrant excommunication? Are you being serious? You should know full well the context of the situation that led Abp. Lefebvre to consecrate those bishops. It was and still is a situation of grave emergency to the Church. Lefebvre did a service to the Pope and the Church. What a saint! What an example! On the other hand, dissidents like Cantalamessa destroy her from within everyday without any one raising a finger.

But speaking of worms and serious matters, what of the countless clergy on the Pope's watch that publicly profess heresy and disobey? What about that can of worms? What about heretics like Abp. Zollitsch or Card. Kasper that continue to be to this day honourable prelates? What's done to reprimand them and punish their actions? Nothing, absolutely nothing. What a defeaning and telling silence! What a sad joke!

You're trying to justify the unjustifiable when comparing this circus to the grave injustice that was done to Abp. Lefebvre.

I myself don't know why the heretics aren't excommunicated and wish they were.  Oh, for just one example, how I wish +Weakland were put out in 1980 so that we were spared the decades of suffering and ruin of the faith he caused.  It does indeed seem like a big circus.

I myself don't believe any saint behaved as Lefebvre did, I'm afraid.  To obey in all matters except sin is the rule of the Church.  Always has been, always must be.  Christ told Faustina to obey her superior over Him - I think He was trying to make a point.  Obedience has no meaning if one believes there's no requirement to obey a bad decision.  How do we know that Levebvre wouldn't have done more good for the Church if he'd stated in communion and worked from within?  It's all about grace.

I like the example St. Pio gave, suffering quietly and obediently the outrages the modernists imposed upon him.  Look who won in the end.

Ok, ut unum sint, I've got better links than that about Cantalamessa. I'll get to you later.
(10-31-2010, 11:26 AM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-31-2010, 11:11 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]On a "very serious matter"? A matter that prior to the 50's did not warrant excommunication? Are you being serious? You should know full well the context of the situation that led Abp. Lefebvre to consecrate those bishops. It was and still is a situation of grave emergency to the Church. Lefebvre did a service to the Pope and the Church. What a saint! What an example! On the other hand, dissidents like Cantalamessa destroy her from within everyday without any one raising a finger.

But speaking of worms and serious matters, what of the countless clergy on the Pope's watch that publicly profess heresy and disobey? What about that can of worms? What about heretics like Abp. Zollitsch or Card. Kasper that continue to be to this day honourable prelates? What's done to reprimand them and punish their actions? Nothing, absolutely nothing. What a defeaning and telling silence! What a sad joke!

You're trying to justify the unjustifiable when comparing this circus to the grave injustice that was done to Abp. Lefebvre.

I myself don't know why the heretics aren't excommunicated and wish they were.  Oh, for just one example, how I wish +Weakland were put out in 1980 so that we were spared the decades of suffering and ruin of the faith he caused.  It does indeed seem like a big circus.

I myself don't believe any saint behaved as Lefebvre did, I'm afraid.  To obey in all matters except sin is the rule of the Church.  Always has been, always must be.  Christ told Faustina to obey her superior over Him - I think He was trying to make a point.  Obedience has no meaning if one believes there's no requirement to obey a bad decision.  How do we know that Levebvre wouldn't have done more good for the Church if he'd stated in communion and worked from within?  It's all about grace.

I like the example St. Pio gave, suffering quietly and obediently the outrages the modernists imposed upon him.  Look who won in the end.

In the end? What end? For the now, the modernists have won, make no mistake about it. In the end we have faith that orthodoxy will be restored but in the meantime the modernists remain unchallenged except for the SSPX's small but open resistance.

As for Abp. Lefebvre, you show some ignorance of the situation. The good Archbishop was antagonized since the beginning of his mission and final passion. What was his sin? He trained priests according to the will and tradition of the Church, he said a mass that was not and could never be abrogated, he opposed the conciliar novelties. That was his sin in the eyes of the new Church, an unpardonable sin! Woe to him, claimed the wolves in sheep clothing! Like the cardinal visiting Ecône in the 70's said to him once: "Just say the new mass with me and everything will be fine." The Ecclesia Dei communities are a living testimony of this shameful compromise.

The whole history of the Society of St. Pius X is a history of catholics trying to remain faithful to the Church while the Roman authorities tried to shut them up and destroy them at every chance. The consecrations of 1988 were an inevitabilty given that Lefebvre accurately sensed that his death was near and that the show in Rome was still grotesque (remember Assisi in the middle 80's). Save a miracle, there was little hope for things to get better. The state of emergency couldn't be clearer. Remember Abp. Lefebvre's remarkable words to Card. Ratzinger: "the difference between you and us is that we work to christianise society while you work to de-christianise it." These words couldn't be any more accurate!

Even so, as a true son of the Church that he was, Abp. Lefebvre never stop trying to dissuade the Roman authorities from their folly. When he announced his will to consecrate a bishop, Rome trembled because they thought that the traditional movement would die along with that old french. The history of the negotiations between the SSPX and Rome clearly show that the Pope and his negotiators were stalling and buying time. In other words, they were waiting for the Archbishop to die. When Lefebvre realised the ill-faith on the part of Rome, he went away the consecrations.

Thank God for it! If it weren't for the saintly Abp. Lefebvre, there would be no Tradition alive today, nor any TLM's for you to go to.
(10-31-2010, 12:53 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: [ -> ]In the end? What end? For the now, the modernists have won, make no mistake about it. In the end we have faith that orthodoxy will be restored but in the meantime the modernists remain unchallenged except for the SSPX's small but open resistance.

I was speaking of St. Pio: in the 'end', he was canonized, and has brought countless souls to the faith and helped those within it already.


