ROME (Reuters) - A leader of an ultra-traditionalist Catholic group that broke with the Vatican said on Saturday that Pope Benedict should tell Jews and members of other religions to convert because they are part of "false systems".
Father Franz Schmidberger, a top official of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), also called on the Pope to invalidate excommunications imposed when its founder, the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, ordained bishops without permission.
The SSPX rejects the reforms of the 1962-1965 Second Vatican Council. It sticks to the old Latin mass and opposes recognizing the validity of other religions, particularly non-Christians.
"Other religions, as such, are false systems," said Schmidberger, who is the right-hand man of the traditionalists' current head, Bishop Bernard Fellay.
"Instead of leading their members to our Lord Jesus Christ, to Baptism and the confession of faith in his divinity, they refrain from this and so we consider these other religions as very dangerous," he told a news conference presenting a biography of Lefebvre.
"St Peter, the first pope, preached to the Jews and told them that 'if you want to be saved you must do three things: you must regret your sins and convert, believe in our lord Jesus Christ and, thirdly, be baptized,'" he said.
"We expect that every pope who claims to be the successor of St Peter and he (Benedict) is the successor of St Peter, should take the same stand in meetings with leaders of other religions and tell them the same three things," Schmidberger said.
DIALOGUE
Fellay and Schmidberger held talks with Benedict last August. But while Benedict shares the SSPX's concern for some parts of Catholic tradition and has encouraged wider use of Latin in the Church, he has vowed to continue the dialogue with other religions begun by his predecessor John Paul.
Benedict has met Jews, Protestants and Muslims. In August he visited a synagogue in his native Germany.
The late pope sanctioned the excommunication of the traditionalist leaders in 1988 when they defied his warnings and went ahead with the bishops' ordinations without permission.
The SSPX, which sees itself as the guardian of true Catholicism, now has four bishops and some 450 priests around the world.
Schmidberger said the group had two basic prerequisites for dialogue with the Vatican
The first was an indult that would allow the unconditional return of the old-style Latin mass, which was sidelined after the Second Vatican Council opted for services in local languages.
Saying the Latin mass now requires approval from local bishops, who are often reluctant to make exceptions for a tiny minority in their dioceses.
The second prerequisite was that the excommunications imposed on the group in 1988 be declared invalid.
One of the best-known traditionalist Catholics is actor Mel Gibson but it is not clear if he supports the SSPX, which is based at the rebel seminary Lefebvre ran in Switzerland.
Sorry to omit the date of article, it is
Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:16 AM ET
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I like the way the far left, liberal press almost always uses the "ultra-traditionalist" moniker for the SSPX. It would also have been nice to suggest a recognition and correlation of the reasons for the number of adherents to the Latin liturgy and the lack of "permissions" from the Roman hierarchy. The word suppression would be appropriate.
"We expect that every pope who claims to be the successor of St Peter and he (Benedict) is the successor of St Peter, should take the same stand in meetings with leaders of other religions and tell them the same three things," Schmidberger said.
Oh how utterly scandalous to suggest such a thing. Who does this Schmidberger think he is? Does he think he is
more Catholic than the pope?
Amazing how small a request it is. Just a short sentence that is nothing new in Catholcism. Just repeat what your predecessors said plainly in the past. And this is going to be too much for B16 to do.
From article:
"St Peter, the first pope, preached to the Jews and told them that 'if you want to be saved you must do three things: you must regret your sins and convert, believe in our lord Jesus Christ and, thirdly, be baptized,'" he said.
"We expect that every pope who claims to be the successor of St Peter and he (Benedict) is the successor of St Peter, should take the same stand in meetings with leaders of other religions and tell them the same three things," Schmidberger said.
We should expect what Schmidberger states. After thinking about it for thirty seconds more, we should not just expect, but demand these three tenets be expressed and pronounced by Pope Benedict XVI and our shepherds. I'm not holding my breath while waiting though...
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:06 pm Post subject: Father Schmidberger
What Father Schmidberger is saying here is the "ULTRA" TRUTH...it is straight out of the BIBLE in Acts 2, 38....The Pope should have NO trouble with this...
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 58 Location: Florida, USA
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:54 pm Post subject:
Hello, if I might interject here for a second... What do you believe about Benedict XVI here? Do you believe that he is innocently mistaken, i.e. for some reason inculpably unaware of the Catholic teaching regarding the conversion of non-believers? Or do you not agree that this is deliberate, that Benedict knows fully well what he is doing and how he is rejecting Catholic dogma on this point? I mean, the man was head of the Congregation for the Destruction of the Faith for over 20 years; you cannot possibly think that he is not familiar with the Council of Florence, the Syllabus of Errors, Mortalium Animos, Pascendi, or the Oath against Modernism, which he swore in the 1950's (and has broken since).
Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 527 Location: Western New York
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:15 pm Post subject:
Sure would be nice to have a CATHOLIC pope that would preach Christ Crucified at the synagogue, like the first one did. Apparently too much to ask these days. _________________ The cloak of heresy is ambiguity.
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 58 Location: Florida, USA
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:17 pm Post subject:
cunctas_haereses wrote:
Sure would be nice to have a CATHOLIC pope that would preach Christ Crucified at the synagogue, like the first one did. Apparently too much to ask these days.
But do you believe it is possible to have a Pope who is not a Catholic, i.e. a head of the Catholic Church who is himself not a member of the Catholic Church?
Sure would be nice to have a CATHOLIC pope that would preach Christ Crucified at the synagogue, like the first one did. Apparently too much to ask these days.
