Friday, July 14, 2006

Crime and punishment







In the debate on the SSPX and the sanctions that have been enacted against them by Rome several detractors stated that NEVER will you find a priest or Bishop who blatantly defied Rome and was not corrected or excommunicated.

Well I offer you exhibit 1A:

Bishop Emmanuel Milingo of Zambia, Africa. Bishop Milingo, as you may remember married a woman named Maria in 2001 and went AWOL. They made a lovely couple don't you think? For this Bishop Milingo was not punished, censored or excommunicated. Bishop Milingo was welcomed back to Rome and retained his status as Bishop. Maria was sent away quietly. In 2003, Bishop Milingo went back to Africa in defiance of the Vatican. Again, there were no consequences.

About a month ago Bishop Milingo again vanished
and his whereabouts were unknown. He has resurfaced in Washington, D.C. and held a press conference calling for the Church to end its discipline of celibacy for priests.

What will it take for the Vatican to correct him? Suspend him? Sanction him?

Seems that as long as Bishop Milingo does not make the mistake of saying the Latin Mass he will be fine, and recognized as fully in union with Rome unlike the nefarious, the devious, the contemptible priest of the SSPX.

It will be interesting if this post generates the same level of vitriol and condemnation. Somehow I don't think it will.

Obedience, remember, obedience.

87 comments:

hilary said...

No noooooo...

no double standard here...

move along...

HSarsfield said...

This is a COMPLETE misrepresentation. A bishop getting married is NOT an automatic excommunication offense. Secondly, the Church TOLD him after they found out, that he had 10 days to come back to Rome and renounce his marriage, or else they were going to publish a decree of excommunication against him. Guess what? He reported back within 10 days, and has since maintained a low profile until the most recent incident. If you look at the press release from the Vatican concerning the current incident, they are trying to figure out what is going on. So far, officially, he has only mentioned that he wants a married priesthood in the Roman Rite, via his National Press Club conference. They have also heard other rumors which they are trying to confirm, in regards to his intention of going back to his wife and of starting a new church. They are very clear that tough censures, including the possibility of excommunication, will follow if rumors are confirmed. As the Traditionalists often remind us, the Vatican has to operate within the norms established by Canon Law. Now, perhaps, you think that Rome should not give the accused the chance to say why he did something, or the chance to even tell them what he did, but that goes against all the basics of human justice. This actually PROVES the point which I made earlier; that a N.O. bishop did something very dumb, and the Church came down on him VERY hard. Milingo REPENTED of having married the woman in the Moonie ceremony (which is more than Abp. Lefebvre did), and that was why he was NOT excommunicated. If the rumors turn out to be true about the Archbishop's intentions (which he himself have not made public), I have very little doubt that he will be excommunicated. The only question that will remain after that is if the Traditionalists will then apologize for rashly judging the Vatican (although I won't hold my breath, after all they DO know better than anyone ever could in Rome :major rolling of eyes: ).

So, again, no double standard, except in the eyes of those that think they need to make the Church in THEIR likeness and image as usual.

HSarsfield said...

Mary said:

". In 2003, Bishop Milingo went back to Africa in defiance of the Vatican. Again, there were no consequences."

BTW, the article you posted here was from 2006, not 2003, and said nothing about him going back to Africa in 2003. Could you please put a link to the correct article so I can read it?

hilary said...

So, whose mentioning "automatic"? In fact, who'se talking about excommunication. I'd like to see anything ANYTHING at all done to correct the destruction of the Holy Faith perpetrated by the ecclesiastical species in the last forty years.

A slap on a wrist or two? Something that might indicate that the Romans look askance at bishops and priests publicly denying, for example, the historicity of the Gospels, the divinity of Christ, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the nature and constitution of the Church...

you know, little things like this.

Maybe we could call in the press and have them all line up in Rome for a smack on the nose with a rolled up newspaper?

Anything that might indicate that the Romans are paying attention to the Catastrophe. Or any sort of indication that there is an awareness of a general catastrophe.

ANYTHING.

Can't we admit the principle that it might be nice to see Rome take some action, any action would good, against the hosts of ecclesiastical heretics that we see and read about every day?

Here's something interesting. 1983 Code of C.L.
Can 1369

"A person is to be punished with a just penalty who, at a public event or assembly or in a published writing or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church."

and, just so I am not the only one doing the work:

Can 1371 paragraph 2
Can 1374
Can 1394 p. 1

hilary said...

but of course...

everything's fiiiyyynnn

Gooooo back to sleeeeeeep...

There's no double standard...

Tradcatholic said...

Forget DOUBLE STANDARD -- there doesn't seem to be any standard at all with fly by night, do their own thing post VII prelates and presbyters. I am reminded of the bit about someone saying he would do what was asked, and didn't do it, and another fellow saying he would NOT do it and eventually did the task. Now, where was that...Oh yes, somewhere in the Bible...but does it really mean anything in this real world of sham and make-believe? I guess if a bishop rejects the good things of the Church (celibacy) and in fact stirs up vocal, public rejection of it, it's OK. if a Bishop, on the other hand rejects the errant things of the Church (distruction of the Mass, communion in the hand, eccumenism rather than evengelization) he is cast out! Right, hilary, double standard probably - no standard at all- most likely. What a mess.

By the way, hsarsfield, bishops marrying is a MORTAL SIN - bishops defending the True Faith and Catholic Tradition in not, no matter how many hisses and sanctions are heaped upon him, is NOT.

I love the part where the writer says "...he has ONLY mentioned that he wants a married priesthood...so where is the understanding already expressed in firm terms by JPII ("of infelicitous memory")(borrowed phrase from a great blog)where he says that discussion of a married priesthood (and woman pristesses is over.

Also, by the way, hsarsfield says that Rome hears rumors of the bishop going back to his wife -- well, he has no wife as he was not free to marry, among others. Let's be truthful here. Why should Rome have a need to let him tell them what he did...the WHOLE WORLD knows what he did! And, by the way, I read something about the lot of those who give scandal...gloomy future life indeed.

I thank God for the SSPX.

HSarsfield said...

Hilary quoted:
"Here's something interesting. 1983 Code of C.L.
Can 1369

"A person is to be punished with a just penalty who, at a public event or assembly or in a published writing or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church."

If you read any of the goings on right now in the case, this seems to be the Canon they will be using for Abp. Milingo. But really, it's difficult to decide what you really were trying to refer to by quoting this, without giving examples from reputable sources where this canon would apply.

I think what your general problem is that for centuries the Church has been giving to the lay people histories of the Church that were sugar coated. So traditionalists have this impression that the Church in the past has ALWAYS been quick to condemn heretics...they NEVER allowed any dissent in the Church. Unfortunately Trads are not well read enough in history, so they think that this time is unique in history (this is a common fault...everyone things that the time they themselves live in is unique in history). But let me give you just one example. Emperor Joseph II decides that he is going to take over the Church in the Holy Roman Empire. He regulated ALL Church activity in the HRE, right down to what songs could be sung during Mass. Does Pius VI condemn him, or excommunicate him? No, of course not. The Church waits for him to die, and then condemns him and his system after the fact. This is the way the Church acts. There was ONE pope who acted the way you seem to want the Church to act, and his name was Pope Paul IV, and he was a disaster as a pope. He didn't allow any of the rulers to nominate the bishops in their country, and so at his death, 3/4 of the Sees were vacant. He closed down that compromising council (that has come to be known as the Council of Trent). He put bishops into ecclesiastical prison. He ran the Church with great zeal, but with very little prudence. In the end, his papacy was one of the WORST in the history of the Church. My point in all of this is that if you've never read any decent histories of the Church, then it's very easy to fall into the mistaken impression that the way the Church is operating now, is greatly different than the way the Church operated in the past.

HSarsfield said...

TradCatholic said:
"By the way, hsarsfield, bishops marrying is a MORTAL SIN - bishops defending the True Faith and Catholic Tradition in not, no matter how many hisses and sanctions are heaped upon him, is NOT. "

Yes, and if we excommunicated every person who committed a mortal sin, the Church would be quite an empty place....perhaps you and I wouldn't even be the in the Church any longer. My point, of course was, that consecrating a bishop without a papal mandate is not ONLY an objective mortal sin, but carries with it the penalty of IPSO FACTO EXCOMMUNICATION. And notice Abp. Milingo was PROMISED that he would be excommunicated if he did not come back to Rome and renounce his marriage.
The comments you make about the Church not waiting to give the accused a chance to defend themselves before they issue a penalty is just idiotic. No Traditional Catholic of any importance would think an better of it. None of the bishops in the SSPX are for getting rid of the Code and for stripping accused clerics of their rights to defend themselves.