Quote:As for Abp. Lefebvre, you show some ignorance of the situation. The good Archbishop was antagonized since the beginning of his mission and final passion. What was his sin? He trained priests according to the will and tradition of the Church, he said a mass that was not and could never be abrogated, he opposed the conciliar novelties. That was his sin in the eyes of the new Church, an unpardonable sin! Woe to him, claimed the wolves in sheep clothing! Like the cardinal visiting Ecône in the 70's said to him once: "Just say the new mass with me and everything will be fine." The Ecclesia Dei communities are a living testimony of this shameful compromise.

The whole history of the Society of St. Pius X is a history of catholics trying to remain faithful to the Church while the Roman authorities tried to shut them up and destroy them at every chance. The consecrations of 1988 were an inevitabilty given that Lefebvre accurately sensed that his death was near and that the show in Rome was still grotesque (remember Assisi in the middle 80's). Save a miracle, there was little hope for things to get better. The state of emergency couldn't be clearer. Remember Abp. Lefebvre's remarkable words to Card. Ratzinger: "the difference between you and us is that we work to christianise society while you work to de-christianise it." These words couldn't be any more accurate!

Even so, as a true son of the Church that he was, Abp. Lefebvre never stop trying to dissuade the Roman authorities from their folly. When he announced his will to consecrate a bishop, Rome trembled because they thought that the traditional movement would die along with that old french. The history of the negotiations between the SSPX and Rome clearly show that the Pope and his negotiators were stalling and buying time. In other words, they were waiting for the Archbishop to die. When Lefebvre realised the ill-faith on the part of Rome, he went away the consecrations.

Thank God for it! If it weren't for the saintly Abp. Lefebvre, there would be no Tradition alive today, nor any TLM's for you to go to.

I do have *some* ignorance of the Lefebvre situation, perhaps: or, rather, I've read too much from the other side.  I can't say I know everything there is to know. 

I don't agree with your statement above that Cardinal Ratzinger was and/or is "working to de-Christianize society".  I agree, of course, that all the novelties, the abuses, the new rite itself, the tolerance of heresy (and disobedience) have had horrible consequences, and that this is either the greatest or second greatest (after Arianism) trial of the Church.

I don't think you understood what I meant by "we don't know what would have happened had Lefebvre not disobeyed".  How do we know the Holy Spirit would not have rewarded his obedience with good fruit?  We have no idea what would have become of the Tridentine Rite had things been different.  Of course, it looked bad, but my point is that God sometimes influences man and society, you know?

I don't feel entirely comfortable with my position on this.  I've been unable to come to a firm position (on Lefebvre) despite a fair amount of thought.  However, I lean toward the position that he sinned in his disobedience of legitimate Church authority.  He was not being ordered to sin and was required to obey.  It's the same question regarding going to the NO when it's all that's available: my gut tells me we must obey (the Sunday Mass obligation) even when it's not pleasant, or because it's not pleasant.  Most certainly not obeying always feel like the easy road to me - the wide one, that it.

Surely, as I said, if every clergyman decided he had to weigh the effects of every command he was given, etc., in deciding to obey or not, the notion of obedience loses meaning.  And we would never have had a worldwide hierarchical Church that withstood the test of time if so.

Maybe I'll go read that document about the necessity to disobey that the SSPX has on their site again.
(10-31-2010, 02:54 PM)The Catholic Thinker Wrote: [ -> ]I don't agree with your statement above that Cardinal Ratzinger was and/or is "working to de-Christianize society".  I agree, of course, that all the novelties, the abuses, the new rite itself, the tolerance of heresy (and disobedience) have had horrible consequences, and that this is either the greatest or second greatest (after Arianism) trial of the Church.

The new Church has in practice, if not in principle, worked to de-christianise society. You'd have to be blindly ignorant to fail to see this for what it is. The number one priority of all post-conciliar popes has been the disease of ecumenism, appeasement with the enemies of the Church, compromise with false doctrines. It's no surprise heresy runs unchecked and unabated, since heretics themselves hold high positions in the Church and no one seems to care, not even the Popes. It's surreal and saddening. For instance, did you know that Catholicism ceased being the official state religion in Spain because the bishops lobbied for it after the council? Franco, himself a devout Catholic, would have none of that nonsense! This is just one of too many examples of the de-christianisation of society.

Quote:I don't think you understood what I meant by "we don't know what would have happened had Lefebvre not disobeyed".  How do we know the Holy Spirit would not have rewarded his obedience with good fruit? We have no idea what would have become of the Tridentine Rite had things been different.  Of course, it looked bad, but my point is that God sometimes influences man and society, you know?

And some other times God gives men the graces to be strong enough to act and do the right thing in face of great physical or spiritual danger. Not all sanctity is about hierarchical obedience and irenicism, especially when that involves giving in to the Church's destruction. You can presume all you want now from the comfort of your home but Abp. Lefebvre had a monumental decision in his hands and had the strength of character to do the right thing. There was tremendous pressure around him and the easy way out would be to cave in. Thank God he didn't! Rome was waiting for him to die! How can you negotiate with people like that? It's the same as negotiating with Arius or Luther. Abp. Lefebvre's whole life reveals to us how this son of the Church was a shining example of thoughtfulness, zeal for souls, diplomatic tact and fortitude. I trust his judgement and I trust the Society's work, a work that has borne good fruits over the decades, an unmistakable sign of the Holy Ghost, as even some people in the curia have readily admitted.

Quote:Maybe I'll go read that document about the necessity to disobey that the SSPX has on their site again.

Do that.

Their north-american site is very good and has lots of insightful articles.
Pages: 1 2 3