But do you believe it is possible to have a Pope who is not a Catholic, i.e. a head of the Catholic Church who is himself not a member of the Catholic Church?
I do not believe that is possible. I believe that the Pope is Catholic and is the head of the Catholic Church.
Hello, if I might interject here for a second... What do you believe about Benedict XVI here?
Hi NW,
I think those are very good questions that many people ignore. I may not agree with your conclusions but the questions are relevant, and indicate a courage of conviction and honesty that is not found in among the "neo Catholic" crowds. On B16, he's probably weak, too weak to be anything but a tool of modernism, "the conserving force" described in pascendi. He's imbibed in a mentality where nothing is solidly known except that he and the other Vatican II "theologians" know better. But I believe he doesn't know that he is wrong. That would require solid thinking.
Quote:
Do you believe that he is innocently mistaken, i.e. for some reason inculpably unaware of the Catholic teaching regarding the conversion of non-believers?
Absolutely not. I"m sure He knows what the Church has always taught "can see that side of things" and is possibly looking for loopholes all the time that will reconcile his personal hope with the faith he must accept. He might fail and go to Hell or he might fail and go to Heaven by accepting the Church's teaching. Or, maybe he knows and is just afraid to say it. Maybe he thinks that he can delay the persecution of the Church and wait out liberalism. It's foolish in either case.
Many people use this intimidation idea in the Siri thesis. My response has always been. So? If Siri had in reality been elected, he was just as useless, cowardly and culpable for shirking his duty than the last four accepted Popes.
Quote:
Or do you not agree that this is deliberate, that Benedict knows fully well what he is doing and how he is rejecting Catholic dogma on this point?
If that is the criteria for rejecting Catholic Dogma, then many Popes have done this. He's not positively rejecting Catholic Dogma. He's ignoring Catholic Dogma. That's a distinction, not an excuse. Maybe because internally he doesn't believe it, or doesn't want to believe it. Maybe internally he does believe it and is afraid to say it. Obviously, Alexander VI knew the dogma that was the sixth commandment was, yet he ignored it.
A Pope doesn't have to reiterate every single decision or concept of Catholic teaching. By ignoring it, he does what Malachi Martin referred to as consigning the papacy to destitude of influence. St. Peter knew and professed publicly that Jesus was the Son of God and later publicly professed with curses that he didn't know the man. Later at Antioch, when Peter was obviously not telling the Jews right away that they were going to Hell because they didn't accept Jesus, and he got a smackdown from St. Paul and was told he was to blame for publicly not walking uprightly with the Gospel.
What are we to make of B16 in the context of all of that? No Pope of a return to tradition will be elected any time soon. Only a man who is on the throne and becomes traditional will have any effect on ending the crisis.
But do you believe it is possible to have a Pope who is not a Catholic, i.e. a head of the Catholic Church who is himself not a member of the Catholic Church?
Do you mean a Good Catholic or Bad Catholic? I get the impression that you think a bad Catholic is not to be considered a Catholic. So, if we have a bad Pope, he must not be a Catholic.
I'm sure you know that the Trent Catechism states otherwise:
The Members Of The Church Militant
The Church militant is composed of two classes of persons, the good and the bad, both professing the same faith and partaking of the same Sacraments, yet differing in their manner of life and morality.
The good are those who are linked together not only by the profession of the same faith, and the participation of the same Sacraments, but also by the spirit of grace and the bond of charity. Of these St. Paul says: The Lord knoweth who are his. Who they are that compose this class we also may remotely conjecture, but we can by no means pronounce with certainty. Hence Christ the Saviour does not speak of this portion of His Church when He refers us to the Church and commands us to hear and to obey her. As this part of the Church is unknown, how could we ascertain with certainty whose decision to recur to, whose authority to obey?
The Church, therefore, as the Scriptures and the writings of the Saints testify, includes within her fold the good and the bad; and it was in this sense that St. Paul spoke of one body and one spirit. Thus understood, the Church is known and is compared to a city built on a mountain, and visible from every side. As all must yield obedience to her authority, it is necessary that she may�be known by all.
That the Church is composed of the good and the bad we learn from many parables contained in the Gospel. Thus, the kingdom of heaven, that is, the Church militant, is compared to a net cast into the sea, to a field in which tares were sown with the good grain, to a threshing floor on which the grain is mixed up with the chaff, and also to ten virgins, some of whom were wise, and some foolish. And long before, we trace a figure and resemblance of this Church in the ark of Noah, which contained not only clean, but also unclean animals.
But although the Catholic faith uniformly and truly teaches that the good and the bad belong to the Church, yet the same faith declares that the condition of both is very different. The wicked are contained in the Church, as the chaff is mingled with the grain on the threshing floor, or as dead members sometimes remain attached to a living body.
Those Who Are Not Members Of The Church
Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church's pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised. Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.
But with regard to the rest, however wicked and evil they may be, it is certain that they still belong to the Church: Of this the faithful are frequently to be reminded, in order to be convinced that, were even the lives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still within the Church, and therefore lose nothing of their power.
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 58 Location: Florida, USA
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:42 pm Post subject:
kaszodis wrote:
novusordowatch wrote:
cunctas_haereses wrote:
Sure would be nice to have a CATHOLIC pope that would preach Christ Crucified at the synagogue, like the first one did. Apparently too much to ask these days.
But do you believe it is possible to have a Pope who is not a Catholic, i.e. a head of the Catholic Church who is himself not a member of the Catholic Church?