Finally, there ARE a few prudential matters to consider regarding Abp. Milingo. The Church was VERY worried that he would go down to Africa and set up a parallel Church and suck many African Catholics into it. By the way, this is why the Church tolerated Abp. Lefebvre's behavior for a number of years up until the consecration of the bishops (ie: ordaining priests without any authority, setting up chapels throughout the world, etc.). On the previous thread, some traditionalist had reminded us that the highest law of the Church is the salvation of souls. The reason why sometimes the Church doesn't deal as harshly with a sinner as perhaps I or you would wish is because they worry about the people said sinner would take with them to hell. That is why, as I mentioned in my previous post, the Church did not excommunicate Joseph II (or place ANY sanctions on him). They were concerned with the salvation of the souls of the citizens that Joseph II had authority over. With Milingo, they are very worried that a lot of ignorant Africans will be taken in by him, and leave the Catholic Church, putting their souls in the greatest peril. Now you might disagree with the prudential thinking of the Church, but to pretend that this prudential thinking is something new, and has not existed throughout the ENTIRE history of the Church, shows either you are very misinformed, or dishonest.

Anonymous said...

Great presentation of evidence. I wonder how the bishop pays for his plane tickets, his housing, his clothing, his food, etc. Funny isn't it, that all he needs to do is arrive at Rome within 10 days, have some meetings, and maintain his accounts. No doubt the Vatican had a good talking to this Prince of the Church. I know he isn't travelling on my dime.
Signed, Typical Catholic in Delaware

Tradcatholic said...

What they are doing about this bishop is what the establishment has been doing with all wayward bishops the past few years. If they just talk with him, and leave him alone, then he will see things the correct way. NOT. Hiding their red hatted heads in the proverbial sand does NOT make error disappear, and does not stop the bishops turning a blind on abuses in the clergy or in the Liturgy. If the powers that be read Von Hildebrands' "THE CHARITABLE ANATEMA" they may get some clue as to why error, especially amongst the clergy MUST be addressed and corrected - to stand for TRUTH, one must condemn error.

And, as an aside for Mr/ms/hsarsfield those who commit mortal ARE in a way 'excommunicated' as they may not receive Communion in the Church and may receive only the sacrament penance- whether the Church is acting 'prudentially' in the case of this scandalous bishop remains to be seen. "Woe to him from whom scandal comes"

"typical Catholic in Delaware" had a good post - methinks that it is tongue-in-cheek! I love hilary's idea of a "smack on the nose with a rolled up newspaper"!

M. Alexander said...

Dear HSarsfield,

I corrected the link- thanks for letting me know.
Mary

hilary said...

Examples?

How the words "Snows of Canossa" ring any bells?

Oh, but I forgot, I'm just a dumb Trad so I can't possibly know any history...

HSarsfield said...

Hilary said:
"How the words "Snows of Canossa" ring any bells?"

Of course it does, but what I'm at a loss with is what you are trying to affirm with it. Are you conceding my point? Please explain.

HSarsfield said...

Mary said:
"Dear HSarsfield,

I corrected the link- thanks for letting me know.
Mary"

Thank you...but what's with the formalities? ;-)

As for article, I don't see how someone going "against the advice of the Vatican" (as the article stated) can be construed as being "in defiance" (as per your original post). It's like attendance at an SSPX chapel....Msgr. Perl stated that while it's not recommended (ie: he advises against it), he also says it's not a sin. So when you go to the SSPX for a valid reason, you are not "in defiance" of the Vatican.

M. Alexander said...

Okay Heather,
Enough of the formalities...I guess the difference between being in defiance of the Vatican and going against their advice depends upon what you see as the role of the Vatican to its bishops. I see it as a controlling entity that has the power to command. A bishop's obedience should be his most sacred duty. The advice of the vatican should be as law. And you bring up a good question- why is the Vatican "advising" the ministry of a bishop? Why the kid gloves? To avoid schism? Because they know their advice will not be followed anyway and that approach is face saving?

Why is Bishop Milingo allowed to choose his own ministry in opposition to what Rome and the Zambian Bishops have requested. I think this points to yet another double standard.

HSarsfield said...

Mary said:
"Okay Heather,
Enough of the formalities"

Oh good. I was beginning to feel odd being called "hsarsfield" from someone who knows me, LOL! ;-)

Mary said:
"A bishop's obedience should be his most sacred duty. The advice of the vatican should be as law. "

Of course, this begs the question of why Traditionalists will give Abp. Lefebvre a pass on this. He was not ADVISED not to consecrate bishops, he was ORDERED not to consecrate bishops by the Pope himself. If every bishop takes it upon himself to perform every action according to his own conscience instead of the will of the Pope, then we're going to be left with anarchy. And what Traditionalists have to worry about is that liberals, when Rome starts moving the Church in a direction of authentic liturgical worship and orthodoxy in doctrine, the liberal bishops will decide to take a move from the playbook of Abp. Lefebvre, and consecrate their own bishops. When the Society of St. Marie Vianney (in Campos) was regularized, a very liberal Catholic paper had it as one of the top 10 under-reported stories of the year. What was his point? His point was that liberal bishops had not gone far enough. That liberal bishops must be willing to be considered being outside the Church (through acts like consecrating other bishops) because like in Campos, eventually the Church will catch up, and they'll have everything they want (just like Campos). This whole thing is a very dangerous precedent to set. We might agree with the motives of Abp. Lefebvre, but what happens when other people perform the same actions, yet we don't agree with THEIR motives. It's a recipe for disaster in the Church.

Mary said:
"And you bring up a good question- why is the Vatican "advising" the ministry of a bishop? Why the kid gloves? To avoid schism? Because they know their advice will not be followed anyway and that approach is face saving?"

Again, while we might like the idea of the Papacy micromanaging bishops (and believe or not, I include myself in that), that is not the way the Church has ever operated in it's history. There is no possible way that the Vatican can micromanage every diocese...it's physically impossible. With regard to Milingo, they decided what battles they were and were not going to fight with him. They wanted to strike a balance between allowing enough of his ministry to keep him in the Church (and from going into schism) but not so much of his ministry that it would effectively make non-Catholics out of the people who participated in his ministry. Now you and I can have a prudential disagreement about where the line should be drawn. We could even have a prudential disagreement about whether or not he should just be excommunicated. But the one thing we can't pretend is that the traditional manner of the papacy acting is one of not finding this kind of balance. I know of only one pope (as I said in a previous post) that ran his papacy in the spirit of "no compromise", and that papacy was a disaster. If you read the history of the very first Council (Nicea), you see the Church bending over backwards to satisfy heretics and schismatics. Their behavior was SO conciliatory, that the hard line group went into schism because of it (the Luciferian Schism).
Hilary gives us the example of the "snows of Canossa" when Pope St. Gregory VII really stuck it to the emperor. But this is a false reading of history. Any historian worth his salt will tell you that the greatest victory Henry achieved in his lifetime was getting Gregory VII to let him back in the Church. Henry was about to be completely destroyed. The Pope KNEW (as far as you can know without reading souls) that the emperor's repentance was insincere. But yet, he knew he had no choice as pope but to take him at his word, and let him back into the Church. And what did Henry do? He took the time the pope had given him, built up his strength, and then the first chance he got, he stabbed the Pope in the back. Compare this to the Milingo case. The bishop comes back, after his great public scandalous sin, asks forgiveness from the Pope. The Pope and EVERYONE who has written on it insists that at the time Milingo WAS sincere, and they also worried that his behavior was caused by brainwashing by the Moonies, so he wasn't completely responsible for his actions, unlike Henry who was calculatingly malicious in ALL his dealings with the Church. If you had to pick out of the two, the one who should have been let back into the Church, you would have to pick Milingo. But in the end, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and MUST show mercy to ANYONE who ASKS for it, without trying to determine interior motives. As I said, you will be very hard pressed to find a pope that wouldn't have done exactly what Gregory VII had done with Henry, and what JPII did with Milingo. This is why I was so schocked that Hilary brought up a case that so clearly proved the point I had been trying to make.

