The so-called theologian (maybe someone one day will remove that title from him) known as Beans in Italian, Massimo Faggioli, recently wrote the following quotation which is in another article describing what he wrote which you can read in full by pressing the title:
Villanova historian says Chaput, Cordileone, and Strickland are ‘devout schismatics’
“They are schismatics because they openly promote the undermining of the bishop of Rome among the Catholic faithful,” Massimo Faggioli wrote in a July 16 essay for La Croix magazine.
I didn't know that a lay person could declare anyone to be in schism! Is this something new and post-Vatican II??? I've heard of lay participation in the Church, but this is something really new, no?
I didn't know that a lay person could declare anyone to be in schism! Is this something new and post-Vatican II??? I've heard of lay participation in the Church, but this is something really new, no?
10 comments:
It's astonishing how liberals, presuming that they now have a Pope who agrees with them, suddenly become ultramontanists who believe that no criticism of the pontiff is allowed.
Mark Thomas believes that popes are oracles of God and those who criticize them must be 'left-wing' or 'right-wing' extremists (his terms). This is nonsense, both theologically and historically.
To take just the popes in my lifetime:
1. Pius XII should not have allowed Bugnini to mangle the Holy Week liturgy. His conduct during WW2 is still a matter of controversy, although I believe he was unjustly maligned and subject to a Soviet disinformation campaign.
2. John XXIII called a Council for no compelling reason, and having done so, allowed it to be hi-jacked by the Modernists.
3. Paul VI is mainly responsible for the disintegration of the liturgy, and his ill-conceived Ostpolitik was shameful. He was weak and too easily manipulated. The last ten years of his papacy were marked by despair as the damage he had done became increasingly evident.
4. JP I refused to be crowned, which set an unfortunate precedent.
5. JP II was a global superstar but his penchant for grandstanding led him to neglect serious internal problems. His choice of bishops was poor.
6. Benedict XVI never quite had the courage of his convictions and his abdication amounted to throwing in the towel.
7. Francis makes a virtue out of doctrinal ambiguity and refuses to 'confirm the brethren'. He is bad-tempered and a scold. I can't envisage a more dysfunctional papacy.
None of the above criticisms makes me a schismatic. Beans is not taken seriously as either a theologian or a liturgist. Look at the can and you'll find he's well past his sell-by date.
The three names schismatic? Like the old line in the movie 'Airplane", I would say "surely you can't be serious?"
As for John Paul 1 refusing to be crowned, really? That was a problem? Just like not being carried around on thrones anymore. The Lord was given a crown of thorns, but did he ever wear a crown or be carried about on a throne? I think we can survive without that...
John Paul 2 made poor selection of bishops? Well, can we really expect someone to know the needs of thousands of dioceses around the world, many of whom he obviously could never have had the time to visit? How do we know there were not "worse" choices in some dioceses than were actually made, as we never know who the candidates are?
As for Benedict abdicating, I think age 86 is plenty old enough to call it quits in heading an institution with over a billion adherents.
These guys are "schismatics"? Pardon my bluntness, but what a bunch of horse****.
Does anyone on the modernist camp actually remember what it means to be a Catholic?
I wasn't putting the above criticisms forward as propositions for debate, but they are frequently heard. The one about 'better bishops' actually comes from John Allen in his biography of Joseph Ratzinger, where he speculated on the possible consequences of a Ratzinger papacy, something he considered highly unlikely!
The point was that making such criticisms does not make the critic schismatic.
"As for Benedict abdicating, I think age 86 is plenty old enough to call it quits in heading an institution with over a billion adherents."
Especially when probably at least 60% of those adherents have little or no knowledge of the basic catechism and 90 percent of the bishops have declared war on Tradition.
John Nolan,
You are dealing with Anonymous K an empty suit (or cassock) who frequently goes down rabbit holes
From the beginning of Pope Francis' reign as our beloved, God-loving, holy Roman Pontiff to date, Archbishop Chaput has defended and promoted Pope Francis as a holy, orthodox Pope.
Archbishop Chaput has heaped praise upon Pope Francis. Pope Francis and Archbishop Chaput have known each other since 1997 A.D.
Pope Francis appointed Archbishop Chaput to then-Pontifical Council for the Laity.
Archbishop Chaput has insisted that he enjoys an excellent relationship with His Holiness.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
'Archbishop Chaput has insisted that he enjoys an excellent relationship with His Holiness'
As did Cardinal Müller until HH peremptorily dismissed him. Any thoughts on this, Mark? Answers on a postcard, please, we don't want another example of repetitious prolixity.
John Nolan,
Do you think it slightly unfair to ask MT to think?
MT,
When are you going to answer John Nolan’s question? Or are you a member of the Dump and Run Club?
Post a Comment