CDF Müller: Catholics ought to avoid extremes
#51
(12-20-2012, 03:38 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(12-20-2012, 03:31 AM)Whitey Wrote: “There remain misunderstandings about Vatican II, and these must be agreed upon. The SSPX must accept the fullness of the Catholic faith, and its practice.

“Disunity always damages the proclamation of the Gospel by darkening the testimony of Jesus Christ.

“The SSPX need to distinguish between the true teaching of the Second Vatican Council and specific abuses that occurred after the Council, but which are not founded in the Council’s documents.”


There is nothing there that is provocative or out of line.

The fundamentals of everything, which touches every trad, and even this website, is the Council? Is it orthodox, or is it flawed. Even if he signed the documents, Archbishop Lefebvre, probably the most prominent traditional Catholic in history, said "I accuse the Council."

Not the spirit or common interpretation of the Council.

You've lost me here.

VII and Doctrine are the issue with the SSPX. What else could he comment on when asked ?
Reply
#52
(12-20-2012, 03:42 AM)Whitey Wrote:
(12-20-2012, 03:38 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(12-20-2012, 03:31 AM)Whitey Wrote: “There remain misunderstandings about Vatican II, and these must be agreed upon. The SSPX must accept the fullness of the Catholic faith, and its practice.

“Disunity always damages the proclamation of the Gospel by darkening the testimony of Jesus Christ.

“The SSPX need to distinguish between the true teaching of the Second Vatican Council and specific abuses that occurred after the Council, but which are not founded in the Council’s documents.”


There is nothing there that is provocative or out of line.

The fundamentals of everything, which touches every trad, and even this website, is the Council? Is it orthodox, or is it flawed. Even if he signed the documents, Archbishop Lefebvre, probably the most prominent traditional Catholic in history, said "I accuse the Council."

Not the spirit or common interpretation of the Council.

You've lost me here.

VII and Doctrine are the issue with the SSPX. What else could he comment on when asked ?

I am pointing that exact thing out. Müller says that Vatican II is orthodox. The Society of Saint Pius X says it is not. Someone is right, and someone is wrong. They cannot both be right.
Reply
#53
But he is admitting there were/are some bad fruit. That which was not called for. Wouldn't the Society agree with that ?
Reply
#54
(12-20-2012, 03:37 AM)Whitey Wrote: This isn't CA.  CA doesn't allow street punk - like bashing of Roman Catholic clergy like you see here.

I can't speak for others, but the only term I have for Archbishop  Mueller is heretic, and I mean that it its most literal form. I don't go for any nonsense. I meant it in its most objective and theological sense. Clerics who embrace heresy have no business holding the offices they do. We have a legion of Catholic clerics holding heresies in the hierarchy who do the work of the devil. The truth is the truth. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
Reply
#55
Here is what the pope said in the letter to the Bishops after he lifted the excommunications.

"The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life."

That's pretty much the bottom line. If the Society and Rome are to come to some sort of agreement, then both sides have to accept what the pope said there.

Muller said nearly the same thing here.
Reply
#56
(12-20-2012, 03:53 AM)SaintRafael Wrote:
(12-20-2012, 03:37 AM)Whitey Wrote: This isn't CA.  CA doesn't allow street punk - like bashing of Roman Catholic clergy like you see here.

I can't speak for others, but the only term I have for Archbishop  Mueller is heretic, and I mean that it its most literal form. I don't go for any nonsense. I meant it in its most objective and theological sense. Clerics who embrace heresy have no business holding the offices they do. We have a legion of Catholic clerics holding heresies in the hierarchy who do the work of the devil. The truth is the truth. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

I have no doubt what I bolded there is true.
Reply
#57
(12-20-2012, 04:00 AM)Whitey Wrote: Here is what the pope said in the letter to the Bishops after he lifted the excommunications.

"The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life."

That's pretty much the bottom line. If the Society and Rome are to come to some sort of agreement, then both sides have to accept what the pope said there.

Muller said nearly the same thing here.

For the past 50 years, we've been told differently, that we are singing a new Church into being.

Reply
#58
(12-20-2012, 03:53 AM)Whitey Wrote: But he is admitting there were/are some bad fruit. That which was not called for. Wouldn't the Society agree with that ?

They would, but they would say that the Council itself is bad. He would not. Hence, the impasse. Bishop Fellay just talked about this at a conference in Madrid.
Reply
#59
(12-20-2012, 04:05 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(12-20-2012, 04:00 AM)Whitey Wrote: Here is what the pope said in the letter to the Bishops after he lifted the excommunications.

"The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life."

That's pretty much the bottom line. If the Society and Rome are to come to some sort of agreement, then both sides have to accept what the pope said there.

Muller said nearly the same thing here.

For the past 50 years, we've been told differently, that we are singing a new Church into being.

So now that we are finally seeing some in the Curia admit all is not well, and a pope who lifted the unjust excommunications, we are to ignore all of that and pretend it's too late and there is nothing left to do but hand the modernists Rome on a silver platter ?

Count me out. I don't have nerve enough to doubt Christ's promise.
Reply
#60
(12-20-2012, 04:08 AM)Phillipus Iacobus Wrote:
(12-20-2012, 03:53 AM)Whitey Wrote: But he is admitting there were/are some bad fruit. That which was not called for. Wouldn't the Society agree with that ?

They would, but they would say that the Council itself is bad. He would not. Hence, the impasse. Bishop Fellay just talked about this at a conference in Madrid.

Noted.

I think at this point it's safe to say the chances of a deal are slim.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)