Mary said:
"Why is Bishop Milingo allowed to choose his own ministry in opposition to what Rome and the Zambian Bishops have requested. I think this points to yet another double standard. "

Again, there is no way I can see any double standard. Abp. Lefebvre was doing OBJECTIVELY SINFUL acts (according the the Code of Canon Law) from the first time he ordained priests for the SSPX (again, this was well before he was excommunicated). Milingo, for all the evil things he has done, he has not committed SPECIFICALLY sinful acts according to Canon Law (obviously I'm speaking about after 2001). For a retired bishop to have free travel is something that EVERY bishop is allowed...it's the norm. It only ceases to be the norm once a bishop has done something wrong, as in Milingo's case. But we no longer live in the days of the Papal states, when a bishop can be thrown into ecclesiastical prison. So Milingo is going to have free rights to travel anywhere he wants as long as his passport will allow him. So the choice seems clear for the Church. It's tried to work with him, and stop a schism so that his ministry dies with Milingo. Or crack down too hard and let him go into schism and start his own Church with valid apostolic successions that could exist for the next thousand years. Obviously, the Vatican was putting some sort of restrictions on him, because he felt the restrictions were onerous enough that he IS going to go off on his own. The idea that the Vatican since 2001 has allowed Milingo to do whatever he wants is obviously false. But I would like someone here to tell me what the Church SHOULD have done with Milingo, and then give references from Church history showing that their treatment of Milingo is not novel.
In the end, my heart is with the position of Hilary and Mary, but I think that an honest study of Church history shows that the position of my heart has never been the position of the Church. I challenge anyone to find ONE concordat where the Church did not give power to the secular authority to the detriment of the Church. I challenge anyone to find me an historical account of some sinner coming back to the Church and asking for forgiveness from the Pope, where the Pope refuses to grant absolution. These cases just don't exist in the history of the Church.

HSarsfield said...

tradcatholic said:
"those who commit mortal ARE in a way 'excommunicated' "

No, those people who are in a state of mortal sin are in NO way excommunicated. I find it ironic that someone with the identity "tradcatholic" would put forth such a NOVEL teaching at odd with Pope Pius XII's Mystici Corporis Christi.

Madeline said...

Most of the arguments re: this post seem to focus on the varying degrees of sin (mortal vs. excommunicable, etc...); and dismiss the case cited by M. Alexander as not constituting matter comparable to disobedience. What about the case cited below, posted on http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/21/060421153336.ueidoce3.html?

Senior Catholic cardinal advocates condoms to prevent AIDS
Apr 21 11:33 AM US/Eastern

...Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the former archbishop of Milan and the head of the Roman Catholic Church's liberal wing, said in an interview that legal abortions and the use of frozen embyros to produce children were also acceptable...

The 79-year-old Jesuit cardinal also said the legalisation of abortion was a "positive" development in the sense that it had "contributed to reducing and eliminating illegal abortions".
...

The Vatican declined to comment immediately on the views Martini expressed in the interview."


Does advocating abortion, (to reduce and/or eliminate "illegal" abortions, or whatever) constitute grave (excommunicable) sin? I believe it does. What is the reason that the Vatican did not discipline Cardinal Martini as vociferously as they did Archbishop Lefebvre?

HSarsfield said...

Madeline said:
"Does advocating abortion, (to reduce and/or eliminate "illegal" abortions, or whatever) constitute grave (excommunicable) sin? I believe it does. "

Could you show me where it says this Canonically? I am asking sincerely, just so you don't think I'm just trying to be snarky. :-)

Jackson said...

tradCatholic wrote:
"I thank God for the SSPX."

Excellent. With Catholics like you, who needs enemies!
The SSPX and other schismatic groups are NOT good for the Church. They are not loyal to the church and act as though they are their own church.

If you don't like the Catholic church you can leave, but don't start your own group and pretend that it's Catholic.

Leslie H. said...

hsarsfield wrote:
"Milingo REPENTED of having married the woman in the Moonie ceremony (which is more than Abp. Lefebvre did),"

EXCELLENT POINT!! Many commenters on this blog (ahem...hilary, tradcatholic) tend to miss this BIG distinction!

Leslie H. said...

Hilary,
I suppose you're without sin?? You're so eager to point fingers at everyone else, what about looking at yourself? As someone else has already pointed out Milingo repented!

When you mess up, and I know you will, I hope your priest throw the book at you!

Jackson said...

TradCatholic wrote:
" there doesn't seem to be any standard at all with fly by night, do their own thing post VII prelates and presbyters."

In almost every comment on this blog you have expressed hatred of the church. If you hate the Catholic church so much,why don't you leave it?

Jackson said...

"By the way, hsarsfield, bishops marrying is a MORTAL SIN - bishops defending the True Faith and Catholic Tradition in not, no matter how many hisses and sanctions are heaped upon him, is NOT. "

Mortal sins CAN BE FORGIVE.
The SSPX are not defending the "true faith etc". That's their political spin trying to convince people that that's what they are up to, but I'm not buying it and I feel sorry for anyone who is so easily fooled by their claims of defending the Catholic Tradition! No one elected them Pope and they are not true leaders within the Catholic Church; they are a bunch of renegades who are so full of pride that they think they are holier than everyone else. It's disgusting.

Anonymous said...

"you go to the SSPX for a valid reason"

But the valid reason includes not having access to a licit Catholic mass. How typical is it to live in a place with no Catholic masses, but only an SSPX one-- very rare I should think and thus many who attend SSPX rather than another local Catholic mass do NOT have a valid reason.
Preference for a particfular liturgical rite is NOT a valid reason to attend SSPX (Perl stated this directly).

Madeline said...

Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

Catechism of the Catholic Church; PART THREE: LIFE IN CHRIST;
SECTION TWO THE TEN COMMANDMENTS;
CHAPTER TWO YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF;
Article 5; THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT I. Respect for Human Life

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith ; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

hilary said...

Thanks Leslie,

and speaking of pointing fingers,

et cum spiritu tuo.

Leslie said...

"Thanks Leslie,

and speaking of pointing fingers,

et cum spiritu tuo."

Way to avoid the main issue, Hilary!!
Your favorite phrase "double standard" applies to you. You point fingers at the Church and other people's sins, but seem to think that you are without blame.

I'm not the one who, almost everyday, is pointing out the sins of others. Here's a news flash for you, missy, EVERYONE is a sinner!

TrueCatholic said...

This information is in no way "Exhibit 1A" because all of the facts are not known. It's unethical to concoct this case as if it were a "done-deal" just to support your flimsy claim that SSPX was somehow mistreated by the Catholic Church. This post is shady journalism at its finest!


13-July-2006 -- Vatican Information Service
DECLARATION CONCERNING ARCHBISHOP MILINGO


VATICAN CITY, JUL 13, 2006 (VIS) - The Holy See Press Office released the following declaration at midday today:

"The Holy See has not yet received precise information concerning the aim of the journey to the United States of America by Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo, emeritus of Lusaka, Zambia.

"In any case, if the declarations attributed to him concerning ecclesiastical celibacy were to prove authentic, the only thing to do would be to deplore them, Church discipline on this matter being well known."

videteVeritas said...

For supporters of the SSPX, please read: More Catholic Than The Pope: An Inside Look At Extreme Traditionalism by Patrick Madrid, Pete Vere


One of the authors is a canon lawyer. This book will answer many (actually ALL) of the questions that have arisen on this post and the other posts in which SSPX came up.

Hilary and TradCatholic, I especially recommend this book for you.

Susan B. said...

HSarsfield said...
This is a COMPLETE misrepresentation.


I agree. I've been reading this blog for about a month and noticed that many of the posts either blatantly misrepresent the facts or twist the facts to suit the blogger's agenda.
I've stuck around for awhile hoping that it will improve, but this post has many inaccurracies.
Can't believe that some of the commenters who support such obviously false statements list their occupation as journalism! I guess this explains why today's media is so screw up and can't be trusted.

Tradcatholic said...

Anonymous said...
"you go to the SSPX for a valid reason"

But the valid reason includes not having access to a licit Catholic mass.

CERTAINLY VALID trumps LICIT every time! No problem there.

Looks like some of the mud slinging commentors here have beams in their eye! What is needed is a good list of books which y'all should read. If you don't see 'double standards' you are not well read. You dabble here and there and then pontificate on half truths.

To actually call what the bishop in the article (the real topic here, not SSPX) "something really dumb" is really dumb itself. It is akin to calling abortion 'a bad choice'.

Hilary gets it. Mary gets it. Madeline gets it. Hsarsfield almost gets it.

The rest think like leslie that the 'big distinction' between the errant bishop Maligno and Archbishop Lefebvre is that the first 'repented'(we know THAT because he went to Rome when summoned?) and the second didn't (and we know that...how?)
Seems to me that one of the big distinction between the two was that Bp M performed an act that was invalid and illicit, and ABp L performed an act that was illicit but valid.

Double Standard...the truth many refuse to admit whether by being stubborn or just plain ignorant. If you don't understand the problem you will never come up with the answer - unless you just guess.

Double Standard ...Hilary, you go girl! If your confessor 'throws the book at you' as leslie h wishes, I hope you duck!

Anonymous said...

