The 4th Century Science of St Macrina (I)
16 hours ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
St. John of San Francisco
Orthodox Information & Resources
Orthodox Blogs
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stories4 weeks ago
-
-
-
-
So, what is the Eucharist, really?2 months ago
Non-Orthodox Blogs
-
-
-
-
-
-
USA Day 2 – Scratching that itch11 hours ago
-
-
Collective Humanity Syndrome12 hours ago
-
-
So very inappropriate. . .16 hours ago
Politics Economics Culture & Miscellaneous Blogs
Don't blame me... I voted for George (the Third)
-
-
Check Engine: 19438 hours ago
-
-
-
Visualizing China's CO2 Emissions18 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
Facial Recognition and Your Privacy3 weeks ago
Miscellaneous Sites of Interest
The Blog Yard
Where the best blogs go when they die...
Gone But Not Forgotten
-
My good people4 months ago
-
-
A Brief Return1 year ago
-
‘The Jews are beloved of God’4 years ago
-
-
Moving day6 years ago
-
Sayonara for now6 years ago
-
MY FELLOW AMERICANS7 years ago
-
A Week in Iceland! Part 18 years ago
-
Coda8 years ago
Atom / RSS
7 comments:
I fail to understand why the Vatican has bent over backwards time and again for the SSPX, every time only to be spurned in the end in some way. I think an ultimatum is the way to go. Get your act together or forget it; you people are crazy.
With respect, I don't think they are crazy. (I am not a member of SSPX or even Catholic.) What they are a living witness to is that Vatican II was a discontinuity, and they are the only ones willing to take that to its logical conclusion.
An ultimatum, while consistent with Roman Catholic ecclesiology, will be a clear signal that Rome intends to cut itself off from its own history, I suspect because it can no longer stand to be reminded of what it did in the '60s and '70s.
RC traditionalists understand all this, even if they're afraid to say it. The fear many of them express over the potential results of the upcoming conclave is a de facto admission of this. If they believed the Pope could not fail them in matters of faith, they would be indifferent between a Schoenborn and a Burke.
VATICAN NOT SINCERE IN SEEKING A DOCTRINAL SOLUTION WITH THE SSPX
The recent statement by Archbishop Gerhard Muller on their patience being limited indicates that the Vatican does not want a doctrinal solution to the SSPX issue which will say that the Council is traditional and in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.
Instead the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Muller wants the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) to accept a false Vatican Council II in which salvation in Heaven is considered visible to us all on earth.This premise makes the Council modernist.
The SSPX and all good, non political Catholics are correct in rejecting this version of the Council.A reconciliation with the SSPX is possible if the CDF and the SSPX could acknowledge these three steps:
1. There is no explicit to us salvation, in the present times (2013) mentioned in Vatican Council II.
2. Since there is no explicit to us, physically visible salvation LG 16 etc does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
3. So LG 16 etc does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the traditional teaching on other religions, both sides could agree upon this.
Archbishop Augustine Di Noia Vice President of Ecclesia Dei said elements of sanctification (LG 8) are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So this is a break with the past.He mentioned this in the interview with Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register. Those saved with 'elements of sanctification' in other religions are physically visible to the American Archbishop of Ecclesia Dei.So every one does not have to be a visible member of the Church for him. For him this irrationality(the dead who are saved are physically visible) is a contradiction to the dogma on salvation and to Vatican Council II (AG 7).
Bishop Gerhard Muller himself endorsed this leftist, irrational version of Vatican Council II in another interview with Edward Pentin.He said those saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. So for him the dogma is no more relevant for the present times.Invisible cases are exceptions.
Obviously a matured, rational German Archbishop is saying that he can physically see the dead saved in invincible ignorance. Otherwise how could invisible cases be an exception to the dogma ?
This is the irrational, political version of the Council which the SSPX has to accept or the CDF Prefect will lose his patience.
This version of the Council is a break with the past. The Archbishop himself recently said that those who interpret the Council as a break with the past, traditionalists and progressivists, are heretical.Archbishop Muller interpreted the Council to Edward Pentin as a break with the past.This was when he suggested that LG 16 (invincible ignorance) is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Since the SSPX affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in their General Chapter Statement (July 19,2012) the SSPX should have called a Press Conference to point out the CDF Prefect's doctrinal error. How can invincible ignorance be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7 when these cases are invisible for us ?How can Archbishop Muller interpret the Council as a break with the past when he suggested that LG 16 (invincible ignorance) is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
If the CDF penalizes the SSPX it will be for not accepting the dead man walking version of Vatican Council II. The CDF Prefect will have lost his patience because the SSPX will not say 'Yes' to a Vatican Council II which says we can see the dead who are exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Simply - ask the Vatican which version of the Council they want the SSPX to accept ? With the dead man walking premise or without it.-Lionel Andrades
This tends to confirm the suspicions I had after listening to this:
http://sspxaudio.com/20121228-Bishop-Fellay-Conference.mp3
My fellow Catholics, of the knee- jerk-reactionary-defend-the- Vatican variety, were actually shopping that around with the assumption that people would think Fellay crazy. It actually did the opposite. I suppose the pavlovian conditioning against specific words that they gave me in public school is failing.
Anyway, the appointment of Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller as head of CDF was confusing and did not seem consistent with the pope's previous traditionalist overtures. The abdication was a surprise, but the suggestion that the pope's abilities are failing make this possible misstep understandable. I don't know if it was a mistake or not, but some think so.
God bless you folks. I cannot fathom how you endure so much mind-numbing hair splitting. If it is as you say it is, then either a) The SSPX is wrong and the last few Popes and bishops in council are right, or b) The SSPX is right and the last few Popes and bishops in council are wrong.
I guess the frustration must arise because you're faced with the prospect of Popes being wrong.
I just blame Aristotle and assume we can look at the recent awfulness as the best one can do when painted into the wrong philosophical corner. The West has it's ridiculous internal dialogue, and the Church is the best defender of the faith within it- unfortunately the dialogue itself is quite impoverished, and we like to say too much with a very limited vocabulary.
Interesting crazy stuff here.
I think it safe to state that some people are upset about their exclusive possession of what they think is the truth.
oh, well.
Post a Comment