I do not believe that is possible. I believe that the Pope is Catholic and is the head of the Catholic Church.
But Benedict XVI is rejecting Catholic dogma. People who do that are not Catholics. They are not just "bad" Catholics, they are not Catholics at all. A Catholic who murders remains a Catholic. A "Catholic" who denies papal primacy, for instance, is not a Catholic at all.
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 Posts: 21 Location: Humble, TX
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:59 pm Post subject:
Why are we Catholic unless we think other religions are False! I pray that our Prelates come around on this issue and start telling it like it is. As human beings with spiritual souls we put our Faith in a particular set of beliefs because we know it to be true, not only for ourselves but for everybody. I grow weary of dialogue. Speak the truth and people will flock to the Church.
Sure would be nice to have a CATHOLIC pope that would preach Christ Crucified at the synagogue, like the first one did. Apparently too much to ask these days.
But do you believe it is possible to have a Pope who is not a Catholic, i.e. a head of the Catholic Church who is himself not a member of the Catholic Church?
I do not believe that is possible. I believe that the Pope is Catholic and is the head of the Catholic Church.
But Benedict XVI is rejecting Catholic dogma. People who do that are not Catholics. They are not just "bad" Catholics, they are not Catholics at all. A Catholic who murders remains a Catholic. A "Catholic" who denies papal primacy, for instance, is not a Catholic at all.
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 58 Location: Florida, USA
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 2:52 pm Post subject:
kaszodis wrote:
But are you yoursef not denying papal primacy?
Me?? No, why would I do that? I believe that Fr. Ratzinger isn't the Pope. That's very different from saying that he is the Pope but does not have full primacy over Catholics, as the SSPX teaches in effect.
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 58 Location: Florida, USA
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 3:10 pm Post subject:
Gerard wrote:
On B16, he's probably weak, too weak to be anything but a tool of modernism, "the conserving force" described in pascendi. He's imbibed in a mentality where nothing is solidly known except that he and the other Vatican II "theologians" know better. But I believe he doesn't know that he is wrong. That would require solid thinking.
I appreciate your feedback, but I think it is dangerous to just hide behind an "I think he's weak" opinion, because there is absolutely no reason to believe that "weakness" has anything to do with this. Ratzinger was suspected of heresy in the 1950s. Did he start out "really weak" already? What's so weak about not adhering to Church teaching the way every priest is expected to? What's weak about keeping the oath against modernism one has taken? Do we find anything in Fr. Ratzinger's writings that could in any way lend credence to the idea that we are dealing here with a "weak" man who would just love to be orthodox but does not have the mental capacity? I think we find just the opposite: a keen intellect, a very shrewd man, but one who loves novelty and seeks to "destroy the Catholic bastions" with Hans Urs von Balthasar. I guess he wasn't too weak to do that! No, I think in Fr. Ratzinger, and now in Benedict XVI, we have the quintessential modernist! In his book "On Being Christian," he says quite nonchalantly that members of other religions go to Heaven too, and we should not envy them simply because they have it easier than Catholics.
Quote:
Absolutely not. I"m sure He knows what the Church has always taught "can see that side of things" and is possibly looking for loopholes all the time that will reconcile his personal hope with the faith he must accept. He might fail and go to Hell or he might fail and go to Heaven by accepting the Church's teaching. Or, maybe he knows and is just afraid to say it. Maybe he thinks that he can delay the persecution of the Church and wait out liberalism. It's foolish in either case.
But wait. Refusing to accept Church teaching makes him a non-Catholic.
Quote:
If Siri had in reality been elected, he was just as useless, cowardly and culpable for shirking his duty than the last four accepted Popes.
That is a very important point, and quite probably right on the money; on the other hand, there seems to be some evidence that Siri was actually under duress (though that may make no difference in the end), something that can in no wise be said of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, or Benedict XVI. Siri was of unquestionable orthodoxy until Vatican II, if I am not mistaken, something that cannot be said of Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, or Ratzinger.
Quote:
If that is the criteria for rejecting Catholic Dogma, then many Popes have done this. He's not positively rejecting Catholic Dogma. He's ignoring Catholic Dogma. That's a distinction, not an excuse. Maybe because internally he doesn't believe it, or doesn't want to believe it. Maybe internally he does believe it and is afraid to say it. Obviously, Alexander VI knew the dogma that was the sixth commandment was, yet he ignored it.
Wait a minute now, here you are confusing some very essential points. It is one thing to sin against morals; it is another to deny the faith. And since there is this distinction, it follows that not every infringement of morals is a denial of the faith. If that were the case, there could be no such distinction at all, and every sinner would automatically become a heretic, a complete absurdity. As for Benedict XVI, yes, he positively doubts and denies dogma, he's done it time and again. In Principles of Catholic Theology, for instance, he denies papal primacy and says that the "primacy of honor" may be the correct view, not the primacy of jurisdiction as the defined by Vatican I.
Quote:
St. Peter knew and professed publicly that Jesus was the Son of God and later publicly professed with curses that he didn't know the man. Later at Antioch, when Peter was obviously not telling the Jews right away that they were going to Hell because they didn't accept Jesus, and he got a smackdown from St. Paul and was told he was to blame for publicly not walking uprightly with the Gospel.
You are comparing apples and oranges here. By that standard, maybe Hans Kung is a Catholic, too? St. Peter was denying he knew his Master--a horrible sin, out of weakness and duress and fear for his life. But this is no way compares to a pertinacious denial of the FAITH by someone who loves novelty. In St. Peter's denial that he knew Christ, there was no malicious intent -- unlike in the case of Judas. Just as we cannot compare St. Peter's weakness to Judas' betrayal, we cannot compare St. Peter to Benedict XVI either.