" If you don't see 'double standards' you are not well read."

Double-standard seems to be your whipping horse, Hilary and I think it is you who is not very well read (judging by your comments and one-track mind).

Walter said...

TradCatholiic wrote:
"Double Standard...the truth many refuse to admit whether by being stubborn or just plain ignorant. If you don't understand the problem you will never come up with the answer - unless you just guess."

OK, Tradcatholic, what's YOUR brilliant solution?? All I've heard you do is complain and complain but have offered NO concrete solution. Come off your hilltop and let's hear your solution. Seriously...what is it?

You seem to hate your church so much it's hard to believe you're actually Catholic. Your rantings about the corruption in church hierarchy reminds me of the early days of various protestant movements. I wouldn't be surprised if you actually were just pretending to be a Catholic on these blogs.

Leslie said...

TradCatholic wrote:
the truth many refuse to admit whether by being stubborn or just plain ignorant.


Yes, that must be it. Anyone who doesn't agree with you MUST be ignorant. Can't possibly be that you're the one who is too ignorant to understand WHY the Vatican is dealing with these groups differentially? It doesn't take a genius to understand why.
You seem to lack the ability to see subtle yet important differences. The fact that a few members of your posse agree with you doesn't make your statements true. Heather pointed out the differences very clearly and yet you choose to ignore them because you have a bigger axe to grind.

Tradcatholic said...

videteVeritas said...
For supporters of the SSPX, please read: More Catholic Than The Pope: An Inside Look At Extreme Traditionalism by Patrick Madrid,


Vide...been there, done that. It is a piece of doggie doo-doo, most of it.

I will return the favour and suggest some reading material for YOU...
...read Michael Davies three volume set 'Apologia' re: Archbishop Lefebvre up to the time before the consecrations of the bishops. Much more scholarly, more in depth, and not written by an EWTN NO catholic.

If you have read these volumes already, at least I will concede that you have formed your erroneous conclusions from misunderstanding of a reputable source. You are , of course, entitled to your erroneous opinions.

videreVeritas is one thing, credereVeritas is quite another! Cheers!

Anonymous said...

TradCatholic wrote
"videreVeritas is one thing, credereVeritas is quite another!"

Wow, for someone who calls herself tradcatholic you sure don't know your Latin!!
You've conjugated the verb incorrectly! You are such a fraud.

Anonymous said...

"read Michael Davies three volume set 'Apologia' "

a book published by Angelus Press. Nope...noooo bias there!! who do you think you're kidding. The SSPX sure have you fooled.

Leslie said...

Davies is not a true Catholic.

Search the web and see for yourself..


Fall of Michael Davies, The

The Chair of Peter and the positions of authority in Rome are occupied by anti-Christs."
--- Dossier sur les Consécrations Episcopales, August 28th, 1987, Archbishop Lefebvre


On June 15, 1988, the same Archbishop declared in a conference that John Paul II "is not Catholic."

We do not like to discuss this matter, but a new development which threatens the good people of Una Voce calls for a warning which some might want to pass on to its members and the hierarchy of the Church:


Clearly, Michael Davies, the head of Una Voce International, is moving farther and farther astray, and is openly "consorting," as one person put it, with the most extreme and distempered opponents of the Holy Father who have sprinted down the road to schism, as witness the following September, 2001, advertisements from The Remnant, the ultraist St. Paul, MN bi-weekly (published out of the editor's mother's cellar). These rabid enemies of the Holy Father are to the "right" what the National "Catholic" Reporter is to the left. Both crucify our suffering Pope and thrive financially by constant opposition to him.


From The Remnant ---September, 2001:

"Michael Davies to speak at The Remnant Forum in October.

"All the way from London, England, Remnant columnist and President of the International Una Voce Federation will be featured at this important gathering in St. Paul. Call today for details: (651) 462-8323. "The Remnant Forum is coming to St. Paul in October. "Forty Years Later: The Family, the Mass, the Church and the World through Four Decades of Vatican II." October 26, 27, and 28, 2001. "Featuring: Michael Davies, Gerry Matatics, Michael J. Matt, Christopher Ferrara, Dr. Thomas Woods, John Vennari, Dr. Marian Horvat, Atila Sinke Guimaraes, Gary Potter, Michal Semin (from Prague), John Clark."


What a nest of would-be bishops or popes Davies joins ! TFP splinters, rigorist Feeneyites, fallen away monks, theologically untrained laymen (in Catholic theology anyway; Protestant's have always been comfortable viewing themselves as a pure "remnant" vis a vis Catholicism), all together to call the Pope a heretic, according to their private judgment. Young Thomas Woods, a Lutheran just a few years ago, and who has never known the orthodox Catholic faith, is now, under the window dressing of a Harvard degree (education today!), a defender of the schismatic manifesto, written by his teachers, Atila Sinke Guimaraes, Marian Horvat, Michael Matt and Fr. Gruner's most faithful disciple, John Vennari. That manifesto (entitled We Resist the Pope to His face) as most of our readers probably know, calls for the explicit withdrawal of submission and obedience to the Holy Father, charging him, and other Popes, as well as the Council itself, absurdly, with heresies (substantial and nefarious breaks with Sacred Tradition). Woods is also a founder of a weird group which works for the "rise again" of the South, the final vindication of the southern states in the old civil war. Woods---who it appears longs for some flight from the today of his life and Church to a romantically idealized yesterday--- would now instruct the Pope in Catholicism. He is an editor of the also reactionary and theologically deviant Latin Mass Magazine (see the National Review article on this same page).


Woods joins Chris Ferrara who thinks the CDF's Dominus Iesus is a modernist-liberal (!) document (news indeed to the neo-modernists and Protestants!), and who in fact set out to Rome demanding that the Vatican take an exam on the subject which he assembled, and whose latest crusade is to demand that the Pope promptly obey him and depose (yes, really) Cardinal Hoyos, (!) the Cardinal who recently went out of his way to reconcile the SSPX! (one needs a drawer full of exclamation points when speaking of the nervous Mr. Ferrara). Gerry Matatics the "evangelist," of the rabid "remnant", as always, will attend the sect's conference too. The paper, by the way, is published out of Michael Matt's mother's cellar.


Truth is shown by who one is bedding with---and Davies, as the reader can see, beds with the most unstable and disoriented--- and by whom one attacks (whether in private or public. As the French say, part of the neurosis of the convert, in a certain percentage of cases, is that he always has to prove himself. He has to be more royalist than the king. Many in the movement under consideration here are converts, including Davies, Matatics, Woods. Others, like Michael Matt, grew up in Lefebvrist homes, with TFP and other influences too, and had little chance to find theological balance. One does not sense the overall wholesomeness, sobriety, good humor, loyalty and philosophical joy of a Chesterton or Newman, two famous late in life converts ---not an insignificant fact--- in this group. These are bitter and arrogant persons who think nothing of placing their own opinions above the Church of Jesus Christ. Many seem beyond self-criticism, occupied with their own "take" on everything, and adapt constant justifications for every turn of events; they often began acts of hostility toward the Pope shortly after their conversion under the influence of extremist tracts and magazines.)


This manifesto is far from a declaration of mere dissent however they have tried, after our exposure of them, to doubletalk; it shows their theological ineptness and / or clear intent to persuade people of their most irresponsible and tragic conclusion:


"In our view a possible future declaration of a sede vacante ('the period of time when the Apostolic See is empty, as a consequence of the heresy of the Pope,' CFN 7/2000) would take place automatically when the Church would become aware of the gravity of the present day errors and who is responsible for them." ---We Resist The Pope To His Face, V.3 (emphasis ours)


This is just a small sample of their constant and provocative arrogance and theological cynicism. Here is a group utterly innocent of Catholic dogmatics and theology who are allies to the most virulent Protestant fundamentalist opponents of Catholicism who quote them. The implications are grave:


"....canon 752 defines schism as "the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him." What one must note here is that the canon does not distinguish between degrees of withdrawal of submission to the Roman Pontiff. In other words, one need not completely withdraw one's obedience to the Roman Pontiff in order to enter into a state of schism. For partial withdrawal of obedience in certain matters, even if one's intention in so doing is only temporary, remains an act through which one withdraws one's submission to the Roman Pontiff...

"Moreover, canon 1321 §3 presumes imputability, stating: "Where there has been an external (i.e., public) violation, imputability is presumed, unless it appears otherwise." Finally, it would appear that malice (dolus) is at the root of imputability within this public declaration, for there is a deliberate public intention on the part of its authors to withdraw submission to the Roman Pontiff, in spite of the fact their expressed intention in so doing is only temporary.


