Author Topic: Bishop Williamsons Ecclesiology Attacked (Read 13790 times)

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #60 on:** December 27, 2012, 08:04:52 PM »

Fr. Chardin's writings were explicitly declared heretical, and under a monitum of the Holy Office in the 1960s! Why must everything Fr. Chardin said be heretical? Even heretics like Luther said correct things.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #61 on:** December 27, 2012, 08:07:15 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

Every single thing Chardin taught is heretical?

If not, which heretical teaching of Chardin's is BXVI endorsing?

What if a Pope gave a sermon quoting all the great heretics in glowing terms, from Arius to Luther to Tolstoy? (about their religious opinions) And he did it in an obscure manner. What should be made of his position?

It isn't valid when they try to evade scrutiny in obscurity and ambiguity.

What is absolutely certain, is that the "cosmic liturgy" Teilhard speaks of is not a Catholic concept.

Nathan · « **Reply #62 on:** December 27, 2012, 08:22:41 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Nathan
When the Holy Father gives a sermon to his diocese as the Bishop of Rome, he is acting as a private theologian and not as the Teacher of the Universal Church.

I don't think such a distinction is valid.

Then please give me substantial evidence for its invalidity.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #63 on:** December 27, 2012, 09:19:03 PM »

Quote from: Nathan

Then please give me substantial evidence for its invalidity.

You can't claim that the public teachings of the Pope are only authoritative when he uncrosses his finger and says "here, now I'm speaking as Pope"

If a Pope were to deny the articles of the Faith in a sermon (for example, deny that Christ rose from the dead), he is an apostate.

He can't be considered an apostate as a "private theologian."

These aren't just "errors" either. These ideas that are being promoted are fundamentally in opposition to the religion.

Nathan · « **Reply #64 on:** December 27, 2012, 09:38:29 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Nathan
Then please give me substantial evidence for its invalidity.

You can't claim that the public teachings of the Pope are only authoritative when he uncrosses his finger and says "here, now I'm speaking as Pope"

If a Pope were to deny the articles of the Faith in a sermon (for example, deny that Christ rose from the dead), he is an apostate.

He can't be considered an apostate as a "private theologian."

These aren't just "errors" either. These ideas that are being promoted are fundamentally in opposition to the religion.

These are your opinions. I asked for evidence (historical, theological, etc.). However, since you have failed to provide me any, here is something for you:

Can a Pope Err in Doctrinal, Liturgical & Canonical Matters?

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #65 on:** December 27, 2012, 09:51:54 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

From Sheen's "Footprints in a Darkened Forest"...

Fulton Sheen: “It is very likely that within 50 years when all the trivial, verbose disputes about the meaning of Teilhard's ‘unfortunate’ vocabulary will have died away or have taken a secondary place, Teilhard will appear like John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila, as the spiritual genius of the twentieth century.”

If it's true that Fulton Sheen (why the lack of the title in Santo Subito's post?) is true, then he was probably being bombastic or speaking "off the cuff" and winging it.

This quote really puts Bishop Sheen, who toward the end of his life felt bitterly used by the new church, in a bad light.

I guess Teilhard is an intellectual tower when compared with Yves Congar.

What did Bishop Sheen mean by "unfortunate" vocabulary? Was Bishop Sheen troubled by the fact that Teilhard spoke the same words and same phrases as atheists and destroyers?

Santo, what is your favorite Tielhard book?

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #66 on:** December 27, 2012, 10:07:08 PM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

Every single thing Chardin taught is heretical?

If not, which heretical teaching of Chardin's is BXVI endorsing?

Santo, read the following part of the sermon:

Quote from: Benedict XVI

The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host.

Don't you sense the problem? "Cosmos" and "cosmic" are New Age terms, and de Chardin was a New Ager. The New Age Movement is condemned by the Catholic Church, yet Benedict is approving it in his sermon.

Ambrose · « **Reply #67 on:** December 27, 2012, 10:31:29 PM »

Santo Subito wrote:

Quote

I should qualify that as to the Mass, I mean the official Latin text of the NO w/ the Roman Canon. I'm not referring to optional concessions by the legislating "church" such as altar girls, etc. I believe that this, at minimum, is not a sinful rite and conveys grace. Nothing in the official text of the NO is heretical.

