Reading Vatican II as break with tradition is heresy, prefect (Müller) says
#41
(11-30-2012, 01:58 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote:
(11-30-2012, 01:56 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(11-30-2012, 01:48 PM)Petertherock Wrote: I guess I am now a heretic in the new church.

Nah pete yr just a separated brother. Bxvi. Will rejoice in you

Get ready to be treated a lot better, Pete!

Hey Yeah! I never thought of that. Since Rome bends over backwards to accommodate real heretics maybe we will be next.
Reply
#42
(11-30-2012, 07:29 PM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote: Here is the response of the Society of Saint Pius X (http://www.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/is_the...0_2012.htm):

Is the SSPX heretical?

11-30-2012


Archbishop Mueller

Archbishop Mueller, who is heading the Congregation of the Faith, made some remarks published in L’Osservatore Romano on November 29th, on the occasion of the publication of the 7th volume of the “Opera omnia of Joseph Ratzinger”, which expounds the now-Pope Benedict XVI’s impact during the Second Vatican Council.[1] During this presentation, the man who is the pope’s right arm made a rather forceful declaration in support of his superior regarding the ‘hermeneutic of the reform in continuity’:[2]

This interpretation is the only one possible according to the principles of Catholic theology, in consideration of the indissoluble link between Sacred Scripture, the complete and integral Tradition and the Magisterium, whose highest expression is the Council presided over by the Successor of St. Peter as Head of the visible Church. Outside this sole orthodox interpretation unfortunately exists a heretical interpretation, that is, a hermeneutic of rupture, (found) both on the progressive front and on the traditionalist one. Both agree on refusing the Council; the progressives in their wanting to leave it behind, as if it were a season to abandon in order to get to another church, and the traditionalists in their not wanting to get there, as if it was the winter of Catholicity.

Continuity means permanent correspondence with the origin, not an adaption of whatever has been, which also can lead the wrong way. The often quoted term aggiornamento (updating) does not mean the secularization of the faith, which would lead to its dissolution, but rather making present the message of Jesus Christ. This making present is the reform necessary for every era in constant fidelity to the whole Christ…

The same Council has declared that, “following the tracks of the Councils of Trent and Vatican I, it intends to propose the genuine doctrine on the divine Revelation and its transmission, so that by the message of salvation the entire world listening believes, believing hopes, hoping loves” (dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum1). The Council does not want to announce some other faith but, in continuity with the previous ones, it means to make it present.

He quotes Dei Verbum again (#8): “This tradition which comes from the Apostles developed in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit.” This produces a “growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down” and is obtained by contemplation, study and “preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.”

Needless to say, this declaration of Archbishop Mueller is not an official statement coming in the extraordinary form of, say, a decree or an anathema. Yet, this statement deserves some attention because it is the faithful echo of Pope Benedict XVI’s thesis of the hermeneutic of continuity, and because of his position in the Church today at the head of the Congregation of the Faith leading the discussions with the SSPX.

It is not the first time that Rome is ‘using’ the SSPX to counterbalance the arch-modernists who want to be ahead of the time and want the revolution of the revolution. It is less usual and rather ironic for the SSPX to be called ‘heretical’ on a par with the avant-garde modernists who reject Vatican II as being outdated. During the doctrinal discussions, as explained by Bishop Fellay, the Roman theologians accused us of having a Protestant attitude because we followed our own judgment against the Church Magisterium, just as we have asserted that they have neo-modernist mentalit!

No doubt, the Archbishop Mueller's statements do greatly clarify the positions in as much as he basically invokes the harmonious continuity of the entire Deposit of the Faith as a sure symptom of orthodoxy. We cannot be more in agreement with this and yet, here is where Vatican II fails the test in the mind of all traditionalist theologians whose front is getting wider as years go by. After 50 years of implementation of the Council, which have seen the “auto-destruction of the Church” (as aptly spoken by Pope Paul VI) and the virtual agony of Christ’s Spouse, it may be high time to have a close check-up on the validity of the main conciliar tenets.

From the doctrinal discussions between Rome and the SSPX, it was clear that the main bone of contention touched on the meaning of Tradition and Magisterium. Here, Archbishop Mueller is kind enough to state clearly the difficulty in the following syllogism:

(Major) Whoever does not accept the integral magisterium of the Church, including Vatican II, is heretical.

