Latest topics
» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM and Christine Niles approve liberal theology on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
Sat May 16, 2015 5:23 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Christine Niles misses the elephant in the living room
Fri May 15, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Cardinal Pell recommends the Roman Forum and telling a lie
Wed May 13, 2015 9:43 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» GOOGLE CLOSES DOWN BLOG EUCHARIST AND MISSION
Tue May 12, 2015 9:23 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this
Mon Apr 13, 2015 9:25 am by George Brenner

» Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error
Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:27 pm by tornpage

» Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:49 am by Lionel Andrades

» Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass
Sat Mar 07, 2015 6:25 am by Lionel Andrades

» Beautiful Gregorian Chant
Fri Mar 06, 2015 10:10 pm by tornpage

» Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
Fri Mar 06, 2015 6:47 am by Lionel Andrades


Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  Guest on Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:01 am

Childhood

Bishop Neal Webster grew up as a young Catholic in New York before the changes of Vatican II. Aware that he may have a priestly vocation he entered the seminary of the Society of St. Pius X in the U.S.A. While there he met many of the seminarians who would later become priests in the "Traditional Roman Rite Movement". Upon leaving seminary, he moved to Florida and lived with a Trappist monk. While in Florida, he developed a severe medical condition, which he was cured from (see account below). He then spent time with Franciscan friars in upstate New York who were hosting Bishop Thuc. Little did he know that the Bishop would later affect his life in a more profound way. Shortly before his ordination he became involved with promoting the rosary.



Illness and Healing

A Traditionalist Is Cured At Lourdes

Features / 02

Posted by jgreene, Feb 26, 2007 - 01:20 PM

by Neal Webster




The Angelus is delighted to present this first-hand account of a Traditional Catholic's adventures at Lourdes. Mr. Webster is a New Yorker, transplanted to Florida; he sells insurance for his livelihood and directs the Oratory of the Holy Rosary in West Palm Beach.



Part I The Pilgrimage


The human body is a wonder of God's works. It is so very complicated and delicately balanced in all of its innumerable functions and movements that it alone is a testimony for the existence of God. For only an almighty, omnipotent and infinitely intelligent God could effect such a mechanism as our body. So delicate, in fact, is this balance of our bodies, that often one small part of it malfunctioning or not functioning at all can cause absolute havoc for the rest of it.

In my case, the entire mechanism was being reduced to the status of invalid in rapidly deteriorating stages. The cause was a severely crushed lower disc which was pinching nerves and causing varying degrees of paralysis in one leg. In fact, nerves were being pinched and crimped and torn so badly that by the end of September, 1981, I could hardly walk more than a few yards at a time and those with great difficulty�in an unnatural, hunched forward posture, with the knees always bent. It was typical of a ninety-five-year-old man, not someone in his mid-thirties. Yet it was the only position that would lessen the discomfort, pain and numbness enough to allow a few steps to be taken. In four years I had gone from the status of being physically robust to that of a handicapped. Surgery was inevitable and I had begun to make arrangements to have the disc removed in November or December, 1981. Nevertheless, before my operation I was determined to go to Lourdes in hopes of a cure from God rather than man. I hoped to obtain, at the least, enough graces to have a successful operation and I tentatively planned to leave in the middle of November.

On Friday, October 2, 1981, I was told quite providentially that Lourdes closed the next Wednesday, October 7, 1981, on the Feast of the Most Holy Rosary. (I later learned upon arriving in Lourdes that the baths are always open, but no one is there to assist.) Needless to say, I was shocked and, at first, I thought this an overwhelming dilemma. How could I possibly get to Lourdes before Wednesday, just five days away? Yet, if I didn't get there, the next opportunity would not be until Easter, when it reopened. The pace at which my health was degenerating was such that I would be totally handicapped by that time. I therefore interpreted the news as a sign from Our Lady that I was to go to Lourdes as soon as possible. (Why not take it as a sign? After all, I could have discovered Lourdes was closed after it was too late!) Believing it to be a sign, I was very hopeful, indeed, almost confident that I would have a cure. Why else would a sign be given?

In anticipation of going to Lourdes, I had already renewed my passport. All I really needed for my journey was a plane ticket, for my only objective was to take a bath at the grotto and I cared nothing for anything else, including hotel reservations. Thanks to credit cards, telephones and friends, I was on my way by Monday, October 5, 1981, having just solved one of my biggest concerns. The concern was how I would get from the parking lot at the airport to the terminal. I could not walk the distance and I didn't own a wheelchair. Believe it or not, this presented a great difficulty for I could only walk about ten yards and then my nerves and muscles gave out and pain dramatically increased. (The airlines don't provide parking lot assistance.) Fortunately, I was given a ride and was able to find a wheelchair just outside the terminal.

By 6:30 p.m., I was in the wheelchair and being whisked down a long, long corridor at Miami International Airport, towards a waiting Pan American 747 bound for London. (Flights to London are one-half the cost of flying directly to France.) I was to fly all night, change planes in London and fly to Paris, change airports in Paris via a cross-city bus, catch a flight to Lourdes and then somehow get from the Lourdes Airport to the grotto of St. Bernadette and Our Lady. The last leg of the journey was the greatest unknown. I spoke no French, had no contacts and had no wheelchair. I reasoned that if I was able to get as far as the Lourdes Airport, then surely Our Lord and Our Lady were helping me and surely they would somehow provide for the last leg of my journey. They would have to, for I was traveling alone.

The prospect of going across the ocean to a foreign country alone where an unfamiliar language was spoken, and the people were even sometimes hostile to Americans, in the condition I was in, was absolutely frightening, to say the least. The fear of being a cripple in Europe with no one to help was so strong that it was the only reason I hadn't gone to Lourdes in August. I had been unsuccessful in finding anyone whose circumstances, budget and passport, etc., lent themselves to being able to go with me. A few days before leaving, I called my most likely candidate to accompany me. He really wanted to go but couldn't leave his job for one or two weeks. When I told him we would only be at Lourdes for one day and return, so that the entire trip would only take three days, he was aghast. His reply was somewhat disconcerting, but certainly justified. He said, "What are you going to do, Neal, go to Lourdes, take a bath, get miraculously cured and then fly back the next day?"

I had to admit it did sound a little ridiculous. Weakly, I replied, "Yes." What else could I say? Aren't we supposed to be fools for Christ?

"Well, I have to admit, Neal, your faith is much stronger than mine is. If your faith is that strong, then you ought to have enough faith that God will get you there and back by yourself!"

I had to agree with him. Surely, if I was to be cured, Our Lady of Lourdes would see to it that I got there.

After so many novenas, I had to attempt to go there, for how else could they possibly be answered? It's true that God can work a miracle anywhere, but He seems to prefer some visible sign to underscore the truth that it was He who caused it and no other. (Likewise, the sacraments of the Church all have external signs although their real effects are invisible and felt in the soul.) If I was cured after just having a bath a Lourdes, the visible sign of God is there. The cause of the cure is undeniably and unquestionably from God and is unquestionably Catholic. With these thoughts in mind, I thought the only thing lacking in my novenas was the visible sign. In addition, where else could one go today to get a visible sign?

And so, with many mixed but mostly joyful thoughts, I sat near the door of the 747 (where they seat cripples) and meditated while praying in silence, one rosary after another. I declined the headphones and almost all conversation. My pilgrimage had officially begun!

Early Tuesday morning, October 6th, we landed in London. My first test of Divine Providence was about to begin. Would there be a wheelchair or someone to help me make my connection to Air France's flight to Paris? Having been the first to board, I had to be the last to leave and wait until over four hundred people filed past me, before hobbling a few feet out the door. Thanks be to God! several wheelchairs awaited outside the plane and an airline employee was soon pushing me towards the terminal. Shortly, a motor vehicle came by and I was promptly transferred to it and whisked away once again by an attendant. I soon passed most of the passengers on my flight and having only a small carry-on bag, I was immediately taken the back way via elevators, a panel van and a bus to Air France's waiting flight. I didn't even have to think of where I was going! It was so easy, in fact, that I began thinking this is the best way to travel. But more likely, I thought Our Lady must be with me and guiding me every inch of the way. I wasn't certain of this, of course, as I still had many bridges to cross before getting to my destination. The next one was more formidable than the last. I had to take a bus across Paris unassisted. If this one was pulled off, then I would know for certain that I was having Divine assistance.

Thus, with some apprehension, I hobbled a few yards off the airplane in Paris. As I stood outside the door, I looked for a wheelchair. The only one I saw had a Frenchman and a stewardess standing next to it. I took a few steps toward them as they seemed to be soliciting one of the passengers. As I got closer, I could discern what they were saying. They were calling my name!

Joyfully, I nearly jumped into the wheelchair and it was off to the races! Apparently my French guide was late for an appointment for we sped through a very complicated Charles De Gaulle Airport in record time, I'm sure. Thank Almighty God for him, for I would have been lost even had I been healthy and able to read French. In just ten minutes, we were outside the airport (having passed by Customs with several thousand people waiting, with just a nod to the officials). In the next instant, I was being assisted onto a bus, led to a seat near the door, my bag placed before me, and a ticket handed to the driver. It was so fast, I never had a chance to pay! I sat there astounded. Without lifting a finger (other than to hold on), I found myself on the right bus: the bus that goes to Orly Airport where my plane for Lourdes would depart. My bridge was crossed! I pondered who it was that had taken me to the right bus without saying a word. I never found out but I was convinced I was now in the best of hands. For now I knew ... Our Lady was taking me to Lourdes!

About forty-five minutes later Orly Airport came into view. I was amazed a taxi driver was allowed to drive a bus. I felt sorry for any car that got in our way. It was all I could do to keep my mind off the highway as I unceasingly prayed the rosary; this time with renewed fervor.

Upon leaving the bus, I was able to communicate to a porter about my need for a wheelchair. I was wheeled to the gate and it was there that I came face to face with the reality of all the sick, who go to Lourdes. Without saying a word, a few of us in wheelchairs eyed each other and knew each other's thoughts. "The doctors had failed, we were incurable, we didn't wish to suffer any longer, we were desperate enough to try traveling far across the world on the hope of having a miracle." We felt a certain camaraderie amongst ourselves, but a certain embarrassment before others.

All went smoothly, and approximately an hour later at 2:30 pm., Tuesday, we landed at Lourdes Airport. They were very experienced at assisting the sick and I was easily put onto a bus for downtown Lourdes. I had planned to take the bus to a hotel, and then a taxi to the grotto. Foolishly, I got off the bus too soon, outside a large hotel in front of a bus stop about one mile from the grotto. Little did I realize the tiny city of Lourdes was trying very unsuccessfuly to accommodate the biggest and last pilgrimage of the year. Over fifty thousand pilgrims were flooding the town and there wasn't a room to be found. I began to wonder what surprises Our Lady had in store for me and how she and Our Lord might provide for me. After a few hopeful prayers, I suddenly managed to get a taxi.

Upon leaving the taxi, I found myself standing at the entrance of the grounds of Lourdes and witnessing an almost unbelievable scene. I'm sure no where else on earth could one see so many sick being moved about in various modes of orthopedic transportation, and with only volunteers pushing them. I stood outside the entrance as a steady stream of the lame, the sick and the crippled were wheeled passed me in both directions to and from the magnificent grounds of Lourdes. Hundreds passed by me in just a few minutes. I never saw so many wheelchairs in one place ... but for me, there was none. Standing there, appearing healthy, how could I make known my needs? How could I cut through the language barrier and explain to them I couldn't walk? Finally, after a torturing twenty minutes, I was able to obtain assistance and what assistance it was! Two large French volunteer helpers of the sick motioned for me to put my hands on each of their shoulders. One took my bag and they began walking as I held on. I had to hang onto their shoulders, supporting myself as they walked; and as they walked my feet dragged behind. I was still unable to move my one leg at their pace, even with little or no weight on it. For about one hundred yards, I was transported like a sack of potatoes being dragged across the ground. I suffered quite a lot being moved in such a manner but I was so overcome with joy for being there and finding help that I cared not if my illness worsened as I was coming closer and closer to my goal. Soon I would be able to take a bath in the holy waters of Lourdes! Soon I might be cured, soon perhaps Our Lord, through the intercession of Our Lady, might make me whole again. I was so happy with these thoughts that nothing else really concerned me. After passing hoards of people, about one-half of them in various stages of paralysis, I was eventually dumped onto a bed in a first aid station about one-quarter mile from the grotto. Shortly, a doctor began taking my blood pressure and interrogating me.

"What happened?"

"I can't walk."

"Did you fall?"

"No, I've been this way for more than a year."

After examining me and questioning me about my condition, he asked me about my situation.

"Who is with you?"

"I came alone."

"Where are you staying?"

"I don't know. There are no hotels."

"How long are you staying?"

"Long enough to take a bath at the grotto. Could you lend me a wheelchair?"