Have you ever read what is commonly called the Ottaviani intervention:

http://www.sspx.org/sspx_faqs/brief_critical_study_of_the_new_order_of_mass-ottaviani-intervention.pdf

Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci along with the theologians who studied the Novus Ordo Missae stated: "the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent."

Read the entire critique, it is excellent. The SSPX recently put out a very good critique of the Novus Ordo as well. It is not a Catholic rite.

Santo Subito wrote:

Quote

What is evil in the new Code?

Canon 844:

§2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-

Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

taken from: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM

Santo Subito wrote:

Quote

The teachings of VCII do not contain heresy. Parts are ambiguous, but can be interpreted in an orthodox manner.

The Principle Heresies and Other Errors of Vatican II:

http://strobertbellarmine.net/heresies.html

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #68 on:** December 27, 2012, 10:33:06 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Santo Subito
Every single thing Chardin taught is heretical?

If not, which heretical teaching of Chardin's is BXVI endorsing?

Santo, read the following part of the sermon:

Quote from: Benedict XVI
The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host.

Don't you sense the problem? "Cosmos" and "cosmic" are New Age terms, and de Chardin was a New Ager. The New Age Movement is condemned by the Catholic Church, yet Benedict is approving it in his sermon.

Thank you for posting the quote from Benedict XVI. It really sums it all up very well.

Benedict XVI thinks the world shall become a living host, a liturgy?

The world is already a liturgy. It's the liturgy of the spiritually dead. The liturgy of the condemned.

Santo Subito · « **Reply #69 on:** December 28, 2012, 07:10:32 AM »

The Ottaviani intervention was the opinion of two Cardinals
regarding a version of the NO before it was promulgated. I've heard some changes were made since they wrote it and before it was promulgated.

In any case Cardinal Ottaviani later supported the NO in a letter. In any case this was the opinion of two Cardinals (at most). All the rest supported the NO. Am I bound to agree with the opinion of these Cardinals anymore than you are bound to agree with Cardiñal Mahoney?

trento · « **Reply #70 on:** December 28, 2012, 07:38:21 AM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Quote from: Santo Subito
From Sheen's "Footprints in a Darkened Forest"...

Fulton Sheen: “It is very likely that within 50 years when all the trivial, verbose disputes about the meaning of Teilhard's ‘unfortunate’ vocabulary will have died away or have taken a secondary place, Teilhard will appear like John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila, as the spiritual genius of the twentieth century.”

If it's true that Fulton Sheen (why the lack of the title in Santo Subito's post?) is true, then he was probably being bombastic or speaking "off the cuff" and winging it.

This quote really puts Bishop Sheen, who toward the end of his life felt bitterly used by the new church, in a bad light.

I guess Teilhard is an intellectual tower when compared with Yves Congar.

What did Bishop Sheen mean by "unfortunate" vocabulary? Was Bishop Sheen troubled by the fact that Teilhard spoke the same words and same phrases as atheists and destroyers?

Santo, what is your favorite Tielhard book?

Read "Archbishop Fulton Sheen: A Tale of Before and After" at http://www.sspx.org/pastors_corner/pastors_corner_june_2011.htm

Santo Subito · « **Reply #71 on:** December 28, 2012, 07:51:42 AM »

What is evil or heretical about Canon 844? The key phrase is "provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided." In other words, the Catholic is in no danger of adopting schismatic errors. We are talking about a situation where the option is to receive a valid sacrament from an Orthodox priest or receive none at all. It also says "whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it." What about in the danger of death? You are quickly dying by the side of the road after an auto accident and an Orthodox priest is there and offers to hear your confession. Would it be evil to allow him to?

Santo Subito · « **Reply #72 on:** December 28, 2012, 08:38:44 AM »

Regarding the "Ottaviani Intervention," a few points:

1.) The "Intervention" was sent to Paul VI in Sept of '69. In Nov of '69 Paul VI addressed some concerns in his General Audience:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P6601119.HTM

Quote

9. The second question is: What exactly are the changes?

10. You will see for yourselves that they consist of many new directions for celebrating the rites. Especially at the beginning, these will call for a certain amount of attention and care. Personal devotion and community sense will make it easy and pleasant to observe these new rules. But keep this clearly in mind: Nothing has been changed of the substance of our traditional Mass. Perhaps some may allow themselves to be carried away by the impression made by some particular ceremony or additional rubric, and thus think that they conceal some alteration or diminution of truths which were acquired by the Catholic faith for ever, and are sanctioned by it. They might come to believe that the equation between the law of prayer, lex orandi and the law of faith, lex credendi, is compromised as a result.

