The Remnant And The Wanderer

[BLAZEr]

Ok, umm, actually I was ignoring your comments. I was not interested in arguing with you. In fact, from your name I just assumed you would be someone who was irrational. That may have been judgemental, but that's what I thought.

I posted that excerpt, not to "prove" that the remnant was heterodox but rather to demonstrate the tone and the direction of the Remnant. I still stand by the position that it is not a publication at the heart of the Church. The vile attacks against the Holy Father that are published in the Remnant are NOT what the Church is about. I would imagine that Padre Pio and St. Catherine of Sienna would caution against it too.

"Where Peter is, there is the Church." That should be a motto more magazines take into account, both liberal and traditionalist.

And, while I have read Fr. Harrison's article before, around 2 years ago, I still don't find it convincing. The 3 footnotes he uses are evidence enough that this is meant to be an opinion piece and not a scholarly critique.

[popestpiusx]

Let me get this straight. I choose the name of a canonized saint for my screename, and one to whom I have a great love and devotion. From that, you assumed I would be irrational. Does this seemed like a rational judgement to you??

Second,
There have ben numerous saints (St. Catherine included) who wrote scathingly of the Holy Father. St. Bernard of Clairviox actually wrote to the Pope and told him that if he (the pope) goes to hell it will be because he has failed to deal with bad bishops. Incidently, Bishop Bruskewitz sent a copy of that same letter to our present Holy Father. But I digress. If St. Pio and St. Catherine cautioned against The Remnant, it would be for something more than "the tone and the direction" of the paper. If they had a problem with it, they would base it on something substantial, like heterodoxy. People of past days were far less "emotional" than we are now and more thick skinned. They did not demonize someone for violations of the laws of "tone and the direction" unless these had doctrinal ramifications. Forgive me if I am a bit facetious. I am sure that what you intended to say was that the "tone and direction" of The Remnant are reflective of certain doctrinal positions which, in your opinion, are contrary to the faith. If that is your intention, then I would say again, where's the evidence? Let's be rational and provide well reasoned arguments.

Third,
I'm not sure what you mean by this: "The 3 footnotes he uses are evidence enough that this is meant to be an opinion piece and not a scholarly critique." Even in a scholarly critique he would be presenting what starts off as his opinion. He wrote the article as a defence again calumnous defamation of character. If someone is going to throw around the words "heterodox" and "schismatic" then thay beaver dam sure better know what they are saying and be able to back it up. Can you refute his argument?

I hope I have not been irrational. I am actually enjoying this discussion and would like very much for it to continue on friendly terms.

In Christo et Maria,
a sinner

[aByzantineCatholic]

Since when is being critical of the Pope ANTI-CATHOLIC? It's not like the Pope is Infalliable on everyday matters of the Church. If you believe the Pope is Infalliable in everything he does then you are an Idolatist and thus not Catholic.

Becareful of who you call Anti-Catholic!

Thank You Saint Catherine Sienna for putting Pope Gregory in his place.

[img]http://www.lifeteen.org/Images/Documents/SaintOfTheWeek/SaintOfTheWeek_levrk4_FS.jpg[/img]
Saint Catherine Sienna pray for us!

[BLAZEr]

Wow, I think you just evidenced my point. It's funny that you mention people used to be much less emotional. Because you're right. I can't imagine any of the saints flying off the handle like that.

First: I assumed that the name you chose, and your support for the Remnant were evidence of support for the Society of St. Pius X. I do not claim that this was an appropriate judgement, and I admitted as much. I have nothing against St. Pius X, in fact, I too have a devotion to him. However, he has been much maligned by the fact that a group of priests are in formal Schism and take him for their name.

Second: I know the definition of schismatic and heterodox and I find that the articles in Remnant lean in that direction. Certainly their stated position is that they are in full union with the Church and "merely" critical of some aspects, but I don't find this position to be backed up by the articles they print. I happen to know Christopher Ferrara and have worked with him, and a colleague and I researched his writings. I find his writings uncharitable and scathinly critical in way that does not evidence reverence but rahter disdain. This is not something you will find in St. Catherine's writings.

She was critical of the Pope because he was not in Rome. She, however, never impuned his decisions nor did she attempt to rouse people against him. She wrote to him directly and then eventually went to Avignon to disucuss it with him personally. She did not spend her days inciting others to think less of him.

Padre Pio used to caution against any criticism of the Pope or a Bishop. He was the saint who, despite the accusations levied against him by a Bishop and the penalties exacted against him by the Pope, refused to say one negative thing about either.

Third: If Father Harrison was actually making substantial Critique, he should have taken the time to demonstrate how the Church teaches what he is saying by demonstrating from her own voice (documents, bulls, encyclicals, papal statmetns, statements of the variosu congregations, canon law, etc). I find his arguement sound, but not entirely convincing. Part of the reason I don't find it entirely convincing is because he does not have a more thourugh use of primary sources to back up his claims. This is why I argue it is more of an opinion piece than a scholarly critique. I agree that both are opinions, but one certainly can carry more intellectual weight than the other.

[popestpiusx]

What point was that (and who evidenced it)?

[PedroX]

Really folks, go back and reread Blazer's original posts. (read mine too, but just because I'm very vain and like to think of people reading my posts!)

Blazer is perfectly with in his rights (and incidentally correct in this case!) to point out that the tone of the two publications is a bit harsh. Even if they are printing Gospel truth, its a bit shrill, don't you think?

I love, and mourn for, our traditionalist brothers and look with joy to our reunification. However, even I occasionally wish to see a cartoon in their publications. To know that they can share a good laugh with me would be a good thing.

Oh, and Blazer, quit inciting the traditionalists. Its not nice, and in these parts its too easy!

peace...

[popestpiusx]

pedro,

I understand what you are saying. I am not disagreing that they are at times a bit harsh. My point is that being harsh does not put one outside the Church. Read the writings of St. Jerome, St. Athanasius, St. Peter Damien, St. Bernard of Clairvoix. You want to see harsh. There you have it. St. Jerome was downright mean. He and St. Augustine nearly hated each other. I'm not saying it is ok. Just that we certainly cannot throw around these names (heterodox and schismatic) just because someone put something in a way that we find "harsh". Schism has a very precise definition and it does not include being "harsh". That is all I am trying to say. For the record, I would agree that there probably are a couple of individuals that write for the Remnant that would qualify as schismatic (in the true sense of the word) and some are just hotheads, but the same could be said of countless publications. One or two people do not make or break a publication.

Edited March 16, 2004 by popestpiusx

[BLAZEr]

Pedro, you're right . . . I'm itching for a fight . . .

I'll start practicing being meek and humble of heart again . . .