It is currently Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:06 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
 Chris Ferrara weirdness 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Chris Ferrara weirdness
This is a bit of a wander down memory lane prompted by the latest outrage from Bergoglio. I never did get around to reading Ferrara through on sedevacantism, so I don't know whether he developed this very odd material excerpted from his (2005) Remnant column:

Lawyer Ferrara for the Defendant wrote:
So, a deceased Protestant “monk”, presiding over a “community” composed of objective heretics and schismatics from “virtually every Christian denomination” (NYT) receives a funeral Mass complete with Vatican cardinals and a personal message from the Pope. On the other hand, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, whose Catholic orthodoxy was beyond question, was treated as an outcast at his funeral. And now Bishop Fellay must go, hat in hand, to Castel Gandolfo to see if the Pope will give “permission” for the Church to use her own traditional rite of Mass. As Archbishop Lefebvre once said about the current state of affairs in the Church: “Is this real?”

Of course the event was an outrage that would have reduced the preconciliar popes to a state of apoplexy. And, naturally, the sedevacantist enterprise will use the event as yet more “proof” of the ridiculous thesis that the last five universally recognized popes were all impostors, and that there are no longer any bishops in the world with ordinary jurisdiction, so that the visible Church with its pope and hierarchy has virtually ceased to exist. Only the sedevacantists, we are supposed to believe, have noticed these developments.

I am informed that the “big guns” of sedevacantism are preparing “devastating rebuttals” to the recently published introduction of my lengthy critique of sedevacantism which is running in Fatima Crusader. While the rebuttals, if they are indeed forthcoming, are premature—I am only just getting started—I hear they will attack my use of an historical example, that of Pope Honorius I, to demonstrate how even a doctrinally condemnable pope, posthumously anathematized by a general council, remained pope so far as the judgment of the Church is concerned. This ought to be a lesson to those who, looking upon events such as the scandal at Taizé, declare the last five popes to be “manifest heretics” who lost their offices. My critics, it seems, will take the position that I have “libeled” poor Pope Honorius, who was really a sterling example of the papacy. Sure.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia observes of Honorius, who subscribed to a heterodox formula that lent itself to a denial of the two wills (human and divine) in Christ, the decree of Constantinople III (680-681) “anathematized the heretics by name, Theodore, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, Peter, Cyrus, ‘and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things’…” Further, the emperor’s official letter to Pope Leo II denounced Honorius as “the confirmer of the heresy and contradictor of himself…” Worse still, “Honorius was subsequently included in the lists of heretics anathematized by the Trullan Synod, and by the seventh and eighth ecumenical councils without special remark; also in the oath taken by every new pope from the eighth century to the eleventh in the following words: ‘Together with Honorius, who added fuel to their wicked assertions’ (Liber diurnus, ii, 9).”

Thus, history provides us with an example of a pope anathematized as, at least, an aider and abettor of heresy, and listed in a veritable canon of anathematized heretics condemned in a papal loyalty oath! No wonder the Catholic Encyclopedia concludes: “It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned.”

And yet, for all that, Honorius validly reigned as Pope. He was a heretic in fact but not in intention. This is the very distinction present-day sedevacantists overlook, even if they could prove heresy in the assorted papal utterances they declare to be “manifest heresy”—and they have not proven it.

So let the sedevacantists tell us what a wonderful pope Honorius really was in their “devastating rebuttals.” Sensible Catholics, however, will continue to recognize the important difference between heresy and being a heretic. This is the lesson we learn from the case of Honorius—a lesson that ought to be kept firmly in mind during the current “ecumenical” confusion.

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archive ... -taize.htm


There are two really quite weird things here. The first is in Ferrara's strange view of the crisis itself. On the one hand the crisis in the Church is apparently so incredible that explaining it is impossible, and intelligent men are reduced merely to quoting Archbishop Lefebvre expressing his own bewilderment over the situation: "As Archbishop Lefebvre once said about the current state of affairs in the Church: 'Is this real?'"

Yet, on the other hand, despite Ferrara's view that the funeral of Brother Roger "was an outrage that would have reduced the preconciliar popes to a state of apoplexy," sedevacantism remains a "ridiculous thesis" that must not be entertained.

