Thu 31st Jul 2014 | Last updated: Thu 31st Jul 2014 at 16:39pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Prefect of the CDF says seeing Vatican II as a ‘rupture’ is heresy

By on Friday, 30 November 2012

Archbishop Müller, prefect of the CDF (Photo: CNS)

Archbishop Müller, prefect of the CDF (Photo: CNS)

Traditionalist and progressive camps that see the Second Vatican Council as a “rupture” both espouse a “heretical interpretation” of the Council and its aims, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has said.

Archbishop Gerhard Müller said that what Pope Benedict XVI has termed “the hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in continuity” is the “only possible interpretation according to the principles of Catholic theology”.

“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” side, the archbishop said.

What the two camps have in common, he said, is their rejection of 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”, seeing the council as a Catholic “winter”.

A “Council presided over by the successor of Peter as head of the visible Church” is the “highest expression” of the Magisterium, he said, to be regarded as part of “an indissoluble whole”, along with Scripture and 2,000 years of tradition.

The doctrinal chief’s remarks were published in the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, to present the seventh volume of The Complete Works of Joseph Ratzinger. The volume collects both published and unpublished notes, speeches, interviews and texts written or given by the future pope in the period shortly before, during and just after Vatican II.

Archbishop Müller specified that by “continuity” Pope Benedict meant a “permanent correspondence with the origin, not an adaption of whatever has been, which also can lead the wrong way”.

The term “aggiornamento” or updating – one of the watchwords of the Council – “does not mean the secularisation of the faith, which would lead to its dissolution”, but a “making present” of the message of Jesus Christ, he said.

This “making present” is the “reform necessary for every era in constant fidelity to the whole Christ”, he said.

“The tradition of apostolic origin continues in the Church with help from the Holy Spirit,” he said, and leads to greater understanding through contemplation and study, intelligence garnered from a deeper experience of the spiritual, and preaching by those who through the “apostolic succession have received an assured charism of truth”.

  • JabbaPapa

    More than one Pope in the late Middle Ages has been a formal heretic — I mean cripes, the Church at that time sometimes had up to three Popes simultaneously, all claiming direct descent from the See of Peter !!!

    The Canon Law of our Church also includes provisions whereby the Roman Curia may dismiss a sitting Pope for “heresy”. (take note that the Law has no provisions whereby Lay supporters of the SSPX may do so)

    Also, not 1965 years, but closer to 2000/2012 …

  • Paul

    JabbaPapa,

    Yes I accept that he manifests also in those spirits and authorities who accept the full truth about Jesus.  I say ‘only manifests in Christ’ as a shorthand for the test of spirits in 1 John 4:1-4 and my language may be inaccurate.
      Accepted also that the decline of the faith in the west is complex, though I believe I have correctly identified the underlying root.
       My point is that in honouring the religions which still reject the truth about Jesus, V2 laid the wrong foundations, departed from the core truth of Scripture as well as Tradition, and introduced a language and mindframe that has caused serious disempowerment in our mission, because the God of revelation will not support us in honouring those spirits who are at enmity with him.
      I have no wish to point the finger at anyone, but I really believe that our church will experience a new and very powerful springtime when it corrects this teaching and returns to the pure, Bible taught worship of the only God and Saviour.    

  • Paul

    P.S.  JabbaPapa,  It would also be very helpful if you could focus on the central issue in my earlier post.
      God does NOT manifest in any of the spirits that persist in rejecting Jesus.  We know this from Scripture and we know it from pre V2 Tradition. 
      Certain of the texts of V2 indicate that he does manifest himself in those sinister spirits, and this has caused a damaging spiritual blockage in our church as predicted in Scripture. 
      This is the root reason, in the view of many Christians, myself included, that V2 has born so much bad fruit.
      I pray that our church will heal by correcting this teaching, and I encourage all to pray for the same. 
     

  • JabbaPapa

    God does NOT manifest in any of the spirits that persist in rejecting Jesus

    Of course not !!

    But then, I don’t agree with your earlier statement that Vatican II “honoured the religions which … reject the truth about Jesus”. It describes some parts of those religions as not being fully incompatible with Catholic teaching, even though the central tenets and many other parts of those religions continue to be utterly false.

    Vatican II reminded us, instead, (and BTW NOT doctrinally per se) that the truth about Jesus, being universal, must necessarily inform even those false religions to the extent as is described there — which is BTW the constant teaching of the Church, even though most of we in the West have forgotten our Church’s recognition during the first Millennium that God and His Christ manifested in several of the pagan cults in Europe to a certain degree, even though collectively and individually they were all of them false religions.

    Many of those cults were successfully Evangelised, and they were able to retain those of their cultic practices that were not offensive to Christianity, as long as they entirely rejected those that were — which, to some extent, as an admittedly forced simile, is similar to what we can witness with the preservation of an Anglican flavour of the Rite in the Anglo-Catholic Ordinariates, after those converts have abandoned those heresies that are offensive to the Catholicity…

    Pope Benedict’s recent comment that this V2 statement was not balanced by a corresponding condemnation of the errors and falsehoods of those religions, as is provided elsewhere in the Catholic doctrine, was a mistake in the writing of that document is a clear recognition of the problem that you allude to ; but this recognition of a problem in the detail of that area of Vatican II teaching does not affect the validity of the teaching itself, but merely states that it is necessary to complement that teaching either by reference to the existing Tradition or potentially by a new document which would clarify how that section of text should be properly interpreted.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    A myth.

    The greatest expansion of the Church was in South America 500 years ago, whilst the stats for Africa show that the greater number of converts were made by the end of the first decade of the 20th century. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    The “Spirit of Vatican II” resides in the 1950′s explosion of wealth and the sea-change in personal morality that swiftly followed that explosion of wealth. Add in the influence of Marxism, the resumption of the previously-suppressed heresy of Modernism which certainly influenced some documents of Vatican II; add in too the collapse of authority and the Church’s disciplines and the stage was set for the Revolution that followed the Council. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Like the Ten Commandments and the historical truth of Scripture?

    Disqus misplaced this post which is for John Brownridge who avers that great courage is needed to jettison past “irrelevances”.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    No, wrong. No Traditionalist would ever say such a thing. But neither would a Traditionalist say that it doesn’t matter for Salvation what is your religion. It does matter.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Heretical???? 

    First sessions of the Council of Constance????

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Yes, but how many sede vacanntists are there? Sweetjae mentions them constantly but there are so very few of them, a handful. Of no influence whatsoever on, nor of any interest to, the Traditionalist. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    “Dominus Iesus” was a CDF document that sought to clarify one innovation / very badly expressed and vague Vatican II document. There are several others which await a similar clarification. Rome has resisted (strongly) the ever-greater number of calls for these clarifications. The suspicion of course is that despite all the talk of “continuity” it will prove impossible for the CDF to show in what the continuity lies. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Not really Alan. To these could be added hundreds of other admonitions to flee innovations in doctrine. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/PWZKI7JBARE4DDT3NQ22RWMOJE Benedict Carter

    Not so learned Jabba, but trying to understand the nature of the Revolution we have faced (and suffered) as Catholics these past fifty years. 

  • Rick DeLano

    “Because OF COURSE all Lutherans and Jews are going straight to Hell, right, “trads”??

    >> Right.

    “The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’ (Mt. 25:41)unless before death they are