NCR on the Latin Mass
#51
(12-11-2012, 01:30 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: If he's some great prelate, but can't reign in a notoriously liberal organization that purports to be Catholic, can he lead the diocese effectively? 

I'm a bit curious as to what exactly you expect him to do. They were, as I pointed out, asked/ordered to drop the word 'Catholic' from their name 45 years ago. They refused then and would refuse now.

Fishies have said that other dioceses have forced groups to quit using the word 'Catholic' in their names, but the only concrete example I've seen is Michael Voris, an obedient Catholic who did as asked even tho' IMO it was a unjust and unfounded request.

The reason I asked for cites on the cases is that I'm somewhat familiar with how US courts handle 'intra-Church' disputes, having attended in my pre-Catholic days three different denominations that had (or are having) major disputes. The Russians' case dragged on for almost 40 years, the Serbs fought for over ten and the Episcopalians are just now getting deep into it with parishes and dioceses leaving PECUSA. However, in all these cases, it was a question of the ownership of church property.

In the matter of doctrinal disputes the courts have generally simply said they were not competent to decide a question of doctrine, e.g. whether a publication is or is not 'Catholic'. It's not as if the Church has a trademark on the name. There are many groups claiming to be 'Catholic' as I'm sure you know. The Old Catholics, Liberal Catholics, Polish National Catholics and Old Roman Catholics all come to mind. If tomorrow I were to declare myself a priest and set up 'St John Paul the Great Parish' there is virtually nothing the Church could do except issue warnings to Catholics that I am not really a Catholic. That's exactly what was done with the NCR to little effect.

***ETA***And the courts' attitude is exactly what I like. In fact, I would strenuously oppose any move on the part of Bishop Finn to sue the NCR over the use of the name 'Catholic' or any other bishop in similar circumstances. Does anybody really think that implicitly granting a secular court the power to decide who or what is 'Catholic' would be a good thing?***End ETA***

WRC is right however. It has a circulation of just 33,000 print copies and except for Trads looking for something to complain about, I'd be willing to bet that most of their online hits are from liberal CINOs who are just too cheap to subscribe. Nothing the Church says or does about it will change their minds.
Reply
#52
(12-11-2012, 02:20 AM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote:
(12-11-2012, 01:37 AM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote: Even if His Excellency, Bishop Finn were twice as powerful as Pope Innocent III, why would he bother with laying the smack down on the Distorter? That problem is going to fix itself soon enough.

And therein lies the problem. This attitude of lets just sit around with our thumbs up our nose and wait and hope things get better is what got us in this mess. If the Vatican II generation (with few exceptions) had fought for the faith and real Mass and not just sat there things would be different.

By the way. If this rag was in Pope Innocent III's diocese when he was a Bishop I am reasonably sure he would do something about it.

LOL.

Whenever I think about coming back to Fisheaters, I am reminded why I left. I don't have the OUTRAGE! necessary to put up with this crap all the time. You people are going to burn yourselves up and out.

Go outside and play with your children for a while. It's far more important (and a far more Catholic thing to do) than worrying about pissant fogies in the Distorter newsroom.
Reply
#53
(12-11-2012, 02:35 AM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote:
(12-11-2012, 02:20 AM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote:
(12-11-2012, 01:37 AM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote: Even if His Excellency, Bishop Finn were twice as powerful as Pope Innocent III, why would he bother with laying the smack down on the Distorter? That problem is going to fix itself soon enough.

And therein lies the problem. This attitude of lets just sit around with our thumbs up our nose and wait and hope things get better is what got us in this mess. If the Vatican II generation (with few exceptions) had fought for the faith and real Mass and not just sat there things would be different.

By the way. If this rag was in Pope Innocent III's diocese when he was a Bishop I am reasonably sure he would do something about it.

I don't have the OUTRAGE! necessary to put up with this crap all the time. You people are going to burn yourselves up and out.

One has to fight for the faith. If not for + Lefebvre and a few others we wouldn't even have a Mass today. They fight. Whats wrong is the spirit of the Crusades and the Counter Reformation is gone. By all means we should play with our kids but ya know give a thought to their salvation at least once in awhile.
Reply
#54
(12-11-2012, 08:08 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: One has to fight for the faith. If not for + Lefebvre and a few others we wouldn't even have a Mass today. They fight. Whats wrong is the spirit of the Crusades and the Counter Reformation is gone. By all means we should play with our kids but ya know give a thought to their salvation at least once in awhile.

Flutchman, that's beside the point.  I'll recapitulate the discussion for you. Pay attention.