His eyes opened very wide. Somewhat excited he said, "You have no place to stay, you are alone and you can't walk, you want to take a bath, is that right?"

I replied, "Yes, that's right."

"Amazing! You came all the way from America! You are a brave man!"

"No, Doctor, I'm nuts!"

"It's after 4:00 p.m., and the baths are closed until tomorrow. Wait here. I think I have a place for you to stay tonight." He quickly left the room.

Wait here, I thought? Where was I going to go?

He promptly returned with two helpers and a wheelchair. Once again I was whisked away�I was getting used to it�to where I knew not.

First, I was taken outside and pushed quite a distance along the pavement past mobs of arriving pilgrims, both sick and healthy, as well as numerous nurses and volunteer attendants available to assist the sick in their every need. Suddenly, a sharp left into a large building and a new set of hands took the controls, placed me in a modified handtruck which had a seat on it, leaned me way back, almost parallel to the ground, then forward into an elevator, then down corridors and around corners. Finally someone stopped us. My driver replied to a question in French.

"St. Patrick's?" I heard.

He was then given directions and off we went again.

Where was I? What was going on? Where were they taking me? What was St. Patrick doing in France? The mysteries were solved very shortly, as we arrived at our destination. I was wheeled into a large room with rows of beds on either side. A hospital! I was in a hospital! I was immediately deposited next to the only vacant bed. I was in one of hundreds of wards named after a great saint. Mine was St. Patrick. Blessed be God, Our Lady had done it again! Everything I needed had been provided. Food, shelter, and someone to take me to the grotto the next day, the Feast of the Most Holy Rosary.

And so my journey so far was successful. Our Lady had provided for me. There I lay in a ward with twenty Frenchmen and one Italian. Many were so sick they could not even sit up in bed. They were moved on stretchers and then taken to the baths, they were lowered by straps into the water. They were the poorest of the pilgrims and the poorest of the sick. For such as these, St. Bernadette had requested that a free place always exist for them so that lack of money would never prevent anyone from making a pilgrimage. It has been said that a rich man has never been cured at Lourdes. I laid there exceedingly grateful and slightly overwhelmed at the events preceding my arrival in that room.


Part 2 The Cure


At 7:00 a.m. on the 7th of October, the Feast of the Most Holy Rosary, the lights went on and the ward became a beehive of activity. A swarm of volunteer helpers and nurses burst into action. There were at least one and a half volunteers for each patient. They assisted the sick in washing and dressing. Many of the sick were so paralyzed they need three or four at a time to help them. By comparison, I was vigorous. I could hobble a few feet to a sink and put on my own clothes. By 8:30 a.m., everyone was ready, and we watched as more volunteers came in and opposite each bed they placed the modified handtrucks which had seats on them. Soon all the patients were seated and carted down the hallways, down the elevators and outside where we were all transferred to individual wagons. Each wagon had a handle and a nurse or helper assigned to it to pull the patients over the grounds of the shrine. A blanket was thrown over my legs which were shaking in the early cold of the mountains, quite different from Florida. Soon we were lined up and pulled, caravan-style, slowly and in silence, towards the famous Basilica of St. Pius X. This was a very beautiful and touching scene. I watched as I rode along, praying my first rosary of the day. Almost every wagon was pulled by a stranger and for no material compensation. It was pure charity on a grand scale and I can think of only one place where thousands help thousands so unselfishly, and it is heaven.

Although I was feeling very much at home for a lonely, crippled pilgrim, I was not looking forward to what was coming next! A concelebration performed before thousands who were unable to run away! My one consolation was the fact that it would be said in French which meant I wouldn't be able to understand a word. I could pray my rosary and meditate on Our Lady's holy mysteries without getting upset at what I might hear. I was at the mercy of whoever pulled my wagon and although I wanted nothing more than to go straight to the grotto for a bath, I had to wait until all the scheduled activities for the patients had taken place.

After the services were completed, an elderly volunteer nurse was assigned to my wagon, apparently because she spoke some English. She was so dedicated to assisting me and making certain I was comfortable, I think Our Lady must have placed her there. All alone, she pulled me up a very steep incline, surprising me with her strength. She asked if there was any place I wanted to go.

"To the baths!"

She said the patients couldn't bathe there until the afternoon, but she would pull me for one-half mile or so to see the grotto where Our Lady appeared to St. Bernadette over hundred twenty years ago.

The wagon was pulled for about twenty minutes around the grounds of Lourdes. I was pulled up-hill over a bridge crossing a river which flows by the grotto of Our Lady. On the other side we headed downstream and soon, as I rode along, I noted a large crowd on the opposite side of the river. I wondered what they were doing and suddenly it occurred to me where they were and where I was too. The grotto! There it was! The real grotto! The actual spot where Our Lady appeared! The spot where miracles abound, which every Catholic in the world has heard about; and of which I personally had seen so many replicas in this country. Was I actually here on holy ground? In a moment, tears of joy filled my eyes. I had reached the destination of a lifetime.

My saintly nurse parked me across the river from the grotto where I sat alone able to pray and meditate undisturbed. She left to join the other patients attending a lecture on the Eucharist in French from which I was excused. I had an hour to myself to observe at a distance the pilgrims at the grotto, and reflect upon what happened there and what I hoped would happen there next. I prayed, "Please, dear Lord, let me take a bath today, on the Feast of the Most Holy Rosary." I meditated across from the grotto on all the sick, on what if I wasn't cured, but primarily I looked at the statue of Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception, Our sin-free Lady which was placed in a niche at the top of the grotto, the exact place where Our Lady appeared to Bernadette. It was indeed sacred ground and still venerated as such. Silence was in force and all gaiety and foolish conversation ceased when one walked past. Everyone would kneel or at least pause and say a prayer while passing. The respect given was on a par to what one gives when passing a tabernacle in a traditional Catholic Church. There was a certain joy imparted to all as they knelt and prayed and it was evidenced by so many kind acts performed there.

To the right of the grotto was a long line of pilgrims passing one by one underneath the statue of Our Lady and entering the grotto to offer their prayers and to touch and kiss the walls of the holy place.

I meditated on how good and generous was Our Lady to have appeared to Bernadette, to give us a stern warning to amend our lives, to do penance for our sins, and to pray constantly her holy, sanctifying rosary; on how miracles are still worked today as a testimony to the truth of the apparitions and the importance of the messages. "Pray the Rosary and do penance." I thought how the water of Lourdes is symbolic of the water of baptism, because souls are nourished and given grace by both waters. I thought how the grotto in itself reminds one of the cave in which Our Lord was born, how Bernadette was a shepherdess for a period of her life, and if one likens the miraculous spring to the birth of Jesus, our divine Lord, the Nativity is recreated.

My nurse returned. Like a trained husky, she pulled my wagon up and over another bridge crossing the river again to the grotto side. I'll never forget her, nor her strength or dedication. We passed the baths where I longed to go, but my time was not yet. A little further we stopped amidst the crowd gathered in silence by the entrance to the famous grotto. I continued to pray my rosary as I watched the long line of pilgrims file underneath the statue of Our Lady and into the recesses of the cave where they kissed and venerated the walls. My nurse suddenly left me and rushed off to speak to a guard overseeing the line of pilgrims. She then rushed back, grabbed my wagon, and pulled me through a gate, past everyone and right to the front of the line! There I was stopped as thousands of pilgrims waited and watched my wagon parked underneath Our Lady, next to the holy walls. I was so startled and surprised I didn't know what to think or to do. But it was my turn to venerate the grotto and all watched and waited for me to do something! I stumbled from my wagon to stand a moment and kiss the walls. I was beside myself with thanksgiving and emotion; I could only thank God and Our Lady for my unwarranted, unmerited preferential treatment at her holy shrine. I got back in the wagon and made the sign of the cross with some water dripping along a portion of the walls. I was next pulled inside the grotto to the spot where the holy water of Lourdes, the miraculous spring, originates. It appeared to originate from pure stone. Without pressure it was flowing from the rocks above ground level. I thought of the first time the spring had been discovered by Bernadette whereupon she washed herself in it. Finally, I was pulled from the grotto feeling absolutely jubilant, grateful, thankful, blessed and consoled. Had I immediately been transported back to America, my trip would have been worthwhile. Nevertheless, I was growing more and more anxious to take a bath but much against my will, I was required to return to my ward for lunch with the other patients.

Eventually, the longest meal I ever ate came to an end, at 2:00 p.m. Afterwards, the volunteers entered the ward with their hand-trucks and again moved all the patients outside, where we were transferred to our wagons. My trusty nurse soon had the handle of my wagon and at last we were off to the baths! Faithfully she pulled me past the crowds and traffic jams of people, past the grotto where all was silent, where the lines of pilgrims were quietly passing beneath Our Lady of the Immaculate Conception. That was as far as we got for the moment, as the lines to the baths were exceptionally long and were backed up one to two hundred yards. We were now five abreast moving only a few feet in between eternities of time. After forty-five minutes or so we had moved only a very short distance and I began to worry that my faithful servant would grow weary of shifting from one leg to the other in the cold, or grow tired of pulling me around like a slave and head back to the ward, with the suggestion of returning the next day when the crowds might be smaller. I worried, but alas, unnecessarily. We moved closer and closer without a sign of complaint and without veering from our course. I began to thank God for giving me such an incredible, self-sacrificing person to assist me on my pilgrimage, especially since she didn't even know me.

An hour later, at about 3:00 p.m., we finally reached the entrance to the baths. There was still a long wait, but now I was sure they wouldn't close before my turn came. My nurse must have been well known because she whispered in one of the attendant's ears who was in charge of the line, and the next thing I knew I was being transferred from my wagon to a wheelchair. Time for men and women to separate. I was placed on a shorter line immediately outside the baths for about twenty minutes, another eternity of anxiousness. (How could they let me sit there like that with such longing in my heart?) At the same time, I was nervous and also very cold. What if I had come all this way and wasn't cured? What a fool I would have been. How stupid on my part. All my detractors back home in America who accused me of wasting time and money by coming here as well as lacking any sense would be proved right! "I told you so" would be my homecoming. I began to waver in my confidence in God. "I'm not going to be cured," I said to myself. "How could I be so dumb? What the heck am I doing here? Go home and have your surgery like a man!" But then, how could I not be cured? After all, hadn't I come here trusting in God? Isn't this a miraculous shrine of the holy Catholic Church? The one true Church? Hadn't enough Rosaries and Masses been offered? Wouldn't my detractors completely lose their faith if I wasn't cured? I asked God at this point to please cure me, if only for the sake of those who didn't believe or who had lost their faith, to bring them back, to offer a witness to them that: 1) there is a God Who is capable of working miracles; 2) He is present in the true Roman Catholic Church; 3) If you trust in Him, He will help you.

Another eternity! Finally I was asked to move inside. Once inside I hobbled to the dressing room. In a flash, my clothes were off. I was ready to take the coldest plunge of my life. Suddenly an attendant threw a wet rubber cloth around me-a very cold wet rubber cloth! I grimaced, but my anxiety, excitement and longing at this point were enough to overcome just about anything.

My turn came. I hobbled down two or three steps into the knee-deep water. Two men standing alongside the bath held my arms. One told me to make the sign of the cross and recite the Our Father. Gladly I did so as I shivered and the two men recited with me. Then we all said a Hail Mary. Then I was handed a small statue of Our Lady of Lourdes which I was told to kiss and bless myself with it in my hand. Once that was over, I grew more nervous. The moment of a lifetime had arrived. Now I would find out if God would grant me a great favor or not. The only thing left was to be lowered into the water. The procedure was to bend your knees, leaning backwards, as they held your arms and controlled your descent. I began to concentrate on my injury. The constant aggravation, the numbness in my leg which prevented me from walking properly, the sensation of pain! I couldn't help myself but I kept thinking that if I was to be cured, it would be instantaneous, and instantaneously, I would detect the difference in my condition. I felt the freezing water as my entire back and body were submerged including my ears, all except my face. Two seconds later, I was lifted up to a standing position, numb with the cold. I mentally examined myself. Was I cured? Was I any better? Had there been a change? As I pivoted around to walk out of the bath, I had to answer a resounding "No!" to all these questions. I felt exactly the same as before, every feeling identical. I concluded all had been a failure. My coming here had been a waste of time. Our Lady and Our Lord want me to do something else, to suffer some more. Well, at least I found out. I made it to the back of the bath, hobbling as I always had done. I placed one foot on the steps and as I began to climb, I felt something touch my back. I felt as though something was being inserted, as though a narrow slot had been filled with a thin disc. What was that? I took another step up. Hey! what's this? I don't feel any aggravation, or any burning or any numbness is my leg. What's going on? How come suddenly nothing seems wrong, no more symptoms? I made it to the top step, removed my rubber garment, took two short steps, reached for my clothes and began to put them back on. I bent over, I leaned backwards, I twisted. What's going on? Nothing bothers me! Can it be, can it be? It must be! I must be cured!!! But wait, I don't want to "jump the gun," to celebrate too soon. Maybe when I get outside I'll feel the same again and be unable to move as always. But no matter what I did, no matter how I stood, no matter how I moved, I felt normal. That is, I felt great! Not only that, I was almost completely dry before putting my clothes on and I hadn't a towel to dry myself. That was a miracle in itself, I thought. I stood up straight for the first time in about two years �the first time with my knees locked. I expected at any moment for my leg to give, but it didn't! I started to walk outside, like a normal person. I was cured!!!