Chris needed to make up his mind. Either this crisis is not quite so staggering as he purported to believe, and he has an explanation for it that has escaped everybody else, including Archbishop Lefebvre (in which case Chris really ought to have come out with it for everybody's enlightenment); or the crisis is indeed so exceedingly unexpected and difficult to explain that any thesis which remains within Catholic bounds might just be the correct explanation. Lefebvre himself was reduced to asking, "is this real?" and openly considered the sedevacantist thesis. That makes sense. Ferrara's dogmatic refusal of our thesis gives the lie to his claim that he finds the crisis anywhere near as puzzling as the Archbishop did. In a word, Ferrara belongs with the Indult people. It's his natural home. Oh, hang on, that's what The Remnant has become too...

The other very odd thing Chris had to say in the column above was the distinction he finds between "heresy" and "being a heretic". Huh? Did he ever explain what that's all about? He reminds one of a family law lawyer parsing a commercial contract. That is, he manifestly has no idea what he's talking about!

Poor Chris could not even get his fundamental facts straight. He wrote, "My critics, it seems, will take the position that I have 'libeled' poor Pope Honorius, who was really a sterling example of the papacy. Sure.

"As the Catholic Encyclopedia observes of Honorius, who subscribed to a heterodox formula that lent itself to a denial of the two wills (human and divine) in Christ."

What rich irony! Honorius did not "subscribe to a heterodox formula"; the Catholic Encyclopedia does not allege that Honorius "subscribed to a heterodox formula"; so yes, Chris, you have libeled Pope Honorius (along with the Catholic Encyclopedia), and you have done so because in your haste to find heretic popes in every corner of history you forgot to read the article from which you quote!

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Aug 13, 2014 1:17 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Chris Ferrara weirdness
Chris Ferrara is silly.

Even an untrained mind like mine could see through his nonsense back in 2005 when I knew even less than I know now. He helped push me to SV because I could tell he was not being 100% forthright back then. For whatever reason (consecration of Russia by a "Pope") SV is not an option for his ilk.

He should stop embarrassing himself and write about something he knows about. Not all they laity are as stupid as he supposes them to be.


Wed Aug 13, 2014 11:26 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Chris Ferrara weirdness
John Lane wrote:
The other very odd thing Chris had to say in the column above was the distinction he finds between "heresy" and "being a heretic". Huh? Did he ever explain what that's all about? He reminds one of a family law lawyer parsing a commercial contract. That is, he manifestly has no idea what he's talking about!


I find this is, without a doubt, the most frustrating concept individuals hold as they condemn any thought of sedevacantism. It is like talking to a brick wall. They cannot (or, at least, will not) explain how it is that a person can believe a heresy, teach heresy, and condemn orthodoxy, yet not be a heretic. Somehow, in order to be a "heretic" one has to be formally declared a heretic by "the magisterium". But who is "the magisterium" that they look to for this formal declaration? The ones who (even they acknowledge) believe and teach heresy and condemn orthodoxy.

It seems that the "diabolical disorientation" they are always talking about doesn't apply to the Conciliar sect (they are outright diabolical) it is in the anti-sedevacantist indult community.


Wed Aug 13, 2014 1:51 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Chris Ferrara weirdness
TKGS wrote:
John Lane wrote:
The other very odd thing Chris had to say in the column above was the distinction he finds between "heresy" and "being a heretic". Huh? Did he ever explain what that's all about? He reminds one of a family law lawyer parsing a commercial contract. That is, he manifestly has no idea what he's talking about!


I find this is, without a doubt, the most frustrating concept individuals hold as they condemn any thought of sedevacantism. It is like talking to a brick wall. They cannot (or, at least, will not) explain how it is that a person can believe a heresy, teach heresy, and condemn orthodoxy, yet not be a heretic. Somehow, in order to be a "heretic" one has to be formally declared a heretic by "the magisterium". But who is "the magisterium" that they look to for this formal declaration? The ones who (even they acknowledge) believe and teach heresy and condemn orthodoxy.

It seems that the "diabolical disorientation" they are always talking about doesn't apply to the Conciliar sect (they are outright diabolical) it is in the anti-sedevacantist indult community.


The "thought process" is akin to a dog chasing his tail which, I have heard, is symbolic of the devil.

The chicken just couldn't have come because there is no egg. The egg cannot exist because there is no chicken.