As one person wrote,


...that retired high school teacher (Michael Davies) we once thought was our best hope for a restoration of the Latin Mass; but he has been notorious for saying one thing to one group and quite another to others, depending on the audience. This is cynical at its best, I fear. The one constant in his life is his theological relationship to [excommunicated archbishop] Lefebvre. Under a veneer of calm "scholarship," Davies has arguably led more people astray than anyone else, besides Lefebvre himself. All the extremists, Sedevacantists, The Remnant, Father Gruner and so many others all began with his books, sold to this day by Lefebvre's society which lately again turned down the Church's good-faith attempt to reconcile them. All were, as you put it, "midwifed" into schism by Michael Davies.


These men are far from theologically objective and sober; they are, rather, propagandists who sift polls for proofs and the Council and Pope's teachings for proof-texts (by definition always out of context, whether immediate- textual or historical) seeking to frame the Holy Father and maintain their parallel magisterium, based on an absurd new twist on an old (mostly Eastern) heresy, sola traditio, wherein they demand that doctrinal development, as we have it throught Church history and in the Council, cease at a point in history---when they say it must (Trent or Pius X, Pius XII, it depends who of them you ask ), just as, alas, the Nestorians, Orthodox, Copts, and others set the mark at other historical points, tragically sundering the universal Church in many areas of the world. And they employ another heresy, private judgment, to say what is tradition and what is not, to say what is dogmatic development and what is not (thus the Mattities and SSPX quite seriously would not even pass High School religion class; hence my reference to "would-be bishops and popes," or parallel magisterium). But while the theological descendents of the ancient schismatics are theologically sophisticated today, and far more serious, Davies' Mattite bedfellows are theologically naive (or is it just cynical business?), beguiled laymen who now make a living by beguiling the widow of her mite under a pretext of piety and cynically selective quotes.


No one---least of all the Church---questions the right of the People of God to seek liturgical reforms, and the Holy Father has already given the 1984 Indult which restored the Tridentine Mass (through which Davies' now operates) for all who seek it. But these men go much farther. Quite over the cliffs in fact.


For these men, for whom reality and history are simply too complex, neither the post-Nietzchean culture of moral transgression and death, nor anything else can explain widespread rebellion in the Church. They prefer to absurdly blame the Council and the Pope. It is a principle for them to put the worst possible construction on every event. In this we see our true Catholic fundamentalists. Such Integrists live in unhinged time, unable to accept the "today" of the Church's proclamation. If the Eucharist is not cloaked in their anachronistic, Gothic, Baroque, Tridentine daydreams, they would rather not see It at all. Thus they turn away from Him, the Eucharistic Christ, and attach only to the outward and the accidentals of time-bound sacred rites, neglecting the Substance, Him Who is with us "even to the end ofthe world". Sadly, the Integrist extremists are sadly like modern Essenes who have taken to the self-righteous outposts of an imagined, pure, "remnant," unlike Jesus and Mary, who rejected the self-righteous delusions of the eschatological sects and remained in the temple amidst the crosswinds of theological and political controversies. The new Essenes, like the old ones, think God is indifferent to righteousness and justice in those outside the literal walls of the temple (thus their alliance with the rigorist Feeneyites) and would rather not mix with sinners. They would keep the modern equivalent to Romans (pagans), tax collectors ("traitors"), Samaritans (heretics) and other sinners outside their "purity".


One does not know whether to laugh or cry. A little of both is needed sometimes as these men can collapse into utter disorientation without a moment's notice. His Eminence, Christopher Ferrara, for example, without blushing, summarizes Vatican II as nothing more than a "new Woodstock"! Now there is serious theology for you! Evidently the Esquire knows as little about Woodstock as he knows about the Second Vatican Council. Such ludicrous reasoning would not pass Junior High School religion class, even if he would certainly pass some SSPX or sedevacantist exam; these men probe with distorted lenses for whatever they can possibly find and construe as heresies in the magisterium, as they warn against contamination with the unclean people in the "ordinary" churches of mere Catholics. (For our answer to Ferrara's friend, Father Chad Ripperger, and the latter's essentially Protestant essay, "Operative Points of View," see To Whose Competence Does It Belong to Interpret Vatican II and the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia essay, Tradition and the Living Magisterium. )


"Whoever looks in the Church for something other than Christ is a mercenary,"
---St. Augustine


Lately they have begun issuing anonymous rebuttals. The spirit we are dealing with here is very similar to the Jansenist break. As one person observed, Davies appears these days to write the same article over and over as in propaganda technique. He seems more and more to be handing the torch over to his business "partner," Michael Matt and the SSPX (the SSPX are the only real thinkers among them in our opinion. They at least have produced a coherent literature, albeit abysmally wrong and schismatic. The others only parrot their arguments to a man. It is all SSPX rehash.)


This is all ironic because Michael Matt used to mock Davies to his Remnant writers, egg them on to attack him (and the FSSP), as a washed-up compromiser (for not rejecting outright the FSSP changes which involved communion with bishops) and worse; this was before Matt went over into outright advocacy of schism. But he ran back to Davies for solace after his errors were exposed by us and others. Tragically, all essential Lefebvrists share the same "zeal not according to knowledge," and so Davies did not disappoint.


However that may be, it has become increasingly clear to many that Una Voce has been led step by step by Mr. Davies to becoming not "one voice," but at least two, owing to its contradictory pledge of fidelity to the Church's Magisterium, and its ongoing indebtedness to----and defense/promotion---of the theological errors of the late excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and, more recently, the Mattites. For the sake of the Church and true liturgical reform we believe the worm of Lefebvrism must be removed. Wherever one looks---whether on Mr. Bill Basile's Ctngreg / Una Voce E-List***, with its chronic pessimism regarding the magisterium, and selective misrepresentations about the Church's teachings and deeds (or its defense of extremist positions, its doubletalk, equivocal pronouncements and reported removing of posts from its archives when caught), or to the scandalously reactionary way Una Voce responded to the Church's Protocol 1411, as well as toward other recent developments in the FSSP, one sees Una Voce's ambivalence with respect to the Church hierarchy. One reads on their e-lists that the extremists seem more and more right and that the Vatican cannot be trusted especially after "what happened to Fr. Bisig," [who was deposed as a hardliner, some say] as if there were no serious theological matters involved in these decisions [See TCR's FSSP file].


This ambivalence is most conspicuous when one looks to the overall theology of Una Voce International's President, Michael Davies, who wrote recently regarding Protocol 1411, opposing the Holy Father:


"Archbishop Lefebvre withdrew from the 1988 agreement with the Holy See because he felt that the Vatican could not be relied upon to keep its promises. It would appear that there are now powerful forces in the Curia determined to prove that he was right" (See Violation of Natural Justice Below)


Nor would Davies listen to Bishop Bruskewitz who declared the views of his Remnant mates unorthodox; Bruskewitz even excommunicated SSPX along with neo-modernists in his diocese. Would that he would listen to the Pontifical Commission, Ecclesia Dei, to which he was morally oblidged as a promoter of the Indult (at times) Clearly this is because Davies remains heavily indebted to and rooted in Lefebvre's errors of disposition, suspicion, and fact. Indeed, Davies' entire theological outlook (as we will see in part below) is thoroughly colored by his long and lasting debt to his mentor. More recently he has taken to bed with the Mattities, speaking at their conferences with the signers of schismatic screeds against the Pope, with Feeneyites also. Much of the Integrist bacteria has been spawned in Davies' old glass. For years---up to and after Lefebvre's death----Davies was and remains the microphone and press agent / apologist for the errors of Lefebvre, which is why he has never repudiated the SSPX (even if Una Voce is inclusive of others), why he allows that organization to continue to sell his books to this day. Nor has he repudiated the organization's lesser clones, like The Remnant whose editor, being a young man, was confirmed by Lefebvre and who never knew any but a sectarian Catholicism in opposition to "modernist" Rome growing up. Michael Davies has never repudiated the SSPX schism; indeed, as we shall see below---he scandalously continues to argue that they are not in schism, just as he has not repudiated The Remnant's recent declarations charging the Pope with schism, i.e., substantial breaks with tradition in several dogmatic areas, and their urging a public "suspending of obedience" to all the "conciliar Popes".


When TCR, more than once, asked Davies to repudiate these Remnant errors with a view to helping his friends, he refused, reducing it all to a mere "feud," as if no serious dogmatic matters were at stake. Davies still writes for that schismatic paper and is working with them on upcoming tours according to The Remnant's webpage and paper's advertising. He still defends the SSPX. He has not repudiated their most basic theological errors, even if he has disputed some fine points regarding the Mass with some SSPX priests.


Does Michael Davies accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church?. This question needs answering. Does Una Voce stand by it? One way or the other the answer will have implications for his / their associations. It is, indeed, a crime that Mr. Davies, on behalf of Una Voce, has not publicly repudiated especially the most recent schismatic excesses of Michael Matt's brand of theological kookiness. Davies allows the most outrageous slurs to be made against the Holy Father in the same paper his writings continue to appear in and thus has led many good people in Una Voce into genuine and scandalous confusion. It is tragic.


Thus the errors of Marcel Lefebvre (esp regarding tradition and the Magisterium) are the remaining worm in Una Voce's apple and this accounts for its chronic pessimism and ambivalence about the Ecclesia Dei Commission and the Vatican in general.


Michael Davies, long ago, simplistically compared the Second Vatican Council to "Cranmer's Revolution," (!) and in so doing has not ceased to generate rebellion and eccentricities in the Church to this day when his books are sold, rather than the constructive liturgical restoration, ala Cardinal Ratzinger, and the Holy Father. Everyone from The Remnant to the SSPX to all kinds of Sedevacantists quote Michael Davies. The reasons are clear. He boasts (to some) he has not changed. Precisely. He has been steadfast in the errors of Lefebvrism, which is our point. And he has worked to manipulate the Indult movement, granted by the Holy Father, in that direction. Thank God a legion of men and women, including many priests, have seen through this and changed, grown out of the Davies-SSPX-Remnant sectarian approach and tunnel vision.


What follows below are examples of Michael Davies' being on the wrong side of the theological tracks to this very day. We begin with the Pope's own judgement of the Lefebvre schism before proceeding to Mr. Davies' subsequent rejection of the Pope's statement. All of the writings here date to after the 1988 Lefebvre schism. We urge the reader to take the time to read all of the following in order to see how Una Voce, especially in the person of Michael Davies, has created a lot of ambivalence in people with respect to the Church. Indeed many who have come out of Integrist circles agree that it was the apparent scholarly style of one Michael Davies which in part induced them into Lefebvre's errors before a way out of the maze and back into unconditional communion with the Church was found. We hope he will now publicly repudiate those errors and reconsider his associations and correct his longtime friends who seem to be getting worse by the day. If so, our criticism will have been worthwhile. ----revised, updated October 2001

Anonymous said...

suffice it to say that Michael Davies has never repudiated these remarkable statements which were made after Lefebvre was excommunicated for doing what no other saint in history ever did, namely refuse to obey an explicit order of a Pope in matters dogmatic. Davies is invested in the Society of St. Pius X which sells his major books.) Today he encourages and raises money for the most vociferous extremists and leads those who only want liturgical integrity far astray.

Susan B. said...

"Anonymous said...
TradCatholic wrote
"videreVeritas is one thing, credereVeritas is quite another!"

Wow, for someone who calls herself tradcatholic you sure don't know your Latin!!
You've conjugated the verb incorrectly! You are such a fraud."

Agreed. It should be videTEVeritas and credeTEVeritas.
TradCatholic, where did you learn latin? You should get your money refunded.

Anonymous said...

Hey TradCatholic

Nihil curo de ista stulta superstitione tua

Jackson said...

As for reputable services: "Catholic World News
http://www.cwnews.com" is MUCH more reliable than "Catholic News Service" which routinely publishes articles with questional content and links to dissent groups. For example, one article applauds one of its columnists for receiving an award from Pax Christi, a notoriously heretical organization. In case you didn't know the Pax Christi group are heavily focused finding common ground with abortionists and the gay rights lobby (something that Mary, TradCatholic, Hilary, should find objectionable).

I would have thought that a blog called Against ALL Heresies would avoid this particular news service like the plague!!
Why support a news service that employs journalists who support abortion???


I find it especially ironic that you (TradCatholic) would defend the Catholic News Service given the kinds of groups they are linked with! (Unless you are secretely pro-aborations, and I HOPE that you are not)

And dont' forget that you can get Vatican news from the Vatican ITSELF if you want to know first hand what the Vatican actually said instead of reading it second-hand.

Jackson said...

As for reputable services: "Catholic World News
http://www.cwnews.com" is MUCH more reliable than "Catholic News Service" which routinely publishes articles with questional content and links to dissent groups. For example, one article applauds one of its columnists for receiving an award from Pax Christi, a notoriously heretical organization. In case you didn't know the Pax Christi group are heavily focused finding common ground with abortionists and the gay rights lobby (something that Mary, TradCatholic, Hilary, should find objectionable).

I would have thought that a blog called Against ALL Heresies would avoid this particular news service like the plague!!
Why support a news service that employs journalists who support abortion???


I find it especially ironic that you (TradCatholic) would defend the Catholic News Service given the kinds of groups they are linked with! (Unless you are secretely pro-aborations, and I HOPE that you are not)

And dont' forget that you can get Vatican news from the Vatican ITSELF if you want to know first hand what the Vatican actually said instead of reading it second-hand.

Tradcatholic said...

Susanb('b' for brainy)screamed:

"Wow, for someone who calls herself tradcatholic you sure don't know your Latin!!
You've conjugated the verb incorrectly! You are such a fraud."


My, my Suzie, cool your jets - this is only a blog, not a contest!!


Now, for all you Latin "scholars" out there:

Susanb, the comment you refer to was VidereVeritas which, as we all (but those on this list who dabble in Latin) know means TO SEE (THE) TRUTH . That is a good name, I think. As I was questioning the 'truth' as the commentor Leslie sees it, I switched the begining present active infinitive from 'to see' to the more important 'to believe', again the present active infinitive CREDERE.

The point, which the critical commentors among us seem to miss with every post, is that 'TO SEE' the truth is important enough - but it is as more important 'TO BELIEVE' the truth!

I found this for all you non believers:(yes, it is from another site, and it is OLD news)

video videre vidi visum [to see; to perceive , notice, observe; to look into a matter, see to, provide for]. Pass.

And,

credo -dere -didi -ditum [to trust]: with acc. and dat. , [to entrust, commit], esp. of secrets and money; n. of perf. partic. as subst., creditum, [a loan]; with dat., [to trust in, rely upon]; also with dat., [to believe, give credence to]; with acc., [to believe as a fact, to accept as true]; in gen., [to believe, think, be of the opinion.

So, without invictives, I will tell you that rather that ME 'misconjugation' a verb, it was in fact YOU who mistranslated it. See what is written, not what you think you want to see. The present active imperative which you recomment (videTEVeritas) tr: SEE TRUTH!!! is a good piece of advice for you. And FYI, a fraud is someone who pretends to be one thing and is not. I never pretended to be a Latin Scholar. Lighten up ...enjoy the exchange of views....you may just learn a thing or two.

Tradcatholic said...

One rather out of touch anonymous know-nothing said:

Davies is invested in the Society of St. Pius X which sells his major books.) Today he encourages and raises money for the most vociferous extremists and leads those who only want liturgical integrity far astray.

NEWS FLASH: Michael Davies has died some time ago. Maybe Mary should post his obituary on this blog, as some may have missed it when it was 'new' news.

LatinLover said...

" I switched the begining present active infinitive from 'to see' to the more important 'to believe', again the present active infinitive CREDERE."

Ahhh. but there is the problem (and the source of your ignorance).. CREDERE is the root verb not the present active infinitive. Check your Latin 101 textbook again (don't just rely on google, you need to know grammar as well as the dictionary meaning to actually use Latin)

Note also that the original poster's pseudoname was videte NOT videre -- different meaning! The first is a command for you (plural) to see the truth.

You quoted the dictionary: "video videre vidi visum [to see; to perceive , notice, observe; to look into a matter, see to, provide for]." But don't seem to have a clue about the forms that are listed. Video = I see, videre is the base form (which must be conjugated e.g., video, I see; vides, you see; and so on). You can't just use videre or credere, etc, because your statement makes no sense!


" I will tell you that rather that ME 'misconjugation' a verb, it was in fact YOU who mistranslated it"
No, my translation was correct. The dictionary listing that you used (CREDERE) is never used in that form. You need to add the appropriate endings to turn it into a meaningful use of the verb. As was stated earlier, you actually should have used credeteveritas (and would have if you knew anything about Latin)

Again...why do you love the Latin mass so much when you don't even understand the basics of the Latin language?? Suggests to me that you don't understand what is being said at mass.

You are a fraud because you put so much emphasis on tradition and the latin mass, but don't have a clue about latin (as this current post further emphasizes).

Anonymous said...

" Michael Davies has died some time ago."

Yippee. Let's rejoice. One less agent of Satan in this world.

Anonymous said...

"present active infinitive CREDERE"

TradCatholic. I don't think you know what infinitive means.
Let's make this simple. In English there the infinitive of "is" is "TO BE"
So, would it make sense to use the infinitive in the sentence "The apple to be red" ?
No, it sounds stupid. Well, that's the very reason why your faux Latin "credereVeritas" sounds dumb.

Anonymous said...

Very clever, TradCatholic, avoid addressing the problem that your alleged reliable source on the SSPX benefited financially from their support (which explains his eagerness to stay on their good side).

LatinLover said...

http://frcoulter.com/latin/

Learn Latin with Father Coulter!
If you want to promote the Latin Mass and the beauty of the latin language, you have to know the language (unless you like being a hypocrite)

Anonymous said...

ha,ha, this is all funny.
TradCatholic is protesting: Clamat eum iniustum fuisse
but she just doesn't understand.

steven said...

"If you want to promote the Latin Mass and the beauty of the latin language, you have to know the language (unless you like being a hypocrite)"

Amen to that!

Tradcatholic said...

steven said...
"If you want to promote the Latin Mass and the beauty of the latin language, you have to know the language (unless you like being a hypocrite)"

Well, return to tradition and the traditional Latin Mass is NOT about the Latin. But, you wouldn't understand that at all. It's not about those old folks yearning for the old Latin Mass. Thousands of those who attend the Latin Mass are youth and young adults. It is not about the Latin or nostalgia. It is about Truth. It is about true worship of God, and faithfullness to the Tradition of the Church. But, you don't understand the problem, so you won't understand the answer. Too bad.

Anonymous said...

"It is about Truth. It is about true worship of God, and faithfullness to the Tradition of the Church."

Right...big distinction there. That's what the official mass of the Catholic Church is about. The vast, vast majority of self-styled Traditionists harp about the importance of including Latin rather than the venacular in the mass (including the SSPX), and now you expect me to believe that Latin is a minor detail? The Traditional Catholic websites say otherwise.

Nice avoidance of the latin issue (and your inability to undertand it), by the way.

Anonymous said...

""the Latin language "can be called truly catholic."" Angelus Press Veterum Sapientia

LatinLover said...

TradCatholic wrote: " But, you don't understand the problem, so you won't understand the answer. Too bad."

Ah, but you don't understand the official language of your church, so you don't understand your faith. Too bad.

I guess it's tough monolingual and unable to read the Vatican's documents and the words of the early Fathers of the Church.

LatinLover said...

oops. make that tough TO BE monolingual
messed up my infinitive

Tradcatholic said...

Another hiding anonymous comment was:

" Michael Davies has died some time ago."

Yippee. Let's rejoice. One less agent of Satan in this world.

This is sad that someone who pretends to be catholic writes something like this. It is a useful and generous deed to pray for the dead, not to malign their reputation. This sort of hatred needs to be mentioned in confession. To call someone an 'agent of Satan' is a very serious charge. Hopefully,it is the ignorance of the writer which saves this statement published for all to see, from being a mortal sin. And yes, one can judge be what one sees and reads. Not edifying at all. It is scandalous.

To answer the confusion of the latest entry by anon, Latin is not a minor detail. It is about the Mass itself, preserved through the Latin. Can the Church introduce the vernacular at Mass? Yes, they did so already. Changing the language is possible - changing the Mass is not. But, that's a lot to expect the hiding anons to understand.

Anonymous said...

Ok. TradCatholic, get off your soapbox. Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

Anonymous said...

"But, that's a lot to expect the hiding anons to understand."

I might be anon but at least _I_ can read Latin

Fr. Fox said...

TradCatholic, in defending the Latin mass, you have made a large error. The Mass is and always has been the same. It is the liturgy that has changed (and the Vatican approves the N.O. and Trid. liturgy).
It is not correct to say that the Latin Mass is a more traditional MASS for this reason.

The mass, or more accuractely, "the Eucharistic Celebration" is about the Eucharist. As long as the consecration is valid, the mass is valid, regardless of which liturgy is used. To try to defend one liturgy over the other places you at risk for a schismatic mentality.

Anonymous said...

"This is sad that someone who pretends to be catholic writes something like this. It is a useful and generous deed to pray for the dead, not to malign their reputation"

Yet, you, Mary, and others, feel free to malign and bash other unfortunate souls who have fallen from the Catholic Church (including Milingo). So, I guess it's OK to malign while they are alive, but as soon as they die, suddenly you start to pray for them??? Your double-standard intrigues me.

Tradcatholic said...

Anonymous said...
Ok. TradCatholic, get off your soapbox. Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

If you aren't interested, why do keep reading...very strange.

x x x x x

second anon quips:
I might be anon but at least _I_ can read Latin

Wow! I'm impressed! Does that make you better than me? Does that make you more Traditional?? It takes a lot of work to learn a language, so more power to you. Now, if you just hit the Catholic books and do some real reading and thinking and praying, you may just begin to see the forest through the trees - in Latin, no less!

What all this has to do with the errant bishop returning to his make believe wife escapes me. I think the bones you are picking - that is whichever anonymous person you are - are picked dry. As hilary said in the FIRST comment on this posting ... move along...we all should have taken her advice.
Cheers! :)

Anonymous said...

"Does that make you more Traditional?? It takes a lot of work to learn a language, so more power to you. Now, if you just hit the Catholic books and do some real reading "

One step ahead of you. I have read many Catholic books (not the rehashed MODERN ones in English, the TRADITIONAL ones in Latin). Sad you can't do the same.

What does this have to do with an errant EX-Bishop (you conveniently forgot the EX)? It's related because you call yourself Traditional and presume to be holier than the Pope yet lack the basic ability to read about your own faith in it's official language.

Besides, wasn't it you who decided to "show off" her Latin skills in the first place by creating the bogus word credereVeritas, thus exposing your ignorance. Here's a hint: you don't know what you are talking about, don't try to fake it, Otherwise, you will be exposed and (to use HIlary's phrase) your comments Non Gradus Anus Rodentum!

Leslie said...

"TradCatholic said This is sad that someone who pretends to be catholic writes something like this. It is a useful and generous deed to pray for the dead, not to malign their reputation"

Yet, you, Mary, and others, feel free to malign and bash other unfortunate souls who have fallen from the Catholic Church (including Milingo). So, I guess it's OK to malign while they are alive, but as soon as they die, suddenly you start to pray for them??? Your double-standard intrigues me.


So, I guess no one's going to address this question, eh?

Tradcatholic said...

By the way, folks of errant ways and puffed up with non-knowledge,the OFFICIAL language of the Catholic Church to which we all belong is still LATIN - does that mean ALL OF US need to know Latin?? Latin is the official language even of the Novus Ordo. Hummm. I doubt that all the Catholics of the seventeenth century spoke Latin - where did this fallacy come from? You may read books in Latin (wow) - but I think you need some translations in English to get full understanding of what you are talking about.

M. Alexander said...

How is pointing out that Bishop Milingo is attempting to destroy the Church maligning him? He chose to hold a news conference attacking the Church. I suppose the N.O. way of thinking would be to say, "oh that's too bad" and do nothing. It hasn't worked out too well in the last few years has it?

I see we have a TCR correspondent in our midst- Leslie? If you have so much to say why not start your own blog or post your comments on Stephen Hand's website. I think it is rude to go on and on.

And making sport of someone for making a Latin error? My goodness it doesn't take much to amuse simple minds does it? If I were you I would be ashamed to use my real name too.

Anonymous said...

" does that mean ALL OF US need to know Latin??"

Yes, it does. If someone wants to be Traditional, they should be able to read Church documents in the language in which it was written. As we know the translations are sometimes inaccurate (as the latest changes approved by the US Bishops show).

It's really not that hard to learn Latin. Any serious Catholic (especially ones who want to see what that the documents REALLY say) should know it.

You haven't answered my original question. Do you understand anything that is being said at your mass?

Petunia said...

"How is pointing out that Bishop Milingo is attempting to destroy the Church maligning him?"

How do you know that was his intention? Was his goal to destroy the Church or to draw attention to himself for its own sake?

If maligning someone is a sin, scandalous, etc (as TradCatholic statement), then that would be the case of maligning ANYONE, not just those you happen to like.

I am NOT defending Milingo. What he did was wrong and the Vatican will take action (as noted in the parts of the articles you chose not to report on this blog).

The main content of your blog (which focuses on pointing fingers at wrong-doers) contradicts the teaching of the Church you alledgedly belong to.
Read these and ask youself whether your statement (for example) that Milingo is trying to destroy the church fits with the official teachings of the Catholic Church.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280


In what way is your post and scandalous comments condusive to saving Milingo?

2488 The right to the communication of the truth is not unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or not it is appropriate to reveal the truth to someone who asks for it.

Since you are so big on "Truth". This is one of the comments uner the "Offenses Against Truth" Section
The last point particularly applies to this blog.

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279



Given that these are the official statements, it seems that your blog is scandalous and inappropriate for a faithful Catholic. If your "news" items were followed by something constructive, things might be different, but as things are now, it's look at Person X, see how bad he is. He's a sinner. Let's mock and laugh. That contradicts everything the Church teaches.

M. Alexander said...

Oh Petunia,
You really don't get it do you? You think that taking someone at their publicly broadcasted word is making an unfair or rash judgment?

So, I suppose you take what known heretics say and try to find some orthodox interpretation, good will, well meaning statements and apply it to the speaker instead?

That reminds me of those who call evil, good and good, evil.

In fact you are defending Bishop Milingo- you are defending his write to speak heresy and damage the Church and mislead souls. And then you say that no one should condemn what he says or his actions.

Does this make ANY sense? No, it doesn't.

I really do feel sorry for you.

Petunia said...

"You really don't get it do you? "

No Mary, YOU don't get it.
You have ignored the fact that you have committed an Offense Against Truth by disclos(ing) another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them.

This is a direct quote from the Catechism and its meaning is very, very clear. You have not explained why this aspect of Catholic teaching does not apply to YOU.

Tradcatholic said...

Petunia (a better name would be Polyanna) said;
of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

Well, petunia honey, the picture of the bishop in the tux and his supposed bride in the wedding dress looks like 'sufficient foundation' to me. Are you blind as well as deaf and dumb/

Petunia "Pollyanna" Faithful Catholic said...

TradCatholic, I DID NOT SAY THAT I APPROVED OF MILINGO'S ACTION, DID I? (Was that clear enough for you??)

What I said was that by posting this information Mary is causing scandal by committing an offense of the truth. Don't you get it...milingo is causing scandal (no doubt there), but --here's the kicker -- SO IS MARY BY REPEATING THIS. She is causing scandal by pointing out the sins of another to those who did not already know!

While we're on the topic of heresy,
from newadvent.org " The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval."

By failing to follow the church teachings on this matter, Mary is picking and choosing whatever is convenient for her. That makes her a heretic, too. By definition, she (and all other Cafeteria Catholics) are heretics. She might SAY she's not a heretic, but that doesn't change, the facts, does it?

The church teachings are very, very, very clear on this point. It shouldn't be to hard to understand.
Bottom line. BOTH milingo and mary have engaged in scandalous behavior. BOTH have gone against the church's teachings. BOTH are heretics.

Who is the bigger heretic?? The answer is obvious (look at the photo), but heaven vs hell is a binary decision, you either in one or the other, so who is the bigger sinner doesn't matter.

Anonymous said...

what a great blog. Even the self-professed "saints" are sinning and scandalizing like crazy. Yeeee-haw, let's all jump in the handbasket.

Kim said...

"Do not go about spreading slander among your people" (Lev. 19:16). "If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless" (Jas. 1:26). "Men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned" (Matt. 12:36, 37).
Gossip and announcing the faults of others is completely against God’s standard of preserving unity and lifting one another up. It serves no purpose but a selfish one.

The person spreading bad news about another may be trying to look better by making the other person look bad. I have news: that strategy never works that way.

Anonymous said...

Examination of Conscience
Acts against the 5th and 8th commandment
Have I engaged in gossip (detraction) or spread scandal?

This blog has committed the sin of detraction.
"Detraction.
Making known the sins of our neighbour, with the intention of injuring his character."
http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/features/catholichandbook/25_8thcommand.asp

Anonymous said...

from sspxasia.com

Is detraction a great sin?

Yes, for it is directly opposed to the love of our neighbor, therefore to the love of God, hence it is, as St. Ambrose says, hateful to God and man. By it we rob our neighbor of a possession greater than riches, (Prov. XXII. 1.) and often he is plunged by it into want and misery, even into the greatest vices; St. Ambrose says: "Let us fly from the vice of detraction, for it is altogether a satanic abyss, full of deceit." Finally, detraction is a great sin, because it can seldom be recalled, and the injury done by it is very great, and often irreparable.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget about the sin of derision!

From the 1892 Elements of Moral Theology (Lest someone take offense at the use of the Catechism for being too modern)

Derision.
Mocking at another is intended to put him to shame. The different end marks a special sin, different from those just described. This "laughing to scorn" is directed at some evil, some defect. But a great evil is not treated jestingly, but seriously. Hence, if any such thing is made subject of derision, it is treated as a small thing in its kind, small in itself, or relatively to the person. But when any one turns the evil or the defect of another into ridicule, because it is in itself trifling, the sin is venial. But this derision may imply contempt of the person; sc., that his evil is of no more consequence than a child's or a fool's. This great contempt and dishonour constitute a graver mortal sin than contumely.

Violet said...

" If the rumors turn out to be true about the Archbishop's intentions (which he himself have not made public), I have very little doubt that he will be excommunicated. The only question that will remain after that is if the Traditionalists will then apologize for rashly judging the Vatican (although I won't hold my breath, after all they DO know better than anyone ever could in Rome :major rolling of eyes: ).

So, again, no double standard, except in the eyes of those that think they need to make the Church in THEIR likeness and image as usual."

Excellent point, hsarsfield. You make a very logical argument about why there is NOT a double-standard. Thanks for being the voice of reason.

M. Alexander said...

Now how can one be accused of sin for pointing out another's error? Especially when it is a spiritual work of mercy to "instruct the ignorant" and "admonish the sinner"?

But in the new post VII Church of love there is no admonishment, there is only love, love, love, luhve. The results are grim but it all sounds so wonderful.

Anonymous said...

"how can one be accused of sin for pointing out another's error? Especially when it is a spiritual work of mercy to "instruct the ignorant" and "admonish the sinner"?"

Sin is sin, Mary. And some of what you have written has crossed over into the sins derision and detraction (the description of these sins are very clear).
Detraction.
Making known the sins of our neighbour, with the intention of injuring his character and/or spreading scandal. Your post on Milingo did this. (Note, I am not saying I agree with Milingo's action, I don't).

Derision: Mocking at another is intended to put him to shame. Again, the Milingo post and the tone of some of the other posts.

Pointing out a person's flaw on the internet does not admonish the sinner and does nothing to correct that person (unless Milingo is a regular reader of this blog!)

The church does NOT teach that sinners should not be admonished, not by a long shot. However, the admonishment should be done in a way that is helpful and will lead the person to the right path. Again, the best way to do this is one-on-one with the person, in private; if done publically this spreads scandal (and also detraction because it points out the flaw to others who might not have know it and that IS a sin).

These sins are not post-VII ones. These sins have been described long before then (one of the quotes I noticed is from 1892 Elements of Moral Theology), so you can't blame Vatican II for this! Plus the bible is also very clear on this (see the quotes from other people's comments)
Even SSPx acknowledges that these are sins and I wouldn't say that there are all about love, love, love, ignore sin.

Why am I pointing this out? It is to "instruct the ignorant" and "admonish the sinner". Although this was directed at some (not all) of your blog posts, several comments routinely blur over into these two sins as well. Engaging in this kind of mocking and publizing of the stupid things some people do has become a sport on the internet and it is important for Catholics to realize that these things are certainly venial sins, and, if done repeatedly, can be mortal sins (and makes us ineligible to receive the Holy Eucharist!)

Anonymous said...

One person wrote:
:Derision: Mocking at another is intended to put him to shame:

Seems to me that this includes most of the folks on this blog - mocking a fellow for Latin errors, calling people 'so-called Catholics, calling good contributers to this comment section 'heretics',liars, mocking priests - even the priests of SSPX are validly ordained, calling a good Catholic man who worked extremely diligently for Una Voce "satan", and generally ascribing less than upright intentions to other commentors --far more mud was thrown to those commenting than what Mary A presented re: Milingo. Shame on most of you! Such 'catholic' charity I have not seen in a long time. Those preening their 'catholic' feathers over their superiority in accusatory barbs are not without sin by a long shot. The confession lines should be long this weekend. Shame.

Anonymous said...

" The confession lines should be long this weekend. Shame."

Hopefully I'll see you, Mary, and HIlary there!

Anonymous said...

anonymous wrote Seems to me that this includes most of the folks on this blog - mocking a fellow for Latin errors, calling people 'so-called Catholics, calling good contributers to this comment section

That is my point. Sin leads to more sin. The detraction and derision in the posts is creating more evil, not good.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jonh Neo said...

yeah M., I like your blog and I want to exchange your blog link with my link,
my blog is Arts Collections .
pls feedback to me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Google Link About Arts