Several attendants, upon seeing me unassisted, rushed to grab my arms and help support me and others started to place a wheelchair under me. I told them I would try walking a while. After I'd left the entrance to the baths, I walked about twenty yards to my nurse, where she patiently waited. I surprised her, she hadn't seen me walk towards her. She motioned for me to get into the wagon as usual. I said, "Let me try walking awhile," and off we went. She pulled the empty wagon in silence as I joyfully walked alongside, testing my new body. I was so overwhelmed and exhilarated that I wanted to jump up and click my heels and shout, "I am cured!!!" Restraining myself instead, I walked as a doctor or a scientist, analyzing every step, every feeling, every movement, constantly re-evaluating myself, constantly looking for pain, for aggravation, weakness and numbness in my leg. But every step was taken as easy as the one before�every step was being taken without symptoms, not as before my bath. Every step was that of a normal, healthy person.

Intellectually, the power of God was made evident to me. Who but a Supreme Being could instantly manufacture out of nothing a part of the human body? No operation, no incision, yet He places it in the body with or without our permission. We have no say in the matter. If God wants to do something to us, it is done and it is absolutely impossible for us to resist. His power is overwhelming and humiliating to us for we are nothing but tiny specks of dust in His omnipotent hands and He can crush us or cure us as He chooses.

Without a doubt, this was the happiest walk of my life. But it was short-lived. After approximately one-quarter mile, we came to a halt. I was tired, not having walked so far in over two years. The other patients were being parked outside the Rosary Basilica for the late afternoon procession. My nurse told me to get in the wagon. I said, "No, you get in the wagon! You have pulled me everywhere, it is only fair and just that I now pull you for awhile." She laughed but said to me, "If you wish to stay in the hospital tonight, you better get in the wagon. The hospital is for the sick." She won. I got back in the wagon and rode along, slightly confused as to where I belonged.

So my first normal walk after being cured came to an end. I was ecstatic as I was pulled past the hundreds of sick and crippled, all neatly parked in rows, awaiting the afternoon ceremonies. Then it really hit me how fortunate I was and yet how undeserving I am for God to have cured me and not the others. There were many who were absolutely helpless, unable so much as to raise their heads. I met a seventeen-year-old boy paralyzed from the neck down. He couldn't even move his hands. He could hardly even talk. I couldn't help thinking, "Why am I cured and he is not?" There were literally thousands in a worse condition that I was when I arrived who went home uncured, at least physically. So why is the favor given to me? Only God knows for sure, but a nun asked me what devotions or practices I might do which perhaps were different from the other pilgrims. What I do might have nothing to do with the reason I was cured. It could have been others praying for me of which there were very many I later learned upon my return. Perhaps God merely rewarded my boldness in going there unassisted? Nevertheless, let me relate my devotions and religious practices:

1) Every day I faithfully attend two traditional Latin Mass offered in a private residence.

2) Every Sunday I faithfully attend two or three traditional Latin Masses in a private residence.

3) Other than a funeral or wedding, I never attend a Novus Ordo Mass.

4) I go to confession to a traditional priest without faculties from the nearest Novus Ordo bishop.

5) I say fifteen decades of the Rosary every day before the Blessed Sacrament.

6) Every summer I go on retreat to make the traditional Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius given by the Society of St. Pius X.

In short, every Catholic thing I do, devotional or sacramental, is pre-Vatican II.

Whether or not this is the reason for God's favor is not really significant. Everyone knows prayers can be very powerful and answered in a dramatic way. But what is significant is that God is obviously not displeased with the traditional practices. For afflictions are so often punishments for sins that it would seem absurd to have a cure if every day the person cured committed grave mortal sin, and continued to do so. Today we are told the worst possible sin is to attend the Traditional Latin Mass. Had a cure not been given, the thought in the minds of many would be, "Our Lord God is displeased with the traditional Mass because he attends it faithfully and no cure is given!" Almighty God is well aware of this thought process, and if anything, He has given a most definite sign of approval for the traditional Mass and the traditional devotions of the Church! Remarkably, during the three days I was at Lourdes amidst thousands, I did not see one other cure. I have been told the number of cures has almost gone to zero since Vatican II. I can't verify that, but I did inquire of my nurse and two nuns, and others in the hospital who had been around Lourdes for years. None of them had ever seen a cure before mine. In this, they were unanimous.

Yet because of my religious practices, some Church authorities think I am excommunicated, schismatic, disobedient, in mortal sin, in danger of damnation ... but ... Our Lady of Lourdes doesn't seem to think so!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  Guest on Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:06 am

Here's the link to Bishop Webster's site where you can find the article:

http://www.true-doctrine.com/about.html

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  MRyan on Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:23 pm

Where is the documented medical proof of this alleged 1981 miracle? It should have been easy enough to verify the miraculous insertion of a new spinal disc; so where is it?

Seems the sedevavantists are desperate to produce a miracle so as to give divine legitimacy to their schismatic cause.

I couldn’t help but see the humor of picturing the sede Neal Webster (now “bishop” Webster) who, being “at the mercy of whoever pulled my wagon” was forced to sit through “A concelebration performed before thousands who were unable to run away!” Oh, Horror of Horrors! But, thank goodness the service was in French and Mr. Webster could mentally flee with our Blessed Mother from this communicatio in sacris with Novus Ordo heretics by taking refuge in his Rosary “without getting upset at what I might hear.”

Yet because of my [sedevacantist] religious practices, some Church authorities think I am excommunicated, schismatic, disobedient, in mortal sin, in danger of damnation ... but ... Our Lady of Lourdes doesn't seem to think so!
Sure; and our Blessed Mother is a sedevacantist!

But it seems there are some sede’s who know this “bishop” Webster who consider the miracle story doubtful; and who also charge Webster with being “most ‘famous’ on the internet for joining forces a few years ago with another heretic ['Fred Dimond'] in a joint attempt to ruin [sedevacantist] Bishop Louis Vezelis' reputation, a truly diabolic, pitiful effort."

The whole sordid and sorry affair is documented here:

http://mortemautemcrucis.blogspot.com/2010/10/neal-webster.html

And, “To read more about Webster's calumnies, see Bishop Louis' Brief Response to a Diatribe. [http://bishoplouisofm.blogspot.com/2008/03/brief-response-to-diatribe.html]”

The vitriolic in-fighting between the sede sects never ceases to amaze me.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  MRyan on Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:10 pm

From the "Liturgical Year" for February 22nd (St. Peter's Chair At Antioch"):

"We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If their mission come from the apostolic see, let us honour and obey them, for they are sent to us by Jesus Christ, who has invested them, through Peter, with His own authority. If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them, for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers. The holy anointing may have conferred on them the sacred character of the episcopate: it matters not; they must be as aliens to us, for they have not been sent, they are not pastors."


MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  DeSelby on Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:12 pm

MRyan wrote:From the "Liturgical Year" for February 22nd (St. Peter's Chair At Antioch"):

"We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If their mission come from the apostolic see, let us honour and obey them, for they are sent to us by Jesus Christ, who has invested them, through Peter, with His own authority. If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them, for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers. The holy anointing may have conferred on them the sacred character of the episcopate: it matters not; they must be as aliens to us, for they have not been sent, they are not pastors."


How does this work with the "Orthodox"?

DeSelby

Posts : 211
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  columba on Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:39 pm

DeSelby wrote:
MRyan wrote:From the "Liturgical Year" for February 22nd (St. Peter's Chair At Antioch"):

"We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If their mission come from the apostolic see, let us honour and obey them, for they are sent to us by Jesus Christ, who has invested them, through Peter, with His own authority. If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them, for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers. The holy anointing may have conferred on them the sacred character of the episcopate: it matters not; they must be as aliens to us, for they have not been sent, they are not pastors."


How does this work with the "Orthodox"?

DeSelby, you beat me to it.
Yes Mike, how does this work with the Orthodox?

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  columba on Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:40 pm

This part in particular.

If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them, for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers.

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  MRyan on Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:14 am

You mean the Orthodox are Catholics?

Will you be receiving an Orthodox bishop any time soon?

But hey, that's a good excuse to receive "bishop" Webster.







MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  MRyan on Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:19 am

DeSelby wrote:
How does this work with the "Orthodox"?
Do tell, DeSelby, since you place quotation marks around "Orthodox" like the sede's are fond of doing ... are you sending us a message?




MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  Guest on Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:01 am

A personal cure granted to a person does not necessarily necessitate a validation of a belief system. Also, whether it was a real miraculous cure or not has not been investigated by the Church.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  columba on Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:57 pm

RashaLampa wrote:A personal cure granted to a person does not necessarily necessitate a validation of a belief system. Also, whether it was a real miraculous cure or not has not been investigated by the Church.

I once read the story of a Protestant man who was cured of a serious illness by praying a novena to St. Padre Pio. I don't believe St Pio was endorsing Protestantism but rather the cure granted him may one day lead him to embrace the Faith of St. Padre Pio.

These things are all too subjective to base ones direction on.

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  DeSelby on Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:50 am

MRyan wrote:
DeSelby wrote:
How does this work with the "Orthodox"?
Do tell, DeSelby, since you place quotation marks around "Orthodox" like the sede's are fond of doing ... are you sending us a message?



I'll be more upfront if I take the sedevancantist position.

No message where none intended.

Perhaps now you can answer the original question.

DeSelby

Posts : 211
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  MRyan on Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:12 am

DeSelby wrote:
MRyan wrote:
DeSelby wrote:
How does this work with the "Orthodox"?
Do tell, DeSelby, since you place quotation marks around "Orthodox" like the sede's are fond of doing ... are you sending us a message?



I'll be more upfront if I take the sedevancantist position.

No message where none intended.

Perhaps now you can answer the original question.
Fair enough .... I may have read more into the quotation marks than was there; hence, the question.

But I did asnwer your particular question.

Once again, are the "Orthodox" Roman Catholics?

Will you be receiving an Orthodox bishop any time soon?

I'll add this: Are SSPX bishops under the authority of the Pope? Are they valid bishops?

Let me know what it is you do not understand about my response.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  columba on Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:40 pm

Mryan wrote:
I'll add this: Are SSPX bishops under the authority of the Pope? Are they valid bishops?

They were never formally excommunicated (JP II's attempt at excommunication was insufficiently worded to be valid) and Benedict VXI recognised the invalidity of the presumed excommunication. Regarding jurisdiction, they assume jurisdiction proportional to the current emergency and have never officially been denied it (at least in relation to their sacraments retaining their validity and effectiveness).
Unlike the Orthodox, the SSPX recognize the supreme authority of Peter which neverth less, does not exclude them from exercising lawful resistance (I think among their ranks there are a few who secretly believe the chair vacant but they too of course would not deny the supreme authority of a legimate Peter).

Now. How's bout answering the original question!


columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  MRyan on Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:14 pm

columba wrote:
They [the SSPX bishops] were never formally excommunicated (JP II's attempt at excommunication was insufficiently worded to be valid) and Benedict VXI recognised the invalidity of the presumed excommunication. Regarding jurisdiction, they assume jurisdiction proportional to the current emergency and have never officially been denied it (at least in relation to their sacraments retaining their validity and effectiveness).
Columba, this is where your false ecclesiology and private interpretations really shines through. Three egregious errors in just two sentences.

I am very familiar with the SSPX arguments which amount to nothing more than special pleading by way of an appeal to their flawed interpretations of canon law that says, for example, that Pope JPII was allegedly required to follow canonical procedures governing automatic “appeals”, when he was required to do no such thing (because the violation which incurred the penalty “is intrinsically evil or harmful to souls”, which voids any such automatic appeal).

So not only did that provision NOT apply in this case, the pope is above canon law (there is no higher earthly authority) and when he renders a judgment, all “appeals” to his judgment end right then and there (de fide).

Canon 1629: "No appeal is possible against: If a judgment of the Supreme Pontiff himself, or a judgment of the Apostolic Signatura;"

Canon 1404: "The First See is judged by no one."

Equally erroneous is your allegation that “JP II's attempt at excommunication was insufficiently worded to be valid”; because nothing can be further from the truth.