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 58 Location: Florida, USA
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 3:16 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Do you mean a Good Catholic or Bad Catholic? I get the impression that you think a bad Catholic is not to be considered a Catholic. So, if we have a bad Pope, he must not be a Catholic. I'm sure you know that the Trent Catechism states otherwise:
You are just making my point. For Trent says:
Quote:
The Church militant is composed of two classes of persons, the good and the bad, both professing the same faith and partaking of the same Sacraments, yet differing in their manner of life and morality.
Benedict XVI does not profess the same Faith as Catholics. That's what this is all about. That's why the SSPX can say that Rome must convert, that Rome adheres to a New Religion. Rome's religion is not the Catholic religion, and every traditionalist concedes this point at least in practice. No traditionalists would, for instance, read John Paul II's encyclicals and seek instruction from them. Rather, traditionalists are suspicious of these encyclicals and stick to 1958 and before. New Rome has a New Religion, and hence these New "Catholics" are not valid occupiers of the Holy See.
Benedict XVI does not profess the same Faith as Catholics.
And according to SV analysis, neither did Sister Lucia dos Santos, as she attended the New Mass for the last 35 years of her life, received Holy Communion from the hands of Paul VI himself, and was in communion with every alleged pope since Pius XII.
To be in communion with a heretic is to be a heretic, and there is no evidence Sister Lucia ever broke communion with any of the people who claimed to be popes since Pius XII. On the contrary, she met with at least three of them several times. Sister Lucia had the promise from the mouth of the Blessed Virgin Herself that she would one day enter Heaven.
So, in Sister Lucia's regard, SV's hold contradictary views:
1) Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
2) To be in communion with a heretic is to be a heretic oneself.
3) According to SV's, Sister Lucia was in communion with at least four heretics who claimed to be popes since Pius XII. There is absolutely no evidence whatever that she ever broke communion with any of them. Therefore, she was a heretic who attended the New Mass for 35 years.
4) Sister Lucia was promised salvation.
5) Therefore, heretics can be saved.
Your proposition #1 contradicts your proposition #5, yet it has to be the case if the last four claimants to the papacy were heretics.
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 58 Location: Florida, USA
Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 7:14 pm Post subject:
DJR wrote:
And according to SV analysis, neither did Sister Lucia dos Santos, as she attended the New Mass for the last 35 years of her life, received Holy Communion from the hands of Paul VI himself, and was in communion with every alleged pope since Pius XII.
But this does not change the fact that Fr. Ratzinger does not profess the Catholic Faith. He is not a Catholic. Whatever Sr. Lucy or "Sr. Lucy" may or may not have done has no impact on whether a heretic can be the Pope. We have it on the authority of the infallible Catholic Church that no heretic can be a Pope, and that the Catholic Church cannot give evil. But I think I can do even better than the example of Sr. Lucy, and that is Padre Pio. Padre Pio recognized Montini VI as the Pope. But what will I base my salvation on? Infallible Catholic teaching or the mistakes of mortals?
Quote:
To be in communion with a heretic is to be a heretic, and there is no evidence Sister Lucia ever broke communion with any of the people who claimed to be popes since Pius XII. On the contrary, she met with at least three of them several times.
But certainly one can mistakenly adhere to a heretic or to a false bishop of Rome. The case of Sr. Lucy is very nebulous. I do not know how much Sr. Lucy knew or what she was told in her convent. In fact, we do not even know for sure that whom we saw was even her! The Vatican or certain individual clerics there have certainly put out statements that they falsely claimed were from Sr. Lucy. Why would these people stop there and not replace her with a double or seek to influence her through other means? Can we really rule this out? I agree it's not very likely, but doubles and such are not exactly extraordinary in our times. How many statesmen have doubles? How many did Saddam have? It seems even Paul VI was doubled. People who devise a plan to destroy the Catholic Church from within certainly won't stop at doubles or other tricks to deceive the people. The "assassination attempt" on John Paul II comes to mind. I'm sorry, but this was just too perfect PR to have been real. The "Fatima Pope" being saved by the "Blessed Mother" herself from death! What better way to make people think the Holy Virgin herself approves of John Paul II and his Fatima coverup?
Quote:
Sister Lucia had the promise from the mouth of the Blessed Virgin Herself that she would one day enter Heaven.
That is so, though I cannot stake my eternal salvation on what I think Sr. Lucy did. Besides, it may just be that Sr. Lucy repented on her deathbed. Do not read too much into her guarantee of salvation. If there is a contradition between Catholic doctrine and an apparition, either the apparition is false (I don't believe that, of course) or the contradiction is only apparent. The Blessed Mother guaranteed Sr. Lucy would die in sanctifying grace. I see no reason to doubt that she died in this way, esp. since the Blessed Mother said so. But this is a far cry from saying we ought to go by her apparent acceptance of heretics on the Chair of Peter.
In short, if all that is left to oppose BLEEP! is "Sr. Lucy wasn't a BLEEP!," well, I'm sorry but that's not enough for me.
Quote:
Was Sister Lucia a heretic or not?
She either wasn't or else repented before her death. But your premise is a bit flawed. It should be: Knowingly to adhere to a heretic makes one a heretic oneself.
novusordowatch wrote:
"No traditionalists would, for instance, read John Paul II's encyclicals and seek instruction from them. Rather, traditionalists are suspicious of these encyclicals and stick to 1958 and before."
nadieimportante replies:
TRUE!!!!! Esa es la verdad!