1. The Distorter says its usual nonsense about stuff.
2. Someone said that the local ordinary should strip them of the term "Catholic".
3. I asserted that the local ordinary has other issues on his plate and that since the Distorter slipped into obscure irrelevance a long time ago, it wasn't worth spending his political and social capital on the ecclesiological equivalent of fruit flies.
4. Somehow you took this as that Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, a successor of the apostles, a reformer in his see, and the episcopal pastor of his own personal TLM parish staffed by the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest by his own personal request, a BISHOP who offers the Tridentine Mass in HIS CATHEDRAL, His Excellency, Bishop Finn of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph has abandoned the salvation of souls, surrendered the crusades, and cancelled the Counter Reformation.

Oh brother.

Flutchman, your hubris is only passed by your ignorance.
Reply
#55
(12-11-2012, 10:01 PM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote:
(12-11-2012, 08:08 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: One has to fight for the faith. If not for + Lefebvre and a few others we wouldn't even have a Mass today. They fight. Whats wrong is the spirit of the Crusades and the Counter Reformation is gone. By all means we should play with our kids but ya know give a thought to their salvation at least once in awhile.

Flutchman, that's beside the point.  I'll recapitulate the discussion for you. Pay attention.

1. The Distorter says its usual nonsense about stuff.
2. Someone said that the local ordinary should strip them of the term "Catholic".
3. I asserted that the local ordinary has other issues on his plate and that since the Distorter slipped into obscure irrelevance a long time ago, it wasn't worth spending his political and social capital on the ecclesiological equivalent of fruit flies.
4. Somehow you took this as that Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, a successor of the apostles, a reformer in his see, and the episcopal pastor of his own personal TLM parish staffed by the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest by his own personal request, a BISHOP who offers the Tridentine Mass in HIS CATHEDRAL, His Excellency, Bishop Finn of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph has abandoned the salvation of souls, surrendered the crusades, and cancelled the Counter Reformation.

Oh brother.

Flutchman, your hubris is only passed by your ignorance.

QFT!!! Thank you, WRC!
Reply
#56
(12-11-2012, 10:01 PM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote:
(12-11-2012, 08:08 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote: One has to fight for the faith. If not for + Lefebvre and a few others we wouldn't even have a Mass today. They fight. Whats wrong is the spirit of the Crusades and the Counter Reformation is gone. By all means we should play with our kids but ya know give a thought to their salvation at least once in awhile.

Flutchman, that's beside the point.  I'll recapitulate the discussion for you. Pay attention.

1. The Distorter says its usual nonsense about stuff.
2. Someone said that the local ordinary should strip them of the term "Catholic".
3. I asserted that the local ordinary has other issues on his plate and that since the Distorter slipped into obscure irrelevance a long time ago, it wasn't worth spending his political and social capital on the ecclesiological equivalent of fruit flies.
4. Somehow you took this as that Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, a successor of the apostles, a reformer in his see, and the episcopal pastor of his own personal TLM parish staffed by the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest by his own personal request, a BISHOP who offers the Tridentine Mass in HIS CATHEDRAL, His Excellency, Bishop Finn of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph has abandoned the salvation of souls, surrendered the crusades, and cancelled the Counter Reformation.

Oh brother.

Flutchman, your hubris is only passed by your ignorance.

:tiphat:
Reply
#57
Not to rain on all the high fives or anything, but could someone point me to the link on the Diocesan website clarifying for the faithful that the fishwrap is using the word Catholic in contravention of Canon Law and previous direction to cease doing so by the Ordinary?  And further that, its use of the word notwithstanding, the publication is in fact an anti-Catholic publication, not sanctioned by or affiliated in any way with the Catholic Church?  And that it cannot be distributed on or in any property of the Diocese, nor can any employees or clergy under his authority grant it an interview or cooperate in any way with it?

This would be a simple matter, would it not?  No court cases, no nothing...just a simple clarification to prevent scandal and confusion among the faithful, from their shepherd charged with their instruction in the faith, following which the path of paying it no mind could be followed.

So...the link please?  I seem to have been unable to locate it.....
Reply
#58
(12-11-2012, 02:35 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(12-11-2012, 01:30 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: If he's some great prelate, but can't reign in a notoriously liberal organization that purports to be Catholic, can he lead the diocese effectively? 

I'm a bit curious as to what exactly you expect him to do. They were, as I pointed out, asked/ordered to drop the word 'Catholic' from their name 45 years ago. They refused then and would refuse now.

Fishies have said that other dioceses have forced groups to quit using the word 'Catholic' in their names, but the only concrete example I've seen is Michael Voris, an obedient Catholic who did as asked even tho' IMO it was a unjust and unfounded request.

The reason I asked for cites on the cases is that I'm somewhat familiar with how US courts handle 'intra-Church' disputes, having attended in my pre-Catholic days three different denominations that had (or are having) major disputes. The Russians' case dragged on for almost 40 years, the Serbs fought for over ten and the Episcopalians are just now getting deep into it with parishes and dioceses leaving PECUSA. However, in all these cases, it was a question of the ownership of church property.

In the matter of doctrinal disputes the courts have generally simply said they were not competent to decide a question of doctrine, e.g. whether a publication is or is not 'Catholic'. It's not as if the Church has a trademark on the name. There are many groups claiming to be 'Catholic' as I'm sure you know. The Old Catholics, Liberal Catholics, Polish National Catholics and Old Roman Catholics all come to mind. If tomorrow I were to declare myself a priest and set up 'St John Paul the Great Parish' there is virtually nothing the Church could do except issue warnings to Catholics that I am not really a Catholic. That's exactly what was done with the NCR to little effect.

***ETA***And the courts' attitude is exactly what I like. In fact, I would strenuously oppose any move on the part of Bishop Finn to sue the NCR over the use of the name 'Catholic' or any other bishop in similar circumstances. Does anybody really think that implicitly granting a secular court the power to decide who or what is 'Catholic' would be a good thing?***End ETA***

WRC is right however. It has a circulation of just 33,000 print copies and except for Trads looking for something to complain about, I'd be willing to bet that most of their online hits are from liberal CINOs who are just too cheap to subscribe. Nothing the Church says or does about it will change their minds.
Then, do what The Church can do --- Excommunicate and the further possibility of  an Interdict.
Reply
#59
(12-12-2012, 05:02 PM)Allan Wrote: Not to rain on all the high fives or anything, but could someone point me to the link on the Diocesan website clarifying for the faithful that the fishwrap is using the word Catholic in contravention of Canon Law and previous direction to cease doing so by the Ordinary?  And further that, its use of the word notwithstanding, the publication is in fact an anti-Catholic publication, not sanctioned by or affiliated in any way with the Catholic Church?  And that it cannot be distributed on or in any property of the Diocese, nor can any employees or clergy under his authority grant it an interview or cooperate in any way with it?

This would be a simple matter, would it not?  No court cases, no nothing...just a simple clarification to prevent scandal and confusion among the faithful, from their shepherd charged with their instruction in the faith, following which the path of paying it no mind could be followed.

So...the link please?  I seem to have been unable to locate it.....

LOL. If it's not condemned on the internet, it's not true.
Reply
#60
(12-12-2012, 10:18 PM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote:
(12-12-2012, 05:02 PM)Allan Wrote: Not to rain on all the high fives or anything, but could someone point me to the link on the Diocesan website clarifying for the faithful that the fishwrap is using the word Catholic in contravention of Canon Law and previous direction to cease doing so by the Ordinary?  And further that, its use of the word notwithstanding, the publication is in fact an anti-Catholic publication, not sanctioned by or affiliated in any way with the Catholic Church?  And that it cannot be distributed on or in any property of the Diocese, nor can any employees or clergy under his authority grant it an interview or cooperate in any way with it?

This would be a simple matter, would it not?  No court cases, no nothing...just a simple clarification to prevent scandal and confusion among the faithful, from their shepherd charged with their instruction in the faith, following which the path of paying it no mind could be followed.

So...the link please?  I seem to have been unable to locate it.....

LOL. If it's not condemned on the internet, it's not true.

If this simple clarification from the Diocese has been communicated to the faithful using some other medium, please confirm. 

You see the problem, right?  I think you make a valid point that, in the life of a Bishop, only so much legal, financial and political capital can be expended on any one threat.  In the Internet age, however, all it would take would be a one pager over the Bishop's signature setting out those five or six point I made above, and the public record on the Church's official position vis-a-vis NCR would be forever clarified.

Silence can be quite loud sometimes.  One wonders why NCR is so radioactive that our shepherds don't even dare to come between its poison and the faithful under their care.  I'm glad you can dismiss the effect the "distorted" has, but there will be many (some, at least) who will genuinely pause and wonder if perhaps the Catholic Church is sending out or is OK with mixed messages on some of the key issues it takes positions on.  This confusion has a name - scandal, and it is the local Bishop's job to do something other than watch...

So, I repeat...what has Bishop Finn done, exactly, in this matter?  I acknowledge he is charitable with the TLM.  I'll even allow he's nice to old people and small animals, and any other fine trait you wish to toss in with the other non sequiturs.  But how about this scandal in his own back yard?

I repeat...no court cases needed, no protracted battles, we all know the NCR rejects authority and will refuse any requests...so what?  A simple letter.  A simple web page setting out the truth for his flock.  Simple. 

....?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)