Not only was AB Lefebvre given sufficient advanced notice by way of a formal canonical warning in writing about what would happen if he were to proceed with the schismatic act (canons 751 and 1364), this warning included the threat of an ipso facto excommunication (canon 1382) should he ignore this formal warning and proceed against the express will of the Holy Father.

One day after the consecrations, JPII followed-up with an official declaration by the Sacred Congregation for Bishops which issued a "Decree" declaring the fact of the excommunication and schism of the Archbishop, the four newly consecrated bishops, and also Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer (co-consecrator with Archbishop Lefebvre).

If this wasn’t “official” enough, Pope JPII then followed the very next day with the public issuance the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei, which states, in part:

In itself this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordinations of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience – which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman Primacy - constitutes a schismatic act."
Your “attempt” at “canon law” and to discredit the legitimate authority of the Pope in his very public acts of officially affirming the fact of ipso facto excommunications; with the pope even explaining to the Faithful the precise reasons for the excommunications, is a travesty, but one the SSPX has been playing-on for some time, for they appear to be a magisterium unto themselves.

Also, Pope Benedict XVI most certainly did NOT “recognize the invalidity of the presumed excommunication” (this is an outright falsehood), he did just the opposite by affirming their legitimacy when he lifted the excommunications as a matter of good will (and at the written request of Bishop Fellay), just as the Pope did for the Orthodox, who just as vociferously argued from the beginning that Rome’s excommunications were invalid.

In the official statement issued by the Vatican in conjunction with the official decree lifting the excommunications, “recalls that because the Episcopal consecrations of June 30, 1988 were performed by Marcel Lefebvre without pontifical mandate, “the four aforementioned Prelates had incurred the excommunication latae sententiae, formally declared by the Congregation of Bishops on date July 1st 1988.”

In fact, far from recognizing “the invalidity of the presumed excommunication” the lifting of the penalty changed only their canonical status, but not their irregular and illicit status in the Church.

But let’s pause for a moment for this also goes right back to the issue of schism and culpability. Not only was the SSPX Episcopal excommunications valid, a distinction was eventually made between external separation and internal unity, for the Church recognized that, while there was no excuse that could justify the grave schismatic act of disobedience, which was a direct affront to the pope’s supreme authority and Primacy over the universal Church and Episcopal consecrations (which is why AB Lefebvre was excommunicated for heresy as well), she gave AB Lefebvre and the illicitly consecrated bishops the benefit of the doubt by ruling that internal unity with the Pope and the Church had not been severed because obstinacy and pertinacity were presumed absent; in what theologians term “passive” (as opposed to “active”) schism.

columba wrote:Regarding jurisdiction, they assume jurisdiction proportional to the current emergency and have never officially been denied it (at least in relation to their sacraments retaining their validity and effectiveness)
The SSPX cannot "assume" jurisdiction, for they cannot assume that which they do not possess. They can only trust that the Church will supply for the benefit of the faithful, who allegedly either do not know any better (confession), or approach he Sacraments in good will.

If SSPX types want to risk invalid confessions when they know that jurisdiction does not exist, because they refuse to go to a "novus ordor" priest, that's up to them, and I'll say no more on the matter except to repeat the warning of the Church that says if anyone who attends SSPX services and receives the Sacraments at their hands, and does so with the same spirit of rebellion that resulted in the original separation, they risk falling into schism themselves.

columba wrote:
Unlike the Orthodox, the SSPX recognize the supreme authority of Peter which neverth less, does not exclude them from exercising lawful resistance (I think among their ranks there are a few who secretly believe the chair vacant but they too of course would not deny the supreme authority of a legitimate Peter).
It is one thing to say that one recognizes the supreme authority of the Pope over the laws, rites, disciplines and teachings of the Church, it is quite another to reject (by words and actions) that same universal and supreme authority by refusing obedience to the same.

It is not “lawful resistance”, it is the disobedience of those who refuse to be moderated by the Church, and to be subject to her authority.

At least the Orthodox are not hypocrites.

This type of sanctimonious “lawful resistance” is a classic example of the deceptions specifically analyzed by Pius IX in his encyclical Quartus Supra:

1) "The chief deceit used to conceal the new schism is the name of `Catholic'."

2) While claiming to profess the traditional Catholic faith, they refuse to submit their profession of faith to the Primacy of Peter for judgment.

3) They continue to call themselves 'Catholic’ after the Pope has judged them excommunicated and in schism. They do so under the pretext that the excommunication was unjust.

4) They continue to exercise their "ministries" under the pretext that they have a right to do so, and because "the faithful might desert to the heretics if deprived of their ministration."

5) In order to justify their schism they "fabricate a heresy" by claiming that they can "preserve communion and unity of faith with Us (the Apostolic See) without being subject to the Apostolic power in matters of discipline."
Gosh, that sounds familiar.

columba wrote:
Now. How's bout answering the original question!
I did.

Here’s a question for you:

Are you in full communion with the Roman Pontiff, and subject to his Apostolic power in all matters under his supreme authority such as universal laws, liturgy, disciplines and doctrines?

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  columba on Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:52 pm

Posted in the wrong thread . OOPS!

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  columba on Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:59 pm

MRyan wrote:
I am very familiar with the SSPX arguments which amount to nothing more than special pleading by way of an appeal to their flawed interpretations of canon law that says, for example, that Pope JPII was allegedly required to follow canonical procedures governing automatic “appeals”, when he was required to do no such thing (because the violation which incurred the penalty “is intrinsically evil or harmful to souls”, which voids any such automatic appeal).

I was not referring to the canonical procedure or lack of it. I was referring to the wording itself that called their action "a schismatic act" without any peronal charge of schism. In fact if I remeber correctly (and I'll check it out) some of the Bishops who were included in the "excommunication" weren't even mentioned by name.
The Pope, even if he be above canon law must still subject himself to the normal standards required for precision of meaning in the written word, especially when dealing in legal matters. It could be the case that the new "don't say it how it is" method adopted after the council was rearing its ugly head even in disciplinary matters.

But let’s pause for a moment for this also goes right back to the issue of schism and culpability. Not only was the SSPX Episcopal excommunications valid, a distinction was eventually made between external separation and internal unity,

The distinction had to be made; otherwise they could never have signed off with the Orhodox.

(which is why AB Lefebvre was excommunicated for heresy as well),

I didn't know that. What was the nature of his heresy?

The SSPX cannot "assume" jurisdiction, for they cannot assume that which they do not possess.

Ok then; they presumed jurisdiction due to the emergency, among others, the preservation of the Mass of all time.

If SSPX types want to risk invalid confessions when they know that jurisdiction does not exist, because they refuse to go to a "novus ordor" priest, that's up to them, and I'll say no more on the matter except to repeat the warning of the Church that says if anyone who attends SSPX services and receives the Sacraments at their hands, and does so with the same spirit of rebellion that resulted in the original separation, they risk falling into schism themselves.

I'll say nothing. It would take a new thread.

It is one thing to say that one recognizes the supreme authority of the Pope over the laws, rites, disciplines and teachings of the Church, it is quite another to reject (by words and actions) that same universal and supreme authority by refusing obedience to the same.

One mans disobedience is anothers lawful resistance.

It is not “lawful resistance”, it is the disobedience of those who refuse to be moderated by the Church, and to be subject to her authority.

In your opinion.

At least the Orthodox are not hypocrites.

What are they then? that was the initial question.


2) While claiming to profess the traditional Catholic faith, they refuse to submit their profession of faith to the Primacy of Peter for judgment.

The SSPX did in fact submit their profession of faith to the primacy of Peter and Peter rejected it, even though it was the same profession of faith that -the then- Peters ancestors professed.

5) In order to justify their schism they "fabricate a heresy" by claiming that they can "preserve communion and unity of faith with Us (the Apostolic See) without being subject to the Apostolic power in matters of discipline."

If it were mere matters of dicipline the words of Pius IX would be convicting them. When it's matters concerning the faith itself all bets are off so to speak.

MRyan wrote:
columba wrote:
Now. How's bout answering the original question!

I did.

You didn't.

Here’s a question for you:

Are you in full communion with the Roman Pontiff, and subject to his Apostolic power in all matters under his supreme authority such as universal laws, liturgy, disciplines and doctrines?

In so far as he is in full communion with, and in subjection to, the dogmas of the Catholic Faith.



Last edited by columba on Tue Feb 28, 2012 6:03 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Bad English)

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  Guest on Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:22 am

Mryan wrote:

Where is the documented medical proof of this alleged 1981 miracle? It should have been easy enough to verify the miraculous insertion of a new spinal disc; so where is it?

So Bishop Webster is lying then? He just woke up one morning and decided he was going to put on an act, as a hopeless cripple, go on pilgrimage to Lourdes by himself, come back and say he was cured by the miraculous water at the grotto just for the fun of it. Sure; you got it dead on the button there!

You have no problem whatever excepting the alleged “miracle” bestowed on the nun who prayed to John XXIII; John XXIII who, in a file dating as far back as 1925, was suspected of modernism; a man who was known for his unorthodox teachings; who was abruptly removed from his Professorship at the Lateran Seminary in mid-semester (he was accused of modernism) and shipped off to Bulgaria. Of particular concern to Rome was Roncalli’s continuing, close association with the defrocked priest, Ernesto Buonaiuti, who was excommunicated for heresy in 1926, not to mention evidence of Freemasonry. One could go on.

But, when it comes to a simple traditional Catholic, who prayed to the Blessed Virgin, the Mother of God, that She might intercede for him and cure his illness; he’s lying, his claim is not to be trusted, his cure has not been investigated by my Church, therefore he’s a fraud.

Why Mryan, do you believe the Mother of God wouldn’t heal a person who believes the Holy See to be vacant?

Keep in mind at the time Mr. Webster prayed fifteen decades of the Rosary each day before the Blessed Sacrament, obviously for the intersession of the Blessed Virgin Mary; He was devoted to the spread of the Rosary; Every day he faithfully attended two traditional Latin Masses; Every Sunday he faithfully attended two or three traditional Latin Masses; he confessed to a validly ordained priest; Every summer he went on retreat to make the traditional Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius etc.



Mryan wrote:

Seems the sedevavantists are desperate to produce a miracle so as to give divine legitimacy to their schismatic cause.


No Traditional Catholic is “desperate” to produce anything what-so-ever to prove the “legitimacy” of the true position on which we take in this time of Great Apostasy. All one needs to do is open their eyes and have some honesty (which, frankly, you Mryan, absolutely do not have) and they will recognize the spirit of Antichrist is operating and in control of the Vatican II, Novus Ordo Sect. That’s what the V2 sect is; The Reign of the Antichrist. Ask any honest traditional Catholic and they will tell you the same thing.


Mryan wrote:

I couldn’t help but see the humor of picturing the sede Neal Webster (now “bishop” Webster) who, being “at the mercy of whoever pulled my wagon” was forced to sit through “A concelebration performed before thousands who were unable to run away!” Oh, Horror of Horrors! But, thank goodness the service was in French and Mr. Webster could mentally flee with our Blessed Mother from this communicatio in sacris with Novus Ordo heretics by taking refuge in his Rosary “without getting upset at what I might hear.”


That’s right Mryan, he took refuge in the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Most Holy Rosary as any true Catholic would do if he/she was forced to sit through the protestant, invalid, abomination of desolation (novus ordo mass), where The Lord Jesus Christ is truly not present.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Hindus were given permission to invade the shrine at Lourdes the same way they were allowed to invade the shrine at Fatima.


Mryan wrote:

Sure; and our Blessed Mother is a sedevacantist!


The Blessed Virgin is a Traditional Catholic. Her faith has not changed; Her faith has, and always will be the same. She recognizes that the chair of St. Peter is empty; She knew this would happen a long time ago, that is why She came to La Salette to warn us Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist. This warning you do not heed, blinded by your pride; God has left you in the darkness of the Novus Ordo. You laugh at, mock ad scorn Her message, heaping your demonic doubts upon it because you cannot except the fact that you are deceived and have been all along, and that you have been defending blue in the face the obstinate wickedness of the Vatican II false claimants to the papacy. I use the word wicked for these imposters because that is how the Catholic Church describes people like that.

The Council of Elvira , A.D. 305: “It has been decreed that those who in adult age after receiving Baptism shall go into the pagan temples to worship idols, which is a deadly crime and the height of wickedness, shall not be admitted to communion even at death.” (Quoted by Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, Canon Law, Philadelphia, PA: The Dolphin Press, 1935, p. 177.)

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: “… if anyone were to… worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”


Mryan wrote:

But it seems there are some sede’s who know this “bishop” Webster who consider the miracle story doubtful; and who also charge Webster with being “most ‘famous’ on the internet for joining forces a few years ago with another heretic ['Fred Dimond'] in a joint attempt to ruin [sedevacantist] Bishop Louis Vezelis' reputation, a truly diabolic, pitiful effort."