11. It is not so. Absolutely not. Above all, because the rite and the relative rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition. Their theological qualification may vary in different degrees according to the liturgical context to which they refer. They are gestures and terms relating to a religious action—experienced and living—of an indescribable mystery of divine presence, not always expressed in a universal way. Only theological criticism can analyze this action and express it in logically satisfying doctrinal formulas. The Mass of the new rite is and remains the same Mass we have always had. If anything, its sameness has been brought out more clearly in some respects.

2.) Also, the "Intervention" was written BEFORE the first Latin edition of the Roman Missal appeared in March of 1970. That edition included a doctrinal exposition of the Mass meant to address certain concerns in the "Intervention."

3.) Paul VI asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the department of the Roman Curia that Ottaviani had earlier headed, to examine the Short Critical Study. It responded on 12 November 1969 that the docuмent contained many affirmations that were "superficial, exaggerated, inexact, emotional and false".[http://www.clerus.org/clerus/dati/2000-12/07-999999/Ch1.pdf p.21]

4.) A letter of 17 February 1970 signed by Cardinal Ottaviani and addressed to Gerard Lafond, was published in La Docuмentation catholique 67 (1970), pp. 215–216 and 343. It stated:

"I have rejoiced profoundly to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and especially the doctrinal precisions contained in his discourses at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26,[5] after which I believe, no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your "Doctrinal Note" [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae wide diffusion and success."

The letter also expressed regret on the part of the cardinal that his letter of 25 September 1969, which he did not disown, had been published:

"I regret only that my name has been misused in a way I did not wish, by publishing a letter that I wrote to the Holy Father without authorizing anyone to publish it."

I've started a new thread on this topic here: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22201

Quo Vadis Petre · « **Reply #73 on:** December 28, 2012, 10:30:27 AM »

Michael Davies, Jean Madiran, and Fr. Cekada both say if that letter of Cardinal Ottaviani's was genuine, it was obtained by deception, since Cardinal Ottaviani was blind at that time, and his secretary was the one giving him all the letters to be signed.

Also, it doesn't matter what the Pope says concerning the orthodoxy of the Novus Ordo. What about the content? Fr. Cekada in his work Work of Human Hands and Michael Davies in his book Pope Paul's New Mass both blast it as liturgical innovation; Fr. Cekada covers more thoroughly the change in the lex orandi which influences lex credendi. Among other things, no more mention of hell (or optional mentions), no mention of soul in the Masses for the Dead, no more mention of the Devil, miracles, etc., and changing the Words of Consecration (what Pope before Paul VI ever dared changing the Words of Consecration?!). The traditional-sounding Instruction was only there to appease conservatives; nothing else changed.

SJB · « **Reply #74 on:** December 28, 2012, 11:32:30 AM »

Quote from: Santo Subito

What is evil or heretical about Canon 844? The key phrase is "provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided." In other words, the Catholic is in no danger of adopting schismatic errors. We are talking about a situation where the option is to receive a valid sacrament from an Orthodox priest or receive none at all. It also says "whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it." What about in the danger of death? You are quickly dying by the side of the road after an auto accident and an Orthodox priest is there and offers to hear your confession. Would it be evil to allow him to?

The problem is here, Santo:

Quote from: 1983 CIC Canon 844

§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are properly disposed. This is also valid for members of other Churches which in the judgment of the Apostolic See are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.

§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed.

Not even a hint of any abjuration of error required. Here is the 1917 Code:

Quote from: Woywod

574. As all the Sacraments instituted by our Lord are the principal means of sanctification and salvation, they should be administered and received with great care and reverence.

It is forbidden to minister the Sacraments of the Church to heretics and schismatics, even though they are in good faith and ask for them, unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled to the Church. (Canon 731.)