(Minor) But the SSPX refuses Vatican II, part of the integral Church teaching.

(Conclusion) Therefore, the SSPX is heretical.

It is clear that it will take a little explaining before we sort out the grain from the chaff in this simplistic argument, and we shall do so as a formal reply. Prior to this, we need to stress that, if Bishop Fellay and his priestly society are keeping in touch with the Roman authorities, it is because they believe in Rome, in the Church Magisterium and in papal infallibility. They believe that, outside of Rome, there is no ultimate solution to the gridlock in which the Church and, incidentally, the Society of St. Pius X are found. Unlike the sedevacantist instinct of fleeing away from modernist Rome as if it were already damned and cast off by Christ having lost its pontifical power, we believe that, as the problem comes from the head, the solution can be found only in the head.

This is the mystery of the Church which as Christ is both divine and human, as explained by Bishop Fellay recently:

This is the mystery of the Cross. When Jesus is on the Cross, the Faith obliges us to profess that He is God, that He is All-Powerful, that He is eternal and immortal. He cannot die; He cannot suffer. God is infinitely perfect. It is impossible for God to suffer. And Jesus on the Cross is God. The Faith tells us this. And we are obliged to accept it, totally, without in any way diminishing it. But at the same time human experience tells us that this same Jesus suffers and even that He dies.

Today, in relation to the Church, it is the same problem. In order to remain in the truth, one must keep these two sets of given facts: the facts of the Faith and also the facts noted by reason. This council tried to harmonize itself with the world. It brought the world into the Church, and so now we have disaster. And all these reforms that were made on the basis of the Council, were made by the authorities for this purpose. Today, they talk to us about continuity, but where is it? In Assisi? In the kissing of the Koran? In the suppression of the Catholic States? Where is that continuity?

Hence, we are going to have a close look at the question of the Church magisterium in connection with Tradition, and then apply it to Vatican II to sort out whether or not those who object to some key texts of the Council are heretic and not rather those who follow it integrally.

to be continued...

Footnotes

1 Published at vatican.va on 11-28-2012 in Italian under the title, "Un’immagine Della Chiesa Di Gesu Cristo Che Abbraccia Tutto Il Mondo".

2 English translations of seminal Italian texts are from an CNS article of November 29, 2012 titled "Reading Vatican II as break with tradition is heresy, prefect says" and the author himself.

Yeah and none of this would have happened if + Fellay wouldn't have played footsie with Rome. If you lay down with dogs your gonna get fleas.
Reply
#43
I think Rome could have just as easily applied the heretical label to the SSPX if they'd refused to talk, but maybe that's just me.
Reply
#44
(12-05-2012, 07:42 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: I think Rome could have just as easily applied the heretical label to the SSPX if they'd refused to talk, but maybe that's just me.

NO they couldn't! If the SSPX is heretical then the entire Church was heretical up until 1965
Reply
#45
Is this "ARCHBISHOP" breaking with tradition. Is HE a heretic??. If so excommunicate his AR..SS.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/12...suble.html
Reply
#46
(12-05-2012, 10:55 PM)The Dying Flutchman Wrote:
(12-05-2012, 07:42 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: I think Rome could have just as easily applied the heretical label to the SSPX if they'd refused to talk, but maybe that's just me.

NO they couldn't! If the SSPX is heretical then the entire Church was heretical up until 1965