Your whole affair here to try and down-grade Bishop Webster and Brother Michael Dimond is pathetic and cowardly, but that’s no surprise coming from the likes of you.
For the true story on the above issue that Mryan is slobbering about, click on the following link, scroll about half way down the page, click on the link Bro. Michael Dimond interviews a priest about Archbishop Thuc, his final days and his line [1 hr. audio], and listen for yourself:

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/Traditional_Catholic_Audios.php

It’s funny Mryan, the only religion you and your sect leaders seem not to esteem and respect is traditional Catholics. We are the only ones you do not except. There is no room for traditional Catholics in your camp, but for every diabolic religion on the planet, there are plenty of hugs and kisses to go around. You know what else is quite disgusting and impure? You will defend the schismatic “Orthodox” who openly rejects the papacy and many dogmatic councils of the Church, at the same time you will condemn, anathematize, mock, make fun of “sedevacantists” who holds vast the dogma on the papacy and all the councils of the Church.

Also, why do you use quotation marks for Bishop Webster while carefully removing them from the schismatic “Orthodox”; as if they are truly Orthodox Catholics? What a joke that is!


Mryan wrote:

The vitriolic in-fighting between the sede sects never ceases to amaze me.


You never cease to amaze me by your attacks on Catholics and your defense of schismatics.



Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  MRyan on Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:18 am

This is typical of the sede penchant for distorting the truth.

I never said “bishop” Webster is “lying”, I asked for the documented proof. Anyone who goes public with a claim of having been healed by a miracle and whose diagnosis of his physical malody was medically documented would have gone back to his doctor in order to corroborate the fact of his cure and to document the unexplained appearance of a new spinal disc. Miracle or not, the overnight appearance of a new spinal disc would certainly spark the interest of the medical establishment, so where is it?

The living miracle of the good Sister who was cured by the intercession of Pope John XXIII (recently posted) is just such an example of corroborative medical documentation, and in this case, she is able to survive without the organs it would otherwise be impossible to survive without. It’s all well-documented by multiple qualified medical sources, and there is no denying the proof, even if someone doubts the actual intercession of John XXIII.

Our Blessed Mother is not a “Traditional Catholic”, she is Catholic, period. By her very constitution and definition, the Church and the Pope are “traditional”, and the pope is the arbiter of tradition, not you and your noxious sede/rad-trad contingent of disobedient malcontents. “We are the guarantor of this” (Pope Paul VI) should be etched in stone, and it has been (VCI) – but you mock the papacy with your feigned loyalty to “tradition”.

And no, Foot, I do not think that our Blessed Mother would favor the sedevacantists, especially the hate-mongering noxious ones, with any public manifestation of her favor (the alleged Webster miracle is not proof of anything), for the simple reason that calling her Son’s Vicar an apostate, a heretic and an anti-pope; and calling the stainless See of Peter the "Whore of Babylon", and encouraging others to sever unity with the Holy Father and her Son’s Church is, for her, nothing short of blasphemy and heresy, and an admission that Her Son’s promise for the infallibility and indefectibility of His visible Mystical Body has failed.

She demands that we pray for her Son’s Vicar (upon whom she lavishes her favor), and those who dare to suggest that she in any way favors sedeism are seriously deluded.

I do not place quotations around “Orthodox” because the Church doesn’t and has always recognized that they have always maintained valid apostolic succession, and, unlike “bishop” Webster, there is no doubting the validity of their Episcopal ordinations.

I stand by my remarks. Anathema sit to your deluded cult, false "tradionalism", appalling ecclesiology and kindergarten theology, and to sedeism.

So tell us, Foot, since you have remained silent; how can your "Roman Catholic" Orthodox adolescent above the age of reason who has not obstinately doubted or denied any secondary dogmas be a "member" of the Catholic Church when he is NOT in visible communion with the Church and is not subject to or in communion with the Roman Pontiff?

Are you suggesting that even as an adult one may be a part of and member of the Church without being in visible communion with the Church? What's the definition of Church membership again, and do you not claim that there is no salvation outside this same memebrship?

Why can't you respond to this without going "huh"? Do you understand English? Do you understand the difference between a Baptized infant and an adult who professes the faith of his received tradition and who is in visible communion with his particular Orthodox Church?

Now please go back to the subject thread and respond. Columba has been doing all the heavy lifting for you, but is fading fast as he is caught in a series of contractions that are burying him.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  DeSelby on Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:11 pm

MRyan wrote:But I did asnwer your particular question.

Once again, are the "Orthodox" Roman Catholics?

No, the Orthodox are not Catholics.

MRyan wrote:Will you be receiving an Orthodox bishop any time soon?

No.

MRyan wrote:I'll add this: Are SSPX bishops under the authority of the Pope? Are they valid bishops?

They're valid bishops. But SSPX arguments are mostly outside my scope at this time. I will say that Sedevacantists do seem more internally consistent to me, on a number points, in comparison.

MRyan wrote:Let me know what it is you do not understand about my response.
Thank you. I guess it's just that I don't completely understand what your point is in pointing out that the Orthodox are, obviously, not Catholics when I asked how the following quote applies to the Orthodox:

"We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If their mission come from the apostolic see, let us honour and obey them, for they are sent to us by Jesus Christ, who has invested them, through Peter, with His own authority. If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them, for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers. The holy anointing may have conferred on them the sacred character of the episcopate: it matters not; they must be as aliens to us, for they have not been sent, they are not pastors."

... Particularly since they have been referred to as "Pastors in the Church of Christ."


DeSelby

Posts : 211
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  MRyan on Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:37 pm

Columba,

Let’s get this out of the way:

columba wrote:
Mryan wrote:
I am very familiar with the SSPX arguments which amount to nothing more than special pleading by way of an appeal to their flawed interpretations of canon law that says, for example, that Pope JPII was allegedly required to follow canonical procedures governing automatic “appeals”, when he was required to do no such thing (because the violation which incurred the penalty “is intrinsically evil or harmful to souls”, which voids any such automatic appeal).
I was not referring to the canonical procedure or lack of it. I was referring to the wording itself that called their action "a schismatic act" without any peronal charge of schism. In fact if I remember correctly (and I'll check it out) some of the Bishops who were included in the "excommunication" weren't even mentioned by name.
It would really help if you would check your facts before making these unsubstantiated accusations, so let me help your memory:

DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.

Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.

Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Pellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred <ipso facto> excommunication <latae sententiae> reserved to the Apostolic See. [Reserved to the pope, and the pope alone]

Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act, has incurred excommunication <latae sententiae> as envisaged by canon 1364, paragraph 1.

The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur <ipso facto> the very grave penalty of excommunication.

From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.
Bernardinus Card. Gantin Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops
Is there something about the “wording” you do not understand? Isn’t the “schism” of a “schismatical act” (you know, the act of “schism”) that resulted in the excommunication of the named Bishops and the illicitly consecrated priests sufficiently “canonical" or "lawful" such that the will of the Supreme Legislator has not been manifested clearly enough? Didn't Pope JPII direct and approve the decree, and manifest his will one again the very next day with his Moto Proprio, Ecclesia Dei?

Is there a name missing from the decree of excommunication?

Come on, columba, you can’t make these spurious public accusations against the Holy Father based on what you may have heard from others.

columba wrote:
The Pope, even if he be above canon law must still subject himself to the normal standards required for precision of meaning in the written word, especially when dealing in legal matters. It could be the case that the new "don't say it how it is" method adopted after the council was rearing its ugly head even in disciplinary matters.
The pope is not subject to anyone’s interpretation of the law but his own, and those he appoints with the delegated power to interpret in his name:

Canon 332 §1: “The Roman Pontiff acquires full and supreme power in the Church when, together with episcopal consecration, he has been lawfully elected and has accepted the election.” [I just wanted to throw that one in there]

Canon 16 §1: “Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by the one to whom the legislator has granted the power to interpret them authentically.”

Canon 16 A72: "An authentic interpretation which is presented by way of a law has the same force as the law itself, and must be promulgated. If it simply declares the sense of words that are certain in themselves, it has retroactive force. In other words, when a question arises as to how to interpret a law, and the legislator offers an authentic interpretation, the legislator's interpretation is just as binding as the law itself."

Canon 333 § 3: “There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
Clear enough, the Church has spoken.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
But let’s pause for a moment for this also goes right back to the issue of schism and culpability. Not only was the SSPX Episcopal excommunications valid, a distinction was eventually made between external separation and internal unity,
The distinction had to be made; otherwise they could never have signed off with the Orthodox.

No, you misunderstood. I was not talking about the lifting of the excommunications, but what happened soon after the excommunications took effect when the Church clarified the status of the excommunicated SSPX bishops by saying the excommunications, while still in effect, did not sever internal unity; a generous mercy she did not have to grant. She could have presumed obstinacy and pertinacity and treated it as an active schism, and not a passive one (it was schism, nonetheless).

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
(which is why AB Lefebvre was excommunicated for heresy as well),
I didn't know that. What was the nature of his heresy?
The schismatic act “implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy (Code of Canon Law, can. 751)” (Pope JPII, Moto Proprio, "Ecclesia Dei”, 1988)

Can. 751 “Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  MRyan on Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:49 pm

DeSelby wrote:
MRyan wrote:
I'll add this: Are SSPX bishops under the authority of the Pope? Are they valid bishops?

They're valid bishops. But SSPX arguments are mostly outside my scope at this time. I will say that Sedevacantists do seem more internally consistent to me, on a number points, in comparison.
Be that as it may, the SSPX episcopal situation is entirely relevant since neither the SSPX nor the Orthodox Bishops have been "sent" by the pope.

So I am trying to understand the logic and relevancy of your question vis-à-vis not receiving a priest or bishop who has not been "sent" by the pope.




MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  pascendi on Thu Mar 01, 2012 1:58 am

I'm so out of the loop here I don't know who holds what position, but in skimming I did see the "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist" claim and had to interject that this claim is found in a body of later writings apart from the approved apparition of La Salette, these later writings having been censured by the Church. For whomever it may matter to, the censure was a pre-V2 action. In short, the claim should be given no consideration.

pascendi

Posts : 96
Reputation : 102
Join date : 2011-05-19
Location : Forum Founder

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  MRyan on Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:46 am

pascendi wrote:I'm so out of the loop here I don't know who holds what position, but in skimming I did see the "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist" claim and had to interject that this claim is found in a body of later writings apart from the approved apparition of La Salette, these later writings having been censured by the Church. For whomever it may matter to, the censure was a pre-V2 action. In short, the claim should be given no consideration.
Quite so; and this specious claim that "Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist" originated with Martin Luther, so it is not surprising (and fitting) that certain spiritual non serviam decedents of the sede persuasion would take up the mantra.


MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  columba on Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:57 am

MRyan wrote:
Columba,

Let’s get this out of the way:
columba wrote:
Mryan wrote:
I am very familiar with the SSPX arguments which amount to nothing more than special pleading by way of an appeal to their flawed interpretations of canon law that says, for example, that Pope JPII was allegedly required to follow canonical procedures governing automatic “appeals”, when he was required to do no such thing (because the violation which incurred the penalty “is intrinsically evil or harmful to souls”, which voids any such automatic appeal).



It would really help if you would check your facts before making these unsubstantiated accusations, so let me help your memory:

I said I would check it out and either verify it or retract it. You beat me to it and so I stand corrected. I did however read this somewhere on an SSPX site. Like DeSelby, I don't really follow the ins and outs of the SSPX saga for the simple reason that I can hardly find a sermon by one of their priests where Baptism of desire isn't mentioned. This IMO puts them on that road where eventually they will have to embrace Universal Salvationism and I feel they have -in their higher ranks- drifted from some of their founders priciples. I am certain though, that if it weren't for Archbishop Lefebvre, the TLM would not be available today.

DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.

Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.

Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Pellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred <ipso facto> excommunication <latae sententiae> reserved to the Apostolic See. [Reserved to the pope, and the pope alone]

Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act, has incurred excommunication <latae sententiae> as envisaged by canon 1364, paragraph 1.

The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur <ipso facto> the very grave penalty of excommunication.

From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.
Bernardinus Card. Gantin Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops

Regarding the highlighted quote, it was shown to be the case in Hawaii, where Bishop Ferrario decided to excommunicate, on May 1, 1991, some followers of the SSPX, for supporting the Society and attending its Masses. Rome declared that the decision "lacks foundation and hence validity.
" Bishop Ferrario's attempted excommunication of Society followers was overturned by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on June 28, 1993. "From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned Decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offence of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of 1 May 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity." (Apostolic Nunciature, Washington D.C.)



MRyan wrote:
Is there something about the “wording” you do not understand? Isn’t the “schism” of a “schismatical act” (you know, the act of “schism”) that resulted in the excommunication of the named Bishops and the illicitly consecrated priests sufficiently “canonical" or "lawful" such that the will of the Supreme Legislator has not been manifested clearly enough? Didn't Pope JPII direct and approve the decree, and manifest his will one again the very next day with his Moto Proprio, Ecclesia Dei?