I was taught that a good writer makes the complicated, understandable, and the bad writer makes the understandable complicated. In the case of JPII, he made the "I don't know what" , into the what the heck was that!
People who follow the religion of "who knows?", will one day end up in the Hell of "who knew?".
None of we little ones can possibly know the full scoop on poor Sister Lucy, except what the Blessed Virgin Mary assured her, years before her death. She was very islolated, and it appears she suffered a long, dry martyrdom in reparation to the Immaculate Heart. There is no reason to believe that she had access to the type of information we have, but then she had access to the Immaculata. And don't forget who had her cell sealed off and collected her little belongings- Card. Ratzinger. We still don't know what he knows, we can only guess. But to suggest that she of all people agreed with the apostasy which the world is living in requires mental highjinks that I am incapable of. Almost anything is possible, but read Fatima in Twilight, see how miserably our Sr. Lucy was treated and by whom, and draw your own conclusions. Whatever has happened to Fre Michelle's suppressed manuscripts I wonder? For me this is up there with Who Killed JFK-huge mystery.
[quote="novusordowatch But I think I can do even better than the example of Sr. Lucy, and that is Padre Pio. Padre Pio recognized Montini VI as the Pope. But what will I base my salvation on? Infallible Catholic teaching or the mistakes of mortals?
[quote]
St. Pio "knew" a person's sins in the confessional without them even telling him plus he had many other gifts from God and he had the stigmata so to compare him to a mistake of mortals is not only wrong but downright ridiculous! There is no way he would have to obey someone who wasn't the Pope and he of all people would know if he was or wasn't. Infallible Catholic teaching does not tell the faithful they can make personal judgments and decide who or who isn't a Pope! _________________ http://romancatholicheroes.blogspot.com/
Infallible Catholic teaching does not tell the faithful they can make personal judgments and decide who or who isn't a Pope!
If I began claiming today to be the Pope you would rightly say that I am not the Pope. If Card. Mahoney were to start claiming that he was the Pope you would tell him that he was not and that in fact a different Cardinal had been chosen.
So of course you decide who to believe is the Pope.
What I think you are meaning to get across is that whoever the Cardinals at the conclave choose, that is who is the Pope. Well, the church has said that even if the Cardinals had 100% unanimous assent to elect a man, but that man was a heretic, the election would be completely null and void.
She either wasn't or else repented before her death. But your premise is a bit flawed. It should be: Knowingly to adhere to a heretic makes one a heretic oneself.
That statement is quite incorrect, and the premise is not flawed. A baptized child who reaches the age of reason but is being raised Protestant or Orthodox may not knowingly adhere to heresy, but he/she is still a heretic the day he/she reaches the age of reason and steps foot into a non-Catholic church to worship.
One does not have to knowingly be a heretic to be one. If a person is in communion with heretics, that person is a heretic. There is no other option.
Sister Lucia was in a convent where the New Mass was offered for at least 35 years, and she heard the errors contained in the text. She also confessed to, and went to Masses offered by, priests ordained in the New Rite. She had to know what she was doing.
The basic flaw in your premise is to state that Pope Ratzinger does not profess the Catholic Faith. That is not something you have the competency to judge; therefore, it is not correct to do so.
The basic flaw in your premise is to state that Pope Ratzinger does not profess the Catholic Faith. That is not something you have the competency to judge; therefore, it is not correct to do so.
If someone holds to even one heresy he does not hold the Catholic faith.
Sister Lucia was in a convent where the New Mass was offered for at least 35 years, and she heard the errors contained in the text. She also confessed to, and went to Masses offered by, priests ordained in the New Rite. She had to know what she was doing.
She may have done this out of obedience and offered it up as a penance, for all we know...
The basic flaw in your premise is to state that Pope Ratzinger does not profess the Catholic Faith. That is not something you have the competency to judge; therefore, it is not correct to do so.
If someone holds to even one heresy he does not hold the Catholic faith.
Even heretics like Luther get the opportunity for a Church trial before they are proclaimed by the Church to be heretics. Until Pope Benedict XVI is tried, not a single person on the planet can legitimately call him a heretic... that is unless that person has set himself up as some type of canonical judge within the Church.
I like the way the far left, liberal press almost always uses the "ultra-traditionalist" moniker for the SSPX.
I think you should post this article on that forum that is hostile to tradition and that we do not mention here...just to see how long it lasts before it gets zapped.
I appreciate your feedback, but I think it is dangerous to just hide behind an "I think he's weak" opinion, because there is absolutely no reason to believe that "weakness" has anything to do with this.
Just what in God's name makes you think I'm "hiding" behind a position? I posited a possibility. I'm not "hiding behind" anything. If I were hiding, I wouldn't have answered at all and would be quivering under my bed right now. This is the root of your error. Without a shred of real proof, you just accused me of "hiding" behind a position. With such a bad call as that, why should anyone believe you are accurate in saying that someone is or is not a Catholic?
Quote:
Ratzinger was suspected of heresy in the 1950s.
So was St. Joan of Arc. So was Fr. Feeney. Who actually was the person who did the suspecting? Was he convicted of heresy? Why didn't someone convict him of it and put him in a monastery? What in God's name was Pius XII doing? Wasn't Aquinas suspected of heresy by the Augustinians?
Quote:
Did he start out "really weak" already?