Wed Aug 13, 2014 2:35 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 am
Posts: 50
Location: Massachusetts, USA
New post Re: Chris Ferrara weirdness
Mario Looch wrote:
For whatever reason (consecration of Russia by a "Pope") SV is not an option for his ilk.


Is there a conflict between the SV thesis and the words of Our Lady of Fatima as reported by Sister Lucia? Fr. Kramer apparently doesn't think so (at least not in principle). I think the main reason many traditionalists don't want to accept the SV thesis is that it would imply a shocking and almost incomprehensible implosion of the Church. But given what occurred on the Cross, I don't think it can be considered an impossibility. And yet, you hear that objection on internet forums all the time; "The SV thesis would mean that the Church has defected."


Wed Aug 13, 2014 5:13 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:58 am
Posts: 50
Location: Massachusetts, USA
New post Re: Chris Ferrara weirdness
TKGS wrote:
It seems that the "diabolical disorientation" they are always talking about doesn't apply to the Conciliar sect (they are outright diabolical) it is in the anti-sedevacantist indult community.


Good point. It does seem that there is at least some kind of disorientation among traditional Catholics in that they spend an inordinate amount of time criticizing each other while being apparently incapable of uniting around an effort to restore the Church. But it might be that since the shepherd (the pope) is struck, the lack of a living unifying principle of the Church is the cause of this lack of unity among traditionalists. I hesitate to call that "diabolical disorientation" because I don't see traditionalists rejecting Church doctrine or generally acting in a manner that would directly endanger their salvation. I think the closest any of them come to that is the acceptance by some of the validity of NO sacraments. A true diabolical disorientation would involve obedient traditional Catholics following their leaders into sin. That truly did happen following V2. On the other hand it is very hard to understand how traditional Catholics such as Christopher Ferrara can develop such a visceral hatred and fear of sedevacantist Catholics.


Wed Aug 13, 2014 5:36 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 5:19 am
Posts: 36
New post Re: Chris Ferrara weirdness
I would be interested in finding out just where this "sedevacantist enterprise" is. If it's around, I sure haven't been able to find it. Must be all those wealthy donors funding and pushing the 'Reign of Mary' and the 'Four Marks' papers on millions of unsuspecting sedeplenists around the world... That and Fr Cekada.


Thu Aug 14, 2014 1:13 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Chris Ferrara weirdness
Luke L wrote:
I would be interested in finding out just where this "sedevacantist enterprise" is. If it's around, I sure haven't been able to find it. Must be all those wealthy donors funding and pushing the 'Reign of Mary' and the 'Four Marks' papers on millions of unsuspecting sedeplenists around the world... That and Fr Cekada.


I thought that the sedevacantist enterprise was a secret society much like the masons that covertly rules the world through here willing dupes feeding the SV propaganda through their bought off media.


Thu Aug 14, 2014 1:01 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Chris Ferrara weirdness
Mario Looch wrote:
Luke L wrote:
I would be interested in finding out just where this "sedevacantist enterprise" is. If it's around, I sure haven't been able to find it. Must be all those wealthy donors funding and pushing the 'Reign of Mary' and the 'Four Marks' papers on millions of unsuspecting sedeplenists around the world... That and Fr Cekada.


I thought that the sedevacantist enterprise was a secret society much like the masons that covertly rules the world through here willing dupes feeding the SV propaganda through their bought off media.


I think this is the impression that Mr. Ferrara intended to convey. The connotation of "Enterprise" in the context he uses it is less than laudatory. He seems to be trying to suggest that the "leaders" of the "sedevacantist enterprise" are in it for the money and power rather than trying to simply live the faith. It was his series on the "sedevacantist enterprise" that began to cause me to sour towards The Remnant even though I was not, at that time, a sedevacantist. His descriptions of sedevacantists seemed to fly in the face of reality and I saw it as a cheap shot against people of good will who might just be wrong in their judgments. It was actually the first anti-sedevacantist screed I had read and it helped to kick start my look at the sedevacantist thesis. Prior to that article series (for, if my memory serves me, he published a series of articles on the subject in the paper), I had heard of sedevacantists but never really read any of their arguments and just assumed that they were a little nuts.

It was shortly after this I found Mr. Lane's site and began to read what the sedevacantists themselves say about sedevacantism and discovered that anti-sedevacantists, such as Mr. Ferrara, almost always caricature sedevacantists and then ridicule the straw man they just erected. It had actually been this same realization that led me to tradition in the first place when I discovered that The Wanderer had been doing this towards the SSPX and other traditional Catholics.

_________________
Daniel Peck, Indiana, United States


Thu Aug 14, 2014 2:08 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 6:06 pm
Posts: 95
New post Re: Chris Ferrara weirdness
Quote:
I think this is the impression that Mr. Ferrara intended to convey. The connotation of "Enterprise" in the context he uses it is less than laudatory. He seems to be trying to suggest that the "leaders" of the "sedevacantist enterprise" are in it for the money and power rather than trying to simply live the faith. It was his series on the "sedevacantist enterprise" that began to cause me to sour towards The Remnant even though I was not, at that time, a sedevacantist. His descriptions of sedevacantists seemed to fly in the face of reality and I saw it as a cheap shot against people of good will who might just be wrong in their judgments. It was actually the first anti-sedevacantist screed I had read and it helped to kick start my look at the sedevacantist thesis. Prior to that article series (for, if my memory serves me, he published a series of articles on the subject in the paper), I had heard of sedevacantists but never really read any of their arguments and just assumed that they were a little nuts.

It was shortly after this I found Mr. Lane's site and began to read what the sedevacantists themselves say about sedevacantism and discovered that anti-sedevacantists, such as Mr. Ferrara, almost always caricature sedevacantists and then ridicule the straw man they just erected. It had actually been this same realization that led me to tradition in the first place when I discovered that The Wanderer had been doing this towards the SSPX and other traditional Catholics.


You and I have taken a somewhat similar path. I read every issue of the Wanderer (I debated a priest who wrote on the liturgy for them trying to convince him he was fighting a losing battle trying to reform the new liturgy as it was the new liturgy itself that was the problem) from cover to cover for years where it was all the bad bishop's fault but not the Pope's which led to the Remnant and Catholic Family News (the Pope is bad but he is still the Pope just a surely as Christ Rose from the dead).

I remember when the EWTN experts could not answer my questions about the contraception, the liturgy and infallibility. An honest answer would be saying to much and lying was not an option so they would not answer certain questions I had which led me to believe that they had something to hide. Then I saw Chris F. being intellectually dishonest, and blatantly so, which resulted in being more firmly convinces in my newly found SVism as did his book the Great Facade and "We Resist You to the Face".


Thu Aug 14, 2014 5:54 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 5:19 am
Posts: 36
New post Re: Chris Ferrara weirdness
Mario Looch wrote:
Luke L wrote:
I would be interested in finding out just where this "sedevacantist enterprise" is. If it's around, I sure haven't been able to find it. Must be all those wealthy donors funding and pushing the 'Reign of Mary' and the 'Four Marks' papers on millions of unsuspecting sedeplenists around the world... That and Fr Cekada.


I thought that the sedevacantist enterprise was a secret society much like the masons that covertly rules the world through here willing dupes feeding the SV propaganda through their bought off media.


You mean all this time I have been waiting in vain for Fr Cekada to send me my official sedevacantist badge and top-secret decoder ring ?

Ah man this is disappointing. I was really hoping the official badge might be good for some discounts at hotels, restaurants and gas stations :cry:



:D


Thu Aug 14, 2014 9:24 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 am
Posts: 391
Location: Indiana, USA
New post Re: Chris Ferrara weirdness
Luke L wrote:
Mario Looch wrote:
Luke L wrote:
I would be interested in finding out just where this "sedevacantist enterprise" is. If it's around, I sure haven't been able to find it. Must be all those wealthy donors funding and pushing the 'Reign of Mary' and the 'Four Marks' papers on millions of unsuspecting sedeplenists around the world... That and Fr Cekada.


I thought that the sedevacantist enterprise was a secret society much like the masons that covertly rules the world through here willing dupes feeding the SV propaganda through their bought off media.


You mean all this time I have been waiting in vain for Fr Cekada to send me my official sedevacantist badge and top-secret decoder ring ?

Ah man this is disappointing. I was really hoping the official badge might be good for some discounts at hotels, restaurants and gas stations :cry:

:D


I thought Gerry Matatics was in charge of the sedevacantist enterprise...or is he in charge of the home-aloners enterprise. I can never keep these cartels straight.

_________________
Daniel Peck, Indiana, United States


Thu Aug 14, 2014 9:34 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.