The problem with the charge of schism being put forward as the reason for excommunication (the act of consecrating the bishops without the pope's consent) is that many canon lawyers have said that the act did not constitute schism. If they had been excommunicated for disobedience (the proper charge) then the penalty incurred would have been valid. One cannot be excommunicated on a charge that one is not guilty of and, not guilty according to canon law itself, a law which exists for the purpose of just administration and to which bishop, priest and laity alike can have recourse to.

"They're not excommunicated as schismatics, as far as I can see, because the Vatican has never said they are ... I come to the conclusion that canonically speaking, he's not guilty of a schismatic act punishable by canon law" (Fr. Gerald Murray, August, 1995). Fr. Gerald E Murray of the Archdiocese of New York, working for his Canon Law doctorate, received his license in Canon Law at Rome's famous Gregorian University, probably the Church's most prestigious institution of higher learning


Cardinal Castillo Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law, explained that, "The act of consecrating a bishop (without the Pope's permission) is not in itself a schismatic act" (La Repubblica, October 7, 1988).

Count Neri Capponi, D.Cn.L., LL.D the retired Professor of Canon Law at the University of Florence, well-known in Vatican legal circles and accredited to argue cases before Rome's highest juridical body, the Apostolic Signatura, explains that for a schismatic act, it is not enough to merely consecrate a bishop without papal permission. "He must do something more. For instance, had he set up a hierarchy of his own, then it would have been a schismatic act. The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre said 'I am creating bishops in order that my priestly order can continue. They do not take the place of other bishops. I am not creating a parallel church.' Therefore this act was not, per se, schismatic"

Professor Geringer, Canon Lawyer at the University of Munich
"With the Episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre was by no means creating a schism."

Fr .Patrick Valdini, dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris said that Archbishop Lefebvre did not commit a schismatic act by the consecrations, for he didn't deny the Pope's primacy. "It is not the consecration of a bishop which creates the schism. What makes the schism is to give the bishop an apostolic mission." Which is something Archbishop Lefebvre never did.

The point here being, even if all the canon lawyers and experts above are mistaken (all of whom are in union with the Church), can the post Vat II Church not do anything that has not the air of controversy or injustice about it?


MRyan wrote:
Come on, columba, you can’t make these spurious public accusations against the Holy Father based on what you may have heard from others.

My accusation is that there are very good grounds for believing that the charge of schism was a false one and many canon lawyers and learned scholars in good standing agree.

MRyan wrote:
columba wrote:
The Pope, even if he be above canon law must still subject himself to the normal standards required for precision of meaning in the written word, especially when dealing in legal matters. It could be the case that the new "don't say it how it is" method adopted after the council was rearing its ugly head even in disciplinary matters.

The pope is not subject to anyone’s interpretation of the law but his own, and those he appoints with the delegated power to interpret in his name:

Yes. But the pope's subjects must be given the benefit of the law for the sake of justice. As St Thomas Moore said, “I'd give the Devil himself the benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”


Mryan lists:

Canon 332 §1: “The Roman Pontiff acquires full and supreme power in the Church when, together with episcopal consecration, he has been lawfully elected and has accepted the election.” [I just wanted to throw that one in there]

Canon 16 §1: “Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by the one to whom the legislator has granted the power to interpret them authentically.”

Canon 16 A72: "An authentic interpretation which is presented by way of a law has the same force as the law itself, and must be promulgated. If it simply declares the sense of words that are certain in themselves, it has retroactive force. In other words, when a question arises as to how to interpret a law, and the legislator offers an authentic interpretation, the legislator's interpretation is just as binding as the law itself."

Canon 333 § 3: “There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff.”

We are not talking about interpretation of laws here; we're talking about the just implementation of the law. No one (even a pope) is exempt from the duties and obligations of justice.

MRyan wrote:
Clear enough, the Church has spoken.

And clear enough too that a serious doubt exists as too the objective guilt of those charged and sentenced.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
But let’s pause for a moment for this also goes right back to the issue of schism and culpability. Not only was the SSPX Episcopal excommunications valid, a distinction was eventually made between external separation and internal unity,
The distinction had to be made; otherwise they could never have signed off with the Orthodox.

MRyan wrote:
No, you misunderstood. I was not talking about the lifting of the excommunications, but what happened soon after the excommunications took effect when the Church clarified the status of the excommunicated SSPX bishops by saying the excommunications, while still in effect, did not sever internal unity; a generous mercy she did not have to grant. She could have presumed obstinacy and pertinacity and treated it as an active schism, and not a passive one (it was schism, nonetheless).

If it were a genuine excommunication it WOULD have severed internal unity ipso facto. Did JP2 not say as much in his decree of excommunication: Quote: “Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Pellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred <ipso facto> excommunication.” If things happen ipso facto they do so regardless of any disciplinary action. In other words they are facts; truths; realities. Thus, the unreal distinction had to be made; otherwise they could never have signed off with the Orthodox.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
(which is why AB Lefebvre was excommunicated for heresy as well),
I didn't know that. What was the nature of his heresy?

MRyan wrote:
The schismatic act “implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy (Code of Canon Law, can. 751)” (Pope JPII, Moto Proprio, "Ecclesia Dei”, 1988)
But rejection of the Roman primacy is considered schism not heresy, or are there now to be no distinctions made?

Can. 751 “Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

And so then they were doubtful schismatics at best, but certainly not heretics.
Yet another false charge.

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  MRyan on Thu Mar 01, 2012 7:16 pm

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
I am very familiar with the SSPX arguments which amount to nothing more than special pleading by way of an appeal to their flawed interpretations of canon law that says, for example, that Pope JPII was allegedly required to follow canonical procedures governing automatic “appeals”, when he was required to do no such thing (because the violation which incurred the penalty “is intrinsically evil or harmful to souls”, which voids any such automatic appeal).

It would really help if you would check your facts before making these unsubstantiated accusations, so let me help your memory:
I said I would check it out and either verify it or retract it. You beat me to it and so I stand corrected. I did however read this somewhere on an SSPX site. Like DeSelby, I don't really follow the ins and outs of the SSPX saga …
So you “don't really follow the ins and outs of the SSPX saga”, but that doesn’t stop you from making fallacious and totally discredited accusations against the pope which in effect denies his supreme Primacy over the Church; in this case excommunications, especially of the kind reserved only to the Roman Pontiff.

Neither does this prevent you from commenting on areas of canon law you are totally ignorant about where you attempt to demonstrate that the Pope abused his authority and that this act of his supreme Primacy was null and void because you can cite a few canonists (to whom the Church replied with her own judgment which thoroughly refuted their arguments). But, you are not aware of that little fact, either, are you columba, because it really does not matter to you in the least.

Find a voice of dissension, from a “universal salvationist” or whomever, and that’s good enough for you. Any stick to beat the Pope with is perfectly suitable; just don’t suggest that dogma requires subjection to his Supreme Primacy – what “Neo-catholic” bunk, ‘ey, columba?

The rad-trad “arbiter of tradition” strikes again.

columba wrote:
Mryan wrote:
DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.

Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatical act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.

Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Pellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred <ipso facto> excommunication <latae sententiae> reserved to the Apostolic See. [Reserved to the pope, and the pope alone]

Moreover, I declare that Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer, Bishop emeritus of Campos, since he took part directly in the liturgical celebration as co-consecrator and adhered publicly to the schismatical act, has incurred excommunication <latae sententiae> as envisaged by canon 1364, paragraph 1.

The priests and faithful are warned not to support the schism of Monsignor Lefebvre, otherwise they shall incur <ipso facto> the very grave penalty of excommunication.

From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988.
Bernardinus Card. Gantin Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops
Regarding the highlighted quote, it was shown to be the case in Hawaii, where Bishop Ferrario decided to excommunicate, on May 1, 1991, some followers of the SSPX, for supporting the Society and attending its Masses. Rome declared that the decision "lacks foundation and hence validity.

" Bishop Ferrario's attempted excommunication of Society followers was overturned by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on June 28, 1993. "From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned Decree, are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offence of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of 1 May 1991, lacks foundation and hence validity." (Apostolic Nunciature, Washington D.C.)
You of course simply glossed over the word “formal” to describe the lack thereof with respect to the “schismatic act”; a distinction I explained to you in what theologians describe as “active” (formal) and “passive” schism. In over words, one can be excommunicated for a “schismatic act” without suffering the full punishment normally reserved for formal schism, while still being excommunicated from external unity. Calling their situation “irregular” does not lessen the separation or repair the breech.

And what irony when the same Cardinal Raztinger, now Pope BXVI, confirms that the Eastern Orthodox cannot be presumed to be culpable for the original schism and the conditions by which they remain separated from full communion; suddenly the daggers are reversed and the Roman Pontiff is a bleeding heart modernist.

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t, by the same “arbiters of tradition”. Seriously, the Pope should just hand the Magisterium and his Primacy over to the SSPX, the sede’s and the rad-trads, and be done with it.

And of course, this is entirely irrelevant to the actual decree of excommunication and to subsequent clarifying declarations from the Holy Office which said that for one to “support the schism” does not necessarily mean to attend a SSPX Mass, it’s a “schismatic” attitude. Whatever necessity with which one feels compelled to attend a SSPX service does not mean that one supports the schismatic act; though I am sure many do, and this always gets a good laugh from the hard-core SSPX types who wouldn’t receive ipso facto “doubtful” or “invalid” sacraments from a “novus ordo” priest who presides over the “evil” and “sacrilegious Ordinary rite” of the Mass.

Do I refuse “visible communion” with such types? You better believe it.

The Bishop of Hawaii was within his rights to excommunicate them, and the Vatican was within its rights to overturn the same.
columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Is there something about the “wording” you do not understand? Isn’t the “schism” of a “schismatical act” (you know, the act of “schism”) that resulted in the excommunication of the named Bishops and the illicitly consecrated priests sufficiently “canonical" or "lawful" such that the will of the Supreme Legislator has not been manifested clearly enough? Didn't Pope JPII direct and approve the decree, and manifest his will one again the very next day with his Moto Proprio, Ecclesia Dei?
The problem with the charge of schism being put forward as the reason for excommunication (the act of consecrating the bishops without the pope's consent) is that many canon lawyers have said that the act did not constitute schism. If they had been excommunicated for disobedience (the proper charge) then the penalty incurred would have been valid. One cannot be excommunicated on a charge that one is not guilty of and, not guilty according to canon law itself, a law which exists for the purpose of just administration and to which bishop, priest and laity alike can have recourse to.
“Many canon lawyers said: …”

Who cares what a few canon lawyers said; here is what the The Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts declared in the following statement:

However, doubt cannot reasonably be cast upon the validity of the excommunication of the Bishops declared in the Motu Proprio [Ecclesia Dei] and the Decree [of excommunication against Lefebvre]. In particular it does not seem that one may be able to find, as far as the imputability of the penalty is concerned, any exempting or lessening circumstances (cf CIC, can 1323-1324). As far as the state of necessity in which Mons. Lefebvre thought to find himself, one must keep before one that such a state must be verified objectively, and there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of 'serving' the Church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity. (PONTIFICIO CONSIGLIO PER L'INTERPRETZIONE DEI TESTI LEGISLATIVI, Nota sulla scommunica per scisma in cui incorrono gli aderenti al movimento del Vescovo Marcel Lefebvre, allegato al Prot. N. Protocol 5233/9624 August 1996; Communicationes, 29(2) [1997], trans. THE CANON LAW SOCIETY OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND)
The bottom line, once again, is this:

Canon 16 A72: "… when a question arises as to how to interpret a law, and the legislator offers an authentic interpretation, the legislator's interpretation is just as binding as the law itself."

Canon 16 §1: “Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by the one to whom the legislator has granted the power to interpret them authentically.”

The schismatic act “implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy (Code of Canon Law, can. 751)” (Pope JPII, Moto Proprio, "Ecclesia Dei”, 1988)

Canon 333 § 3: “There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff.
You are kicking against the goad, and wasting your “I don't really follow the ins and outs of the SSPX saga” breadth.

columba wrote:
The point here being, even if all the canon lawyers and experts above are mistaken (all of whom are in union with the Church), can the post Vat II Church not do anything that has not the air of controversy or injustice about it?
No, the point here being that this represents a minority opinion that in no way proves anything except, like noses, every body has one; and some can’t resist sticking it where it doesn’t belong.

It also proves there is only one Supreme authority that can interpret and decide all such matters, and his judgment is FINAL, and it is not open to appeal or any other recourse against his decision or decree, not even from the guy with the flowing cape who looks like the Count of Monte Cristo.