Why not? He certainly has never shown indomitable strength. He publicly broke down in tears when scolded by JPII. Not exactly a tower of strength. George Ratzinger shows more strength in personality than his younger brother.
Quote:
What's so weak about not adhering to Church teaching the way every priest is expected to?
I forgot. Being a priest, bishop, Cardinal or Pope is a walk in the park. The "hard sayings" of the Church, are not that hard. The devil doesn't attack them. In fact, being a layman is even easier. That's why I have to go out and sin in order to make my yearly confession.
Obviously the expectations in the seminaries of the 20s' and 30's became very different than prior to that. The entrance of clergy into secular universities was one of the first weakening elements in the formation of priests. WWI and WWII is another. The mass media is yet another. Having heterodox teachers appointed by the Church doesn't help either.
Quote:
What's weak about keeping the oath against modernism one has taken?
For many people, keeping an oath that goes against a major temptation can be very difficult. I've broken my baptismal promises many times. What is the weakness of a man with a strong intellect? Answer: Intellectual pride. Tantalizing new ideas that float between absolutes like a 9th or 11th chord would in music. There's something very appealing about mystery. Couple that with the high wall of faith that the Church demands we climb and you have a guarantee that the trip will be bumpy.
Quote:
Do we find anything in Fr. Ratzinger's writings that could in any way lend credence to the idea that we are dealing here with a "weak" man who would just love to be orthodox but does not have the mental capacity?
Since when does mental capacity have a proportional corrolation to moral weakness? There are plenty of abominable geniuses roaming around and some really dim-witted saints. Snooping through "God and the World," I can see a great deal of weakness. He consistently answers the questions posed to him with an orthodox answer, a speculation about possibilities of other answers, the consistent reference to the inexhaustible depths that God's revelation contains. It would be very tempting for a man with zeal to be intellectually tempted to not be satisfied with one answer when he sees so many tantalizing options. Especially when he is dealing with an infinite God. I don't think the man is mentally incompetent but rather morally weak in the exercise of his gifts. And administratively, he was one of the most toothless wolves in history.
Joined: 07 Jul 2005 Posts: 9791 Location: Central Massachusetts
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 8:30 am Post subject:
When I saw the headline "Ultra-traditionalist says pope should convert Jews," I thought that the "ultra" Traditionalist would be someone from the Society of Saint Pius V or from the Society of Saint Pius I or one of the current anti-Popes.
The Society of Saint Pius X is "middle-of-the-road" Traditionalist between the Fraternal Society of Saint Peter and the other "Indultarians" on one side and those listed above on the other.
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 9:08 am Post subject: ultra traditionalism
To be a Catholic automatically means you know and believe you belong to the one true church founded by Christ, outside of which no one is saved. What we have today is an overwhelming presence of "politically correct" wimps who refuse to proclaim Christ, and Him crucified. If Benedict does not do this, as a minimum he is derelict in his duty.
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Posts: 918 Location: Guildford, UK
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 9:17 am Post subject:
"When I saw the headline "Ultra-traditionalist says pope should convert Jews," I thought that the "ultra" Traditionalist would be someone from the Society of Saint Pius V or from the Society of Saint Pius I or one of the current anti-Popes." ........ tom
You have to see such terminology from the position of the writer. He may regard post-conciliar popes as traditionalist if they adhere to some extent to some traditional doctrine or practice or give lip service to opposing liberal abuses. Therefore, those in support of a genuine traditionalism become ultra traditionalist. It tantamounts calls them extremist especially if directed towards the conversion of Jews .... and voiced by a German priest at that!
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 9:52 am Post subject: benedict XVI
While the actions and writings of the past 5 popes indeed raise serious questions about their orthodoxy, one must have virtually 100% assurance and solid irrefutable evidence against them before declaring oneself a BLEEP!. Despite the writings of Robert Bellarmine and others on this issue, it is also true no on may judge the pope, no one may depose a pope, certainly not lay persons.
It is possible, maybe even probable, that at some future council, the church will solidly return to orthodoxy and these popes declared heretical. But we have no room to make that decision. We must remain loyal to Rome of tradition and ignore the heterodoxy eminating from the modernists in control of the structure of the church
Joined: 11 Apr 2005 Posts: 7071 Location: San Diego
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:21 am Post subject:
Tom wrote:
When I saw the headline "Ultra-traditionalist says pope should convert Jews," I thought that the "ultra" Traditionalist would be someone from the Society of Saint Pius V or from the Society of Saint Pius I or one of the current anti-Popes.
The Society of Saint Pius X is "middle-of-the-road" Traditionalist between the Fraternal Society of Saint Peter and the other "Indultarians" on one side and those listed above on the other.
If you all keep allowing yourself to use their continuum-of-truth spectrum, Newchurch will eventually pin you into a corner every time. Don't do this to yourselves.
Does anyone actually get what I'm saying or am I just posting to the wind?
"I warned you, but did you listen to me? Ooooh no, you knew it all, didn't you? Oh, it's just a harmless little continuum, isn't it? Well, it's always the same. I always tell them--"
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 2:35 pm Post subject: Re: Ultra-traditionalist says pope should convert Jews
Eulogius wrote:
"Instead of leading their members to our Lord Jesus Christ, to Baptism and the confession of faith in his divinity, they refrain from this and so we consider these other religions as very dangerous," he told a news conference presenting a biography of Lefebvre.
Does anyone know about this new biography that Fr. Schmidberger was presenting? I thought we had a pretty comprehensive one written only a year or so ago,by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, or is the same one?
Does anyone actually get what I'm saying or am I just posting to the wind?
Both.
It's a very important concept Pas, to not take "sides" on the issue of truth, to instead sift through all the nonsense and find the nuggets.
That said, you are talking to the wind - I don't think anyone is paying any attention to you. That's why I replaced your name with REDACTED and banned Karl when he made his splash here. Not because he acted badly and exposed details of your personal life, but because he was affected profoundly by something you said.
We can't have that.
That goes for everyone. Whatever causes Pascendi's Angelqueen experience to be anything but a time-wasting exercise in futility is NOT allowed.
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 58 Location: Florida, USA
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 5:33 pm Post subject:
Dolorosa wrote:
St. Pio "knew" a person's sins in the confessional without them even telling him plus he had many other gifts from God and he had the stigmata so to compare him to a mistake of mortals is not only wrong but downright ridiculous! There is no way he would have to obey someone who wasn't the Pope and he of all people would know if he was or wasn't. Infallible Catholic teaching does not tell the faithful they can make personal judgments and decide who or who isn't a Pope!
Wait a minute now! Yes, Padre Pio had wonderful gifts, but nothing in Catholic doctrine or morality obliges me to believe that God did not withhold this gift when it came to Paul VI, certainly a wicked modernist, by all outward appearances (this became clear especially after the council). What will you base your salvation on? Padre Pio or Catholic teaching? Padre Pio, despite his saintliness, was only a man, and the gifts he had were not his, properly speaking, but God's. So then, can God not choose to withhold His gifts, especially as punishment for the rest of the faithful? St. Vincent Ferrer continued to work miracles even as he adhered to an Antipope! Yes, St. Vincent was mistaken about who the Pope was, and yet he still worked miracles! Applying your standard to that situation, you would have missed the true Pope!
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 58 Location: Florida, USA
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 5:37 pm Post subject:
DJR wrote:
One does not have to knowingly be a heretic to be one. If a person is in communion with heretics, that person is a heretic. There is no other option.
You are confusing the canonical aspect of heresy with the moral aspect. One can be a canonical heretic though not a heretic morally (I suppose this is especially true of children just above the age of reason).
Quote:
The basic flaw in your premise is to state that Pope Ratzinger does not profess the Catholic Faith. That is not something you have the competency to judge; therefore, it is not correct to do so.
Yes, I very much have the competency to judge whether Fr. Ratzinger is a Catholic or not. And you do too, assuming you know enough of the basics of Catholicism that you would be able to tell the difference between a Catholic worshiping the Trinity and a Hindu worshiping a cow. This is not about competency or authority. This is about whether a man whose actions and teachings are those of Fr. Ratzinger, can honestly be said to be a Catholic. Ratzinger explicitly denies No Salvation outside the Church, papal primacy, infant baptism, and the dogma that original sin is transmitted through generation. Such a man is not a Catholic.
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 58 Location: Florida, USA
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 5:43 pm Post subject:
DJR wrote:
Even heretics like Luther get the opportunity for a Church trial before they are proclaimed by the Church to be heretics.
That's false. If you read the bull Exurge Domine of Pope Leo X, you will see that Pope Leo is saying Luther is a heretic and no further anything is needed. He only gave Luther an extra 60 days to repent to show his good will and mercy towards the heretic. But it is not the case that Luther got a trial first before he was able to be considered a heretic (at least not to my knowledge--if you have evidence to the contrary, please let us know). The man's heresies cried to Heaven; there was no need for an examination.
I wonder if you would say that a church trial is needed to convict me of heresy if I started saying Christ didn't rise from the dead.
Quote:
Until Pope Benedict XVI is tried, not a single person on the planet can legitimately call him a heretic... that is unless that person has set himself up as some type of canonical judge within the Church.
I think that's disingenuous, since in the next breath you will say that no one has authority to try him in the first place. I wonder how you reconcile that with Pope Paul IV's teaching that a heretic elected to the papacy is not a real Pope, even if all the faithful accept him as Pope.
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 5:48 pm Post subject: Convergence not conversion
Thank God for Reverend Father Franz Schmidberger! The ecumaniac agenda of the modern Vatican is one horrific scandal which only gives ammunition to the BLEEP!s.
Even heretics like Luther get the opportunity for a Church trial before they are proclaimed by the Church to be heretics.
That's false. If you read the bull Exurge Domine of Pope Leo X, you will see that Pope Leo is saying Luther is a heretic and no further anything is needed. He only gave Luther an extra 60 days to repent to show his good will and mercy towards the heretic. But it is not the case that Luther got a trial first before he was able to be considered a heretic (at least not to my knowledge--if you have evidence to the contrary, please let us know). The man's heresies cried to Heaven; there was no need for an examination.
The statement that Luther was a heretic CAME FROM A POPE. SV's are not the pope; therefore, they have neither authority nor expertise in the matter.
Quote:
I wonder if you would say that a church trial is needed to convict me of heresy if I started saying Christ didn't rise from the dead.
Quote:
Until Pope Benedict XVI is tried, not a single person on the planet can legitimately call him a heretic... that is unless that person has set himself up as some type of canonical judge within the Church.
I think that's disingenuous, since in the next breath you will say that no one has authority to try him in the first place. I wonder how you reconcile that with Pope Paul IV's teaching that a heretic elected to the papacy is not a real Pope, even if all the faithful accept him as Pope.
The fact of the matter is that SV's have neither authority nor expertise to declare Pope Benedict XVI a heretic, and that settles the matter. Until SV's can demonstrate what authority they have to issue such proclamations, Catholics should turn a deaf ear to them, which is what 99.999% of Catholics do.
SV's are not infallible, yet I have never seen an SV'er yet who could admit that he/she could be wrong in the matter regarding the legitimacy of the post Pius XII popes.
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 58 Location: Florida, USA
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 6:00 pm Post subject:
Gerard wrote:
Just what in God's name makes you think I'm "hiding" behind a position? I posited a possibility. I'm not "hiding behind" anything. If I were hiding, I wouldn't have answered at all and would be quivering under my bed right now. This is the root of your error. Without a shred of real proof, you just accused me of "hiding" behind a position. With such a bad call as that, why should anyone believe you are accurate in saying that someone is or is not a Catholic?
I apologize, I did not mean to suggest a moral fault in your intention, I just think that holding "I think he's weak" really doesn't answer anything at all.
Quote:
So was St. Joan of Arc. So was Fr. Feeney. Who actually was the person who did the suspecting? Was he convicted of heresy? Why didn't someone convict him of it and put him in a monastery? What in God's name was Pius XII doing? Wasn't Aquinas suspected of heresy by the Augustinians?
Are you honestly going to put St. Joan of Arc on a level with Fr. Ratzinger, whose friend Hans Kung helped him get a teaching position at the infamous Tubingen University? Who did the suspecting? The Holy Office. Obviously, I do not know how bad Ratzinger's writings were in the 1950's, and I do not know the progress of the investigation of the Holy Office (for all I know, the suspicion may have been officially put there in 1957), but by canon law, someone suspected of heresy must remove the suspicion within 6 months, or else he is to be considered a heretic. Now, in case there were any questions about whether Fr. Ratzinger was a real heretic or only one falsely so-accused, I think the last 47 years give us plenty of insight on that.
Quote:
Why not? He certainly has never shown indomitable strength. He publicly broke down in tears when scolded by JPII. Not exactly a tower of strength.
Oh, please! Yes, poor Benedict XVI! If someone could only hand him a Baltimore Catechism! See, he would love to be orthodox, he just doesn't know what he's doing wrong! You know, when the teacher grading his doctoral disseration told him it was heretical, Fr. Ratzinger's response wasn't exactly one of humility. He said: "You don't understand St. Bonaventure." Thanks a lot. No breaking down and crying at that point, I suppose.
Quote:
For many people, keeping an oath that goes against a major temptation can be very difficult. I've broken my baptismal promises many times. What is the weakness of a man with a strong intellect? Answer: Intellectual pride. Tantalizing new ideas that float between absolutes like a 9th or 11th chord would in music. There's something very appealing about mystery. Couple that with the high wall of faith that the Church demands we climb and you have a guarantee that the trip will be bumpy.
Now that's curious. For other people breaking the oath against modernism had to do with pride; apparently for Fr. Ratzinger it was "weakness." Why? What is the reason you believe he was "weak" rather than proud? Could it have something to do with his claim to the papacy today? But let's see. If he was only weak, he would immediately have repented of his weakness and condemned modernism again. No, we do not have a "weak" character here. We have a man of incredible pride. Ratzinger doesn't teach modernism out of weakness. He teaches it out of pride and conviction. Or do you ever recall Fr. Ratzinger lamenting his own modernism, like a Catholic would lament his sins and shortcomings and the broken baptismal promises?
Quote:
He consistently answers the questions posed to him with an orthodox answer, a speculation about possibilities of other answers, the consistent reference to the inexhaustible depths that God's revelation contains.
I think we are not at all on the same page then. Perhaps you could explain to me the orthodoxy in this answer he gave on original sin:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/benedict/originalsin.htm
Nothing in there about the loss of grace transmitted through natural generation.
Quote:
I don't think the man is mentally incompetent but rather morally weak in the exercise of his gifts.
When you see Benedict XVI sincerely lamenting his modernism, please notify me. On a related note, I wonder if you would say all these things about "Cardinal" Mahony as well?
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 58 Location: Florida, USA
Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2005 6:09 pm Post subject:
DJR wrote:
The statement that Luther was a heretic CAME FROM A POPE. SV's are not the pope; therefore, they have neither authority nor expertise in the matter.
That's irrelevant. Take the example of the faithful under Bishop Nestorius. When he started preaching heresy, they rejected him. "An emperor we have, but not a bishop." And that was before the official judgment came from Rome.
But it should not be surprising that the faithful as such are competent enough to discern heresy. After all, they are expected to know their Faith. If I know the Faith, I also know a deviation from the Faith. Though the lay faithful have no authority to legally declare someone a heretic before the Church, they can certainly point out that someone does not hold the Catholic faith. The Vatican-approved book Liberalism is a Sin by Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany confirms this as well.
Quote:
The fact of the matter is that SV's have neither authority nor expertise to declare Pope Benedict XVI a heretic, and that settles the matter. Until SV's can demonstrate what authority they have to issue such proclamations, Catholics should turn a deaf ear to them, which is what 99.999% of Catholics do.
No, as I showed. You're avoiding the question. (If 99.9% of non-sedes turned a deaf ear to BLEEP!-ism, it would hardly have been necessary for the Remnant, Fatima Crusader, and Catholic Family News to unleash a deluge of articles attacking this position, don't you agree?)
Quote:
SV's are not infallible, yet I have never seen an SV'er yet who could admit that he/she could be wrong in the matter regarding the legitimacy of the post Pius XII popes.
Will you admit that you could be wrong and be adhering to an antipope?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Who does this Schmidberger think he is? Does he think he is