I see what you mean, but all I meant was the SSPX seems to be damned if they do and damned if they don't talk with Rome. 
Reply
#47
Muller is simply trying to use his 'force' to say a circle is a square and that all of us better tow the line or we are out.
They can say that V2 is in continuity with tradition, but that doesn't make it so.
The only thing that will do this and settle the matter is if the Pope clarified all the disputed elements of V2, but obviously he can't and his theologians can't yet come up with a strong enough argument for him to hang his infallibility on it.
Trust me, when they do come up with that argument we will all be made aware of it.
However as a traditional catholic I do not think any argument is possible that does not contradict the entire teachings of the Church and discredit her.
What they need to do is simply ignore V2. The pope should just undo all the mess it caused and request that it is ignored in the Church from now on.
Another option would be to resolve the confusing passages in V2 in favor of tradition and then ignore the council. This can be done similar to the way the Holy Father defined the 'subsists' controversy.
Just tell everyone to return to tradition and shut up about V2. then we can get on about trying to save our souls and those of unbelievers.
Too much energy has been spent on trying to figure out what V2 was all about, revealing that it was not only a mistake but a failure.
Reply
#48
winoblue1,
I hate to beat a dead horse, but Pope Benedict has not resolved the "subsistit in" controversy.  The CDF document from 2007 resigns itself to repeating Vatican II and its own earlier decrees without truly showing how the teaching is in line with Mystici Corporis Christi and Humani Generis.  What's more, the Pope has said in the past, when he was still a cardinal, that there's no going back to what the Church was like before Vatican II.  Whatever ecumenism currently means to Rome is what they plan to continue doing.  There's no going back to Mortalium Animos, and the Church's pre-conciliar teaching on her relations with the State is now no longer relevant, despite what Pope Pius XI had to say on the matter.  Basically, the 150-year period of the Church's position on the Bible, on religious liberty, on authentic ecumenism, on the interpretation of dogmas, etc., is to be considered contingent due to the historical circumstances which she then faced (Pope St. Pius' words to the contrary be damned).  Whatever Rome says now is to be understood as a true development of doctrine which must be accepted by all.  There will be no clarification or reconciliation because Modernists cannot bring themselves to do that.  We have a Pope who as a seminarian greatly disliked St. Thomas' "crystal-clear logic" and who said that Roman Scholasticism didn't accurately represent the Faith and that it must be done away with to ensure the survival of Catholic theology.  And to add salt to the wound, he doesn't think the Eastern Orthodox must necessarily accept Vatican I in order to fully reunite with the Catholic Church (even though we Catholics are bound to believe it if we wish to preserve our faith and Church membership).  So, take things for what they're worth.

P.S. -- Let's not forget that the Magisterium can be wrong and wrongfully interpret and condemn the writings of her priests, as with the case of Rosmini (according to Card. Ratzinger's CDF).  So, many of the Church's past decisions are open to revision based upon historical criticism...  Let's see where this takes us in the coming decades...
Reply
#49
(12-07-2012, 12:25 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: winoblue1,
I hate to beat a dead horse, but Pope Benedict has not resolved the "subsistit in" controversy. 

He did. See Dominus Iesus:

16. The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ's salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),47 which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).48 And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single "whole Christ".49 This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).50

Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: "a single Catholic and apostolic Church".51 Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church's integrity — will never be lacking.52

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession 53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: "This is the single Church of Christ... which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him".54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that "outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth",55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that "they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church".57

17. Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.58 The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches.59 Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63

"The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach".64 In fact, "the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities".65 "Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church".66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but "in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history".67


FOOTNOTE  56
(56) The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen gentium. "The Council instead chose the word subsistit precisely to clarify that there exists only one ‘subsistence' of the true Church, while outside her visible structure there only exist elementa Ecclesiae, which — being elements of that same Church — tend and lead toward the Catholic Church" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on the Book "Church: Charism and Power" by Father Leonardo Boff: AAS 77 [1985], 756-762).
Reply
#50
"Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ .  .  .  The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church... are true particular Churches" (n. 17).

To which Church do the "true particular [schismatic] Churches" belong?  To the "single Church of Christ" (see also the May 1992 CDF document, n. 17).  Therefore, the Catholic Church is "united... by means of the closest bonds" to an adulteress.  As I've pointed out in other posts, there can be no communion between the Catholic Church and the Greek schismatics, as there is no unity of faith nor unity of government, both of which are essential requirements for ecclesial communion (cf. Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum; First Vatican Council, Sess. IV - Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, ch. 3: Denz. 1827).  See also the first link in my signature.

The phrase, "the Church of Christ... continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church," is problematic, given what's stated in footnote 56.  "Fully" should have been left out, so that no one would erroneously think that the Church "partially" exists elsewhere.

Asked another way:  What are the schismatic churches "true particular Churches" of?  Answer:  The "single Church of Christ."

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger created exactly what Dominus Iesus warns us not to envision, a Federation of sects with no unity in either doctrine or government.  How can there not be such a federation when the two "separated" Churches are said to be in close communion with each other, and are said to both exist within the "single Church of Christ/universal Church"?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)