“Injustice”; stop your whining and get over it; the Church did when she lifted the valid excommunications, but the “irregular” situation of illicit bishops, illicit chapels, illicit masses and illicit sacraments remain. Oh, the “injustice” of it all!

columba wrote:
Mryan lists:

Canon 332 §1: “The Roman Pontiff acquires full and supreme power in the Church when, together with episcopal consecration, he has been lawfully elected and has accepted the election.” [I just wanted to throw that one in there]

Canon 16 §1: “Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by the one to whom the legislator has granted the power to interpret them authentically.”

Canon 16 A72: "An authentic interpretation which is presented by way of a law has the same force as the law itself, and must be promulgated. If it simply declares the sense of words that are certain in themselves, it has retroactive force. In other words, when a question arises as to how to interpret a law, and the legislator offers an authentic interpretation, the legislator's interpretation is just as binding as the law itself."

Canon 333 § 3: “There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff.”
We are not talking about interpretation of laws here; we're talking about the just implementation of the law. No one (even a pope) is exempt from the duties and obligations of justice.
Oh, so now we are no longer talking about “interpretation” of the law from your thousands of experts, we are only talking about “the just implementation of the law”, which of course is totally subjective. Whether anyone thinks the pope’s actions were “just” or not is irrelevant to the supreme action itself, and the Pope’s final decision and declaration that his action was in fact “just”.

Once again, though, all of your special pleading comes down to a “non serviam” attitude of rebellion against the Supreme Primacy of the Pope to where there is no such thing as a Supreme Authority that can authoritatively exercise that same divine given Primacy without being second guessed and over-ruled by a bunch of “experts” who say they know better than the Supreme Legislator when THEY determine that his actions are “unjust”, or when some required “t” they believe is not crossed in canon law that renders the Pope’s supreme and final judgment “null and void”, or at least “doubtful”; you now, like the doubtful Mass, doubtful Sacraments, doubtful Ordination and consecration rites, a doubtful Ecumenical Council, a doubtful Pope and the entire doubtful edifice we call the visible Church of Christ.

Really, there is no end to this sick non-Catholic pathology of tearing down the Church in order to “save her” from her own Supreme Pontiff; pathetic.

Columba wrote:
“And clear enough too that a serious doubt exists as too the objective guilt of those charged and sentenced.
Serious doubt was not in the mind of the Roman Pontiff, and his is the only will and mind that matters.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
But let’s pause for a moment for this also goes right back to the issue of schism and culpability. Not only was the SSPX Episcopal excommunications valid, a distinction was eventually made between external separation and internal unity,
The distinction had to be made; otherwise they could never have signed off with the Orthodox.
No, you misunderstood. I was not talking about the lifting of the excommunications, but what happened soon after the excommunications took effect when the Church clarified the status of the excommunicated SSPX bishops by saying the excommunications, while still in effect, did not sever internal unity; a generous mercy she did not have to grant. She could have presumed obstinacy and pertinacity and treated it as an active schism, and not a passive one (it was schism, nonetheless).
If it were a genuine excommunication it WOULD have severed internal unity ipso facto. Did JP2 not say as much in his decree of excommunication: Quote: “Marcel Lefebvre, and Bernard Pellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred <ipso facto> excommunication.” If things happen ipso facto they do so regardless of any disciplinary action. In other words they are facts; truths; realities. Thus, the unreal distinction had to be made; otherwise they could never have signed off with the Orthodox.
So you are now the arbiter of the definition of “genuine schism”, by which you mean there is only type, a formal active schism that presumes obstinacy and pertinacity in the will when performing the objectively schismatic act.

The Pope was in fact making a judgment as to motive by not imputing the guilt of a culpable will, but was recognizing the objective nature of the schismatic act itself, for which, he made clear, “there is never a necessity to ordain Bishops contrary to the will of the Roman Pontiff, Head of the College of Bishops. This would, in fact, imply the possibility of 'serving' the Church by means of an attempt against its unity in an area connected with the very foundations of this unity”.

Furthermore, as Canon 1327 declares:

Particular law can establish other exempting, mitigating, or aggravating circumstances besides the cases in ⇒ cann. 1323-1326, either by general norm or for individual delicts. Likewise, circumstances can be established in a precept which exempt from, mitigate, or increase a penalty established by the precept.
So much for your make-it-up-as-you-go canon law.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
The schismatic act “implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy (Code of Canon Law, can. 751)” (Pope JPII, Moto Proprio, "Ecclesia Dei”, 1988)
But rejection of the Roman primacy is considered schism not heresy, or are there now to be no distinctions made?
No, rejection of the Roman Primacy is a rejection of the dogma of Roman Primacy. The consecration of bishops without a Pontifical mandate, and against the express will of the Roman Pontiff, is a schismatic act; an act [which] “implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy”.

So now you never heard of heretical actions?

You really are out of your league, columba, and I find your curt, condescending and ignorant remarks against the Vicar of Christ in he exercise of his Supreme Primacy entirely distasteful and irreverent.

I suppose I should be used to it by now .......... no, not ever.

columba wrote:
MRyan wrote:
Can. 751 “Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
And so then they were doubtful schismatics at best, but certainly not heretics.
Yet another false charge.
And yet another false charge rendered against the Supreme Pontiff by another quack layman who hasn’t a clue.

There is a difference between performing a schismatic act which implies the rejection of a dogma, and formal heresy; not that any of this will ever resonate with you, the arbiter of tradition and the arbiter of the Supreme Primacy of the pope.


MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  columba on Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:33 pm

Mike,

If it were a competition in ad hominem I'm sure I could give you a good run for your money but I've decided to refrain from that type of debating (especially during lent) as it only facilitates and makes it the easier for you to employ your avoidance tactics by which you can derail a topic when you get into difficulty and the contradictions inherent in your "all subjective theology" are in imminent danger of being exposed. This (if I'm reading your intentions correctly) will overflow into the other thread which you have already derailed from the simple question and answer format in order to complicte with theological mumbo jumbo, a format that is fatal to your brand of theological skullduggery; all smog and smoke to hide from view the most basic and foundamental dogmatic truths of the faith.
And in case you think I'm breaking my lent; I mean that in the nicest possible way. Smile

So you “don't really follow the ins and outs of the SSPX saga”, but that doesn’t stop you from making fallacious and totally discredited accusations against the pope which in effect denies his supreme Primacy over the Church; in this case excommunications, especially of the kind reserved only to the Roman Pontiff.

No I don't. I just can't seem to muster up the enthusiaism, but if your claiming here that a pope is infallibkle in his diciplinary capacity then I think you've got that wrong. Far from denying a pope the right to exercise his authority, I was making the claim (as have many reputalble canon lawyers and other experts in the field far more knowledgable than you or me), That in this case, the pope got it wrong.

Neither does this prevent you from commenting on areas of canon law you are totally ignorant about where you attempt to demonstrate that the Pope abused his authority and that this act of his supreme Primacy was null and void because you can cite a few canonists (to whom the Church replied with her own judgment which thoroughly refuted their arguments). But, you are not aware of that little fact, either, are you columba, because it really does not matter to you in the least.

I merely posted what canon lawyers had said (most of whom were renouned for their expertise) and commented on their conclussions. If I am not an expert, then compared to these guys you are not one either. Do you agree?

Find a voice of dissension, from a “universal salvationist” or whomever, and that’s good enough for you. Any stick to beat the Pope with is perfectly suitable; just don’t suggest that dogma requires subjection to his Supreme Primacy – what “Neo-catholic” bunk, ‘ey, columba?

I suggested that his Supreme Primacy is (or aleast should be) in subjection to the dogmas of the faith. The pope does not invent the faith, he guards and protects the deposit handed into his keeping.

Have to leave it there for now, Be back soon.

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  MRyan on Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:51 pm

Columba,

I see no further need to continue to refute your already refuted outright falsehoods, logical fallacies, total incompetence in canon law, inability to distinguish between formal heresy and schismatic acts which imply the rejection of a dogma, flawed understanding of canonical schism and heresy, and arrogance in daring to challenge the Pope’s Supreme Primacy and authority over latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See (to the Pope alone).

However, just to finish with this, I’ll let you stumble over it one last time:

columa wrote:
Mryan wrote:
So you “don't really follow the ins and outs of the SSPX saga”, but that doesn’t stop you from making fallacious and totally discredited accusations against the pope which in effect denies his supreme Primacy over the Church; in this case excommunications, especially of the kind reserved only to the Roman Pontiff.
No I don't. I just can't seem to muster up the enthusiaism, but if your claiming here that a pope is infallibkle in his diciplinary capacity then I think you've got that wrong. Far from denying a pope the right to exercise his authority, I was making the claim (as have many reputalble canon lawyers and other experts in the field far more knowledgable than you or me), That in this case, the pope got it wrong.
And yet again we see the rad-trad penchant (already discredited) for accusing others of linking “papal infallibility” of the ex cathedra definition kind with the solemn exercise of the Pope’s universal Primacy and authority over latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; meaning reserved to the Pope alone.

And, once again, we behold the spectacle of a layman appealing to a handful of canon lawyers after the Church already resolved their objections and confirmed the validity of Pope’s Supreme decision (as if it needed confirmation).

As such, I accuse all of those who refuse to submit with hierarchical subordination and true obedience to the Roman Pontiff with the heresy and schism of passing judgment sentence of the Apostolic See. Formal or material is not mine to determine, but it is heretical and schismatic nonetheless. To wit, I accuse them of denying the following dogma of the Catholic Church:

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed…

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff. (VCI, Session IV, Ch. III)
Nothing more need be said.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  DeSelby on Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:12 pm

MRyan wrote:Be that as it may, the SSPX episcopal situation is entirely relevant since neither the SSPX nor the Orthodox Bishops have been "sent" by the pope.

So I am trying to understand the logic and relevancy of your question vis-à-vis not receiving a priest or bishop who has not been "sent" by the pope.


I can see the relevancy, but not the necessity, of bringing the SSPX into the question.

The question being how this passage...:

"We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If their mission come from the apostolic see, let us honour and obey them, for they are sent to us by Jesus Christ, who has invested them, through Peter, with His own authority. If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them, for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers. The holy anointing may have conferred on them the sacred character of the episcopate: it matters not; they must be as aliens to us, for they have not been sent, they are not pastors."

... would relate to the Orthodox in our current ecumenical climate, where the Orthodox have been referred to, by the Pope, as "Pastors in the Church of Christ."


DeSelby

Posts : 211
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  Jehanne on Fri Mar 02, 2012 5:32 pm

For me, it comes down to what Pope Boniface said:

Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.'

Mike has told us that he agrees that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church and that the Orthodox, while being full members of the Orthodox Church, nonetheless have an in voto relationship with the Catholic Church, and hence, the Mystical Body of Christ, which they can sever only through obstinate heresy and/or schism. Okay, fine. However, what applies to the Orthodox must also apply to the SSPX, because if the Orthodox are linked to the Church of Christ via some implicit desire, then the SSPX must also be linked via their explicit desire.

Jehanne

Posts : 926
Reputation : 1025
Join date : 2010-12-21
Age : 49
Location : Iowa

http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  MRyan on Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:31 pm

DeSelby wrote:
The question being how this passage...:

"We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If their mission come from the apostolic see, let us honour and obey them, for they are sent to us by Jesus Christ, who has invested them, through Peter, with His own authority. If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them, for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers. The holy anointing may have conferred on them the sacred character of the episcopate: it matters not; they must be as aliens to us, for they have not been sent, they are not pastors."

... would relate to the Orthodox in our current ecumenical climate, where the Orthodox have been referred to, by the Pope, as "Pastors in the Church of Christ."
They are "Pastors in the Church of Christ" only in the sense proposed by the Church and by Pope BXVI in the official magisterial documents (and laws) concerning the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church and The Universal Church and Particular Churches.

The distinctions are all spelled out ... one need only read the documents.




MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  MRyan on Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:46 pm

Jehanne wrote:For me, it comes down to what Pope Boniface said:

Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.'
Mike has told us that he agrees that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church and that the Orthodox, while being full members of the Orthodox Church, nonetheless have an in voto relationship with the Catholic Church, and hence, the Mystical Body of Christ, which they can sever only through obstinate heresy and/or schism. Okay, fine. However, what applies to the Orthodox must also apply to the SSPX, because if the Orthodox are linked to the Church of Christ via some implicit desire, then the SSPX must also be linked via their explicit desire.

Jehanne, two quick points:

That isn't how I would put it with respect to the Orthodox. Their relationship to the true Church of Christ is based on much more than a subjective [in voto] relationship whereby we simply do not automatically presume culpability with respect to the objective fact of their presumed material, but very real, separation from external unity.

In fact, I do not need to tell you what the elements of their imperfect unity are, we've been over this enough.

Secondly, I'm not sure where you are going with your SSPX comments ... I fail to see the relevancy; and I'm not sure I understand what you think my position is. The SSPX have no need of an "in voto" internal relationship, they need only repair their irregular illicit situation which deprives them of ordinary jurisdiction.










MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  columba on Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:07 pm

Mike,

I agree. There's no benefit in continuing along this path that only serves to distract from the initial question posted by DeSelby.

Regarding the excommunications of archbishop Lefebvre and his fellow bishops, whether or not the sentence was deserved, they nonetheless in reality retained their subjection to the Roman Pontiff in so far as they did not rebell against their sentence and break from the Church. They still recognized JPII as pope and also still recognized the primacy of the authority of Peter as established by Christ. Even if it be true (as has been reported) that the archbishop had doubts as to the legitimacy of the one occupying the chair of Peter at the time (JPII), he nevertheless, through it all, did not make a schismatic break from the Church by setting up a counter church apart from the one of which JPII was the then head. In doing so he had, by that fact, proved that he was not a schismatic.

Calling someone a liar doesn't make that person a liar if he is in fact telling the truth. Calling a sheep a goat won't make that sheep a goat, even if a law is be passed saying that it must be called a goat; likewise, calling one a schismatic won't make one a schismatic if he is in fact not a schismatic.

An interesting side note:
When Benedict XVI after lifting the excommunication of the bishops, he made a recent statement that almost defies belief. He stated that if he had known Bishop Williamsons views on the Shoah, he would not have included him in the in the lifting of the excommunications.

Since when did ones view on a secular historical event constitute a crime against the faith worthy of excommunication? If this is what excommunications are based upon, the PC opinions of the world, then the credibility of the Church is once again undermined by its own highest member.

Back to the Orthodox question Mike.

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  MRyan on Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:13 pm

Jehanne wrote:For me, it comes down to what Pope Boniface said:

Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.'
Jehanne, in the sense that the Orthodox are not in full communion with Peter, this is actually true, while realizing that the excommunications have been lifted and the full weight of the separation has been mitigated.

I hope you are not pitting the magisterial authority of a pope in a former age against the magisterial authority of a pope currently reigning from the Chair of Peter.

The Roman Pontiff in any age has Supreme Primacy over all such matters; and, as the true arbiter of tradition, he is the sole Authority who can amend the Church's policies towards the Orthodox without violating his sacred charge to hold fast to the immutable traditions of the Church.





MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  MRyan on Fri Mar 02, 2012 8:30 pm

The special pleading, arrogance and rebellion just never ends.

columba wrote:
Calling someone a liar doesn't make that person a liar if he is in fact telling the truth. Calling a sheep a goat won't make that sheep a goat, even if a law is be passed saying that it must be called a goat; likewise, calling one a schismatic won't make one a schismatic if he is in fact not a schismatic.
Calling the pope a liar in his judgment and sentence doesn’t change the fact that the objective act of schism is still schism; and all of your whiny, pathetic sorry excuses for schism cannot change that fact; neither does it change the DOGMATIC FACT that anyone who says “that it is lawful to … pass judgment [on] … The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority)” or “that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs”, is a heretic.

End of story.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  columba on Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:37 pm

MRyan wrote:The special pleading, arrogance and rebellion just never ends.

columba wrote:
Calling someone a liar doesn't make that person a liar if he is in fact telling the truth. Calling a sheep a goat won't make that sheep a goat, even if a law is be passed saying that it must be called a goat; likewise, calling one a schismatic won't make one a schismatic if he is in fact not a schismatic.
Calling the pope a liar in his judgment and sentence doesn’t change the fact that the objective act of schism is still schism; and all of your whiny, pathetic sorry excuses for schism cannot change that fact; neither does it change the DOGMATIC FACT that anyone who says “that it is lawful to … pass judgment [on] … The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority)” or “that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs”, is a heretic. End of story.

Now you're making false accusations against me which no matter how many times you do so won't make real.
I haven't called anyone -including the pope- a liar. Anyone without a chip on their shoulder could plainly see that. The most you could accuse me of is saying the pope's judgement may have been in error. If someone makes an error of judgement does that now make them a liar? I'll answer for you. No, it does not.
So quit your childish shenanigans and deal with what people say for a change rather than what you wish they had said for your own sense of moral outrage to be justified.

Now. Tell me Mike where the error is in what I stated about the objective truth of a matter (the piece you quoted that so enraged you) and if you can't, be man enough to say so.

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  MRyan on Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:35 am

No, columba, that dog won’t hunt. You’re accusation is falling on deaf ears because I was entirely justified in what I said.

You are the one who suggested that the Pope lied with his “false” charge of a schismatic act (that implied a heretical rejection of the Pope’s Primacy) in your analogy that says: “Calling someone a liar doesn't make that person a liar if he is in fact telling the truth.” In other words, the pope “calling [AB Lefebvre] a schismatic won't make one a schismatic if he is in fact not a schismatic”; just as calling him a liar won’t make him a liar if he is in fact not a liar.

The definition of a lie is “an inaccurate or false statement”. And, when you insisted on using the “liar” analogy, it is clear what you meant when you said there are grounds for believing “the charge of schism was a false one”.

And, in response to the Pope’s Supreme final judgment and sentence that declared: “The schismatic act “implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy (Code of Canon Law, can. 751)”, you called this “Yet another false charge”.

A “false” charge is a lie, it simply isn’t true; and it simply does not matter if the Pope believes it to be true or not – he is in error and his “false” judgment/charge/sentence is thus a lie.

Look again at what I said: “Calling the pope a liar in his judgment and sentence doesn’t change the fact that the objective act of schism is still schism”.

“Liar” in this sense does not mean a deliberate will to deceive, it is “an inaccurate or false statement” that is represented by the alleged “fact” of a “false charge” in the “Pope’s judgment and sentence” against AB Lefebvre.

By accusing the pope of judging and sentencing Ab Lefebvre with a “false charge”, and by stating that the "false" sentence for the act of schism does NOT "imply in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy", you owe the pope an apology.

Man up.

Of course, schismatics never apologize to the pope, they engage in the serious business of inventing heresies in order to justify their schism.



MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  MRyan on Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:24 pm

Now. Tell me Mike where the error is in what I stated about the objective truth of a matter (the piece you quoted that so enraged you) and if you can't, be man enough to say so.
The only “objective truth” is the objective fact and truth of the schismastic act that “implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy (Code of Canon Law, can. 751)”. The objective truth is that you called this “Yet another false charge”.

The last sounds like the charge of declaring true what is not true – an “untruth” (a lie).

President Bush said Hussein had WMD. It was a lie, regardless of whether he actually believed the bogus Intel.

Be man enough to stand behind your accusation against the Roman Pontiff, and man/humble enough to retract it, just as you retracted the following lies:

1. "They were never formally excommunicated"

2. "JP II's attempt at excommunication was insufficiently worded to be valid"

3. "Benedict VXI recognised the invalidity of the presumed excommunication"






MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  MRyan on Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:16 pm

Just to close this out, the fact, is, columba, never would have I used the word ‘liar” if you hadn’t brought it into the discussion with your poor choice of analogies. I used the same words as you just to highlight the severity of the charge you are making against the pope.

I also want you to know that I had this same debate on AQ where one of my protagonists had no problem in calling the pope’s Supreme judgment of a schismatic act a “lie”, so I also had that in mind when I responded to your lead analogy.

The fact is, never would I accuse you of a lying; my lead-in was made for dramatic effect as a word-for-word play on your own lead-in. You see, I am perfectly aware that never would you accuse the pope of deliberate deception in the form of a lie. But if you are going to make such serious accusations that state the Pope’s judgment and sentence is a “false charge”, and then use the analogy that says such a judgment by the pope does not make it true when it is in fact “false” (a lie); don’t be offended when I take you to task for your reckless and irreverent language and insinuations.

I’ll give you the last word, I’m done with this.

MRyan

Posts : 2247
Reputation : 2419
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  columba on Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:18 pm

MRyan wrote:No, columba, that dog won’t hunt. You’re accusation is falling on deaf ears because I was entirely justified in what I said.

You are the one who suggested that the Pope lied with his “false” charge of a schismatic act (that implied a heretical rejection of the Pope’s Primacy) in your analogy that says: “Calling someone a liar doesn't make that person a liar if he is in fact telling the truth.” In other words, the pope “calling [AB Lefebvre] a schismatic won't make one a schismatic if he is in fact not a schismatic”; just as calling him a liar won’t make him a liar if he is in fact not a liar.

The definition of a lie is “an inaccurate or false statement”. And, when you insisted on using the “liar” analogy, it is clear what you meant when you said there are grounds for believing “the charge of schism was a false one”.

And, in response to the Pope’s Supreme final judgment and sentence that declared: “The schismatic act “implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy (Code of Canon Law, can. 751)”, you called this “Yet another false charge”.

A “false” charge is a lie, it simply isn’t true; and it simply does not matter if the Pope believes it to be true or not – he is in error and his “false” judgment/charge/sentence is thus a lie.

Look again at what I said: “Calling the pope a liar in his judgment and sentence doesn’t change the fact that the objective act of schism is still schism”.

“Liar” in this sense does not mean a deliberate will to deceive, it is “an inaccurate or false statement” that is represented by the alleged “fact” of a “false charge” in the “Pope’s judgment and sentence” against AB Lefebvre.

By accusing the pope of judging and sentencing Ab Lefebvre with a “false charge”, and by stating that the "false" sentence for the act of schism does NOT "imply in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy", you owe the pope an apology.

Man up.

Of course, schismatics never apologize to the pope, they engage in the serious business of inventing heresies in order to justify their schism.



Is there an interpreter in the house! Anyone?

What can I say except that in Mike's self-constructed world of linguistic instability where nothing ever means what it says, where constants become variables and variables, contants, even within the same sentence and all with no prior warning, I am definately guilty of calling the pope a liar. For the sake of good will I'll play along and momentarily step into Mke's surreal world and abide by its undefined principles and offer my apologies to the pope.

Back in the real world again (boy am I glad to get out of there), it's been so often stated or at least implied, by so many learned laymen and over such a long period of time, that Mike is harder to pin down than a corrupt politician that one could say it now constitutes a doctrine; even despite the fact that it has earlier been stated dogmatically that Mike in fact is the pope. (We know the statement was dogmatic because of the serious and authoritarian type language used in its promulgation. The words, "Listen to him" are in direct referrence to Mark 9:7). But I suppose this could also be used to prove that even a true pope can succumb to the corrupt ways of the political world.

Just to prove me wrong, could you now once again either confirm or deny that this statement of mine that so enraged you, "Calling someone a liar doesn't make that person a liar if he is in fact telling the truth. Calling a sheep a goat won't make that sheep a goat, even if a law is be passed saying that it must be called a goat; likewise, calling one a schismatic won't make one a schismatic if he is in fact not a schismatic." is an oblectively true statement?

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  columba on Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:57 pm

MRyan wrote:
Be man enough to stand behind your accusation against the Roman Pontiff, and man/humble enough to retract it, just as you retracted the following lies:

1. "They were never formally excommunicated"

2. "JP II's attempt at excommunication was insufficiently worded to be valid"

3. "Benedict VXI recognised the invalidity of the presumed excommunication"


In answer to number 1. They were fromally excommunicated if I presume (as you do) that the excommunications were performed by a valid pope; but as you already know, I'm a fence sitter on that one. The fact still remains however, that in reality they were never excommunicated despite any decree of excommunication if the presumption under which archbishop Lefebvre was operating was correct, that a genuine state of emergency existed. The claim that the pope is the only one who can determine whether a true state of emergency exists or not is only funtional while it is not the pope himself who has caused the state of emergency in the first place and is in denial of that fact.

In answer to number 2. You again assert that I had suggested that this charge was fact, when in fact what I did say was that some (within the SSPX) have claimed that the tenor of the decree (which was a departure from the traditional fromat) was insufficient. I'm not competent to argue for the validity of this belief but knowing how awkward the new expressional language of the post VatII Church can be, I'd bet there's plenty of truth behind this.

In answer to 3. Only Benedict XVI can answer that for sure.

And out of interest, what would your comments be on the following which I posted recently? on the validity (or better still, the justice) of excommunications carried out for politically expedient reasons as opposed to reasons pertaining to the faith;

Benedict XVI having liftied the excommunication of the bishops, made a recent statement that almost defies belief. He stated that if he had known Bishop Williamsons views on the Shoah, he would not have included him in the lifting of the excommunications.
Since when did ones views on a secular, historical event constitute a crime against the faith worthy of excommunication? If this is what excommunications are based upon, -the PC opinions of the world- then the credibility of the Church is once again undermined by its own highest member.

columba

Posts : 979
Reputation : 1068
Join date : 2010-12-18
Location : Ireland

Back to top Go down

Re: Traditional Catholic (sedevacatist) Cured at Lourdes. One of practically zero since Vatican II according to some

Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:56 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum