Dan Rather Interviews Bishop Fellay
#21
Such is the nature of schism.

Now if the SSPX stayed in the Church and were the conservative and "right-thinking" wing, then you would have a point.

I have not seen this program, nor do I care to if I have to pay 2 bucks. However, it sounds to me like what a casual observer, no dog in the fight, would come away with after viewing such a program is that the Catholic Church, the Church established by Jesus Christ, is not capable of ministering to the ultra liberal or ultra conservative Catholics.

(12-09-2010, 12:59 AM)Servus_Maria Wrote:
(12-09-2010, 12:53 AM)A Catholic Thinker Wrote:
(12-08-2010, 11:35 AM)cgraye Wrote: Wow, Dan Rather?  That's some mainstream attention.  For reason, I don't think that's a good thing...

It's just unbelievable how completely incompetent the mainstream media is in any discussion of the Church whatsoever.  The SSPX "was excommunicated in the 1980's for being too conservative in their practices after Vatican II" - what?! 

They cannot understand any issue on any scale other than "liberal->conservative" when in fact Church issues are not on that scale at all.

The cluelessness, with all the time they obviously spend thinking about the Church, is truly stunning.

(Actually though it turns out JP2 was mostly fighting the modernists and other heretics.  Gee, even Malachi Martin taught that.  Even if he may have made bad practical decisions and given in too easily he was never one of them.)

I read the transcript and was annoyed they portrayed the SSPX and breakaway old women as both different ends of the same spectrum. One was excommunicated for consecrating bishops and the other for open heresy. One uses a valid form of the Roman Rite while one doesn't even use the Novus Ordo but have instead made up their own liturgy. The two can't be compared at all. SSPX is much closer to "mainstream Catholicism" than those womynpriest breakaway parish types.

Reply
#22
As someone else said, you are either Catholic or you are not...Giving them "Conservative" labels will just welcome bashing by the secular press. Most modernist catholics today are heretics(with or without knowing it), so it is better to call them a heretic instead of using Neocon, Marxist, liberal, or progressive!
Reply
#23
Saw this excerpt on another forum:
Quote:AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE SSPX STORY IS HOW CONTROVERSIAL THEY ARE, AND NOT ONLY WITHIN THE CHURCH. THE SAME DAY THAT POPE BENEDICT REINSTATED THE SSPX BISHOPS; AN INTERVIEW CAME OUT WITH ONE OF THEM DENYING THE HOLOCAUST. HERE HE TALKED TO SWEDISH TELEVISION. "I THINK THE MOST SERIOUS CONCLUDE THAT BETWEEN 200,000 - 300,000 JEWS PERISHED IN NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMPS, BUT NOT ONE OF THEM BY GASSING IN THE GAS CHAMBER." 

THE JEWISH COMMUNITY, AND OTHERS, EXPLODED WITH ANGER. IT WAS A PUBLIC RELATIONS NIGHTMARE FOR THE VATICAN AND ALL THE PROGRESS MADE BY BENEDICT'S PREDECESSOR, JOHN PAUL THE SECOND, ON HEALING JEWISH-CATHOLIC RELATIONS, SEEMED IN DANGER OF BEING LOST. 

BISHOP FELLAY UNEQUIVOCALLY CONDEMNED HIS COLLEAGUE'S REMARKS, AND THIS CRISIS EVENTUALLY PASSED.  "BUT SSPX NOW HAD AN ANTI-SEMITIC REPUTATION. THAT IS WHY IT IS SO RARE TO GET THE KIND OF ACCESS WE GOT. THE SOCIETY IS UNDERSTANDABLY NERVOUS ABOUT HOW IT'S PORTRAYED IN THE PRESS. WE ARE NOT ANTI-JEWISH. JESUS IS A JEW, THE VIRGIN MARY IS A JEW, THE APOSTLES, THEY ARE JEWS. SO OUR RELIGION CAME FROM THERE. WE CANNOT BE ANTI-JEWISH AS A PEOPLE." AND HE SAYS THAT MUCH OF THE OLD CHURCH'S REPUTATION FOR ANTI-SEMITISM IS MISPLACED, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE INQUISITION WHERE MANY SPANISH JEWS WERE PUT TO DEATH. FELLAY SAYS THE VIOLENCE WAS DONE BY THE SPANISH MONARCHS, NOT THE CHURCH. AND HE SAYS THE TARGET WAS THOSE WHO HAD NOT PROPERLY CONVERTED TO CATHOLICISM. "THE INQUISITION WAS NOT AGAINST THE JEWS. THERE I PROTEST. IT WAS MUCH MORE A PROTECTION, TO THE JEWS OR TO THOSE WHO HAD CONVERT TO CATHOLICISM AND THEN LAPSED. SO FALSE CONVERSION, BUT IT WAS NOT AGAINST THE JEWS. WHEN YOU LOOK VERY CLOSELY TO THE TEXT, YOU WILL SEE THAT THE INQUISITION IS NOT SO BAD AS IT IS PRESENTED TODAY." 
Reply
#24
(12-09-2010, 09:16 AM)Adam Wayne Wrote: Such is the nature of schism. 

No. You obviously don't have a clue what schism is. 

Quote: Now if the SSPX stayed in the Church and were the conservative and "right-thinking" wing, then you would have a point.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.  Here's what happened:

Two negligent and arguably corrupt Popes refused to defend the Church and the faithful from a modernist invasion. 

Not only were these Popes failing in their duty, they positively persecuted Catholics who resisted their dismantling of the Church's defenses. 

So, the second of those Popes fabricated an invalid excommunication and pretended that the SSPX had excommunicated themselves.  This was a Pope that had very little difficulty deceiving people. 

The SSPX and all traditionalists never left the Church, that is frankly impossible since they wouldn't be traditionalists if they were truly disobedient. 

The so-called conservatives "right-thinking " wingers are simply moderate liberals with a perverse understanding of the papacy and a faulty and incomplete understanding of Catholicism in general. 

The so-called conservatives are enablers of modernists and they are ultimately disloyal to the Church even though they are canonically regular.  They are de facto Apostates. 

So, had the Popes actually done their jobs correctly, they would have headed up the resistance to modernism and the SSPX would never have existed and we wouldn't be faced with a ridiculous crisis and the world would be a better place.  But such is the nature of modernist Popes, that we have a disaster on our hands.

Reply
#25
Time-out. I actually agree with everything you say, however, it is still schism. What is known as the Church, is in Rome, and it is led by those modernist Popes.

But separation is schism. How can you say it is not? The word seems to cause SSPX members offense and seems to be a word that cuts to the bone. I'm not trying to get a rise out of anyone, but I think it is a perfectly good word and describes what happened perfectly. Of course I am open to still be educated on the subject. Perhaps I have a mental block about the whole thing and can't get my arms around it.

As far as the right-thinking conservatives, I don't want to get into a semantic argument. I meant people who think correctly about the Faith and that would be those in the SSPX. I am not referring to Neo-Cons or Neo-Cats.

I think the only mistake was separating. Better to have fought from within, IMHO. Of course the entire situation is a tragedy.

(12-09-2010, 11:06 AM)Gerard Wrote:
(12-09-2010, 09:16 AM)Adam Wayne Wrote: Such is the nature of schism. 

No. You obviously don't have a clue what schism is. 

Quote: Now if the SSPX stayed in the Church and were the conservative and "right-thinking" wing, then you would have a point.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.   Here's what happened:

Two negligent and arguably corrupt Popes refused to defend the Church and the faithful from a modernist invasion. 

Not only were these Popes failing in their duty, they positively persecuted Catholics who resisted their dismantling of the Church's defenses.   

So, the second of those Popes fabricated an invalid excommunication and pretended that the SSPX had excommunicated themselves.  This was a Pope that had very little difficulty deceiving people. 

The SSPX and all traditionalists never left the Church, that is frankly impossible since they wouldn't be traditionalists if they were truly disobedient. 

The so-called conservatives "right-thinking " wingers are simply moderate liberals with a perverse understanding of the papacy and a faulty and incomplete understanding of Catholicism in general. 

The so-called conservatives are enablers of modernists and they are ultimately disloyal to the Church even though they are canonically regular.  They are de facto Apostates. 

So, had the Popes actually done their jobs correctly, they would have headed up the resistance to modernism and the SSPX would never have existed and we wouldn't be faced with a ridiculous crisis and the world would be a better place.   But such is the nature of modernist Popes, that we have a disaster on our hands.
Reply
#26
How were the excommunications invalid?
Reply
#27
A quick Google search reveals that -- according to mainstream Catholics themselves -- the nouvelle theologie (twice condemned by Ven. Pius XII) triumphed at the Council, and of which the "conservative" wing (Communio) is now considered to be mainstream Catholicism.

http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/libr...ition.html

http://vox-nova.com/2008/03/30/culture-a...nt-part-1/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouvelle_Th%C3%A9ologie

http://www.continuumbooks.com/books/detail.aspx?BookId=132623&SearchType=Basic


Adam Wayne,
Strictly speaking, what Abp. Lefebvre did was not a schismatic act.

"The 1983 Code of Canon Law itself lists this offense [i.e. the consecration of bishops without pontifical mandate] under Title 3 (abuse of ecclesiastical powers) and not under Title 1 (offenses against religion and the unity of the Church) of its penal section (Book 6)."

http://www.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q12_sspxschismatic.htm

And again: "The act of consecrating a bishop (without the pope's permission) is not itself a schismatic act," Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, in La Repubblica, Oct. 7, 1988.
Reply
#28
(12-09-2010, 11:17 AM)Adam Wayne Wrote: Time-out. I actually agree with everything you say, however, it is still schism. What is known as the Church, is in Rome, and it is led by those modernist Popes.

But separation is schism. How can you say it is not?

Sorry if I came on too strong.  I thought we were headed into a tired and worn out debate. 

Schism is literally a  "tearing apart" more than a separation.  All of the Apostles separated and those separations developed into the four root rites of the Church.  The great schisms are those that occur when there is a contention about who actually has what power within the Church.  The  Eastern Schism and the Great Western Schism are two examples of splitting over what papal power was and who wielded papal power.

The SSPX supports the nature of papal authority and acknowledges who wields papal authority.  The problem is the person who wields it, won't wield it for the benefit of the Church.  Fr. Malachi Martin called it an effort to destroy the papacy by simply never using the power of the keys again.  He said the modernists wanted it to 'fall into desuetude." 

The SSPX were simply disobedient to a Pope who was illegally suppressing the traditional practice of the faith and failing to protect the Church from modernists. 


Quote: The word seems to cause SSPX members offense and seems to be a word that cuts to the bone. I'm not trying to get a rise out of anyone, but I think it is a perfectly good word and describes what happened perfectly. Of course I am open to still be educated on the subject. Perhaps I have a mental block about the whole thing and can't get my arms around it. 

A real schism is a tragedy since souls will be lost.  For SSPX clergy and adherents, that's an accusation that has eternal consequences.  And it was used to incorrectly describe the SSPX precisely to frighten people away from them.

Quote:I think the only mistake was separating. Better to have fought from within, IMHO. Of course the entire situation is a tragedy.

They didn't separate.  LeFebvre was left with only one option after 20 years of his "dialogue with the deaf" and if anything, it had the reverse effect that Rome intended.  The SSPX grew and the canonical irregularity and the lack of legal standing gave it protection from massive modernist infilltration and coercive tactics of bishops to control and minimize it. 



Reply
#29
(12-09-2010, 01:24 PM)Gerard Wrote:
(12-09-2010, 11:17 AM)Adam Wayne Wrote:
Quote:I think the only mistake was separating. Better to have fought from within, IMHO. Of course the entire situation is a tragedy.
They didn't separate.  LeFebvre was left with only one option after 20 years of his "dialogue with the deaf" and if anything, it had the reverse effect that Rome intended.  The SSPX grew and the canonical irregularity and the lack of legal standing gave it protection from massive modernist infilltration and coercive tactics of bishops to control and minimize it. 

Well, the SSPX is within the church, so they are fighting it from within, really... but at arm's length to retain necessary freedoms from diocesonal foul play
Reply
#30
Rather should try to get an hour long interview with Bishop Williamson.  After the trashing by John Allen and the mislabeling of the Bishop's statements, I was surprised that the young, pretty mother said, "All it took was a confession with Bishop Williamson and I knew that something was there."  I was surprised that didn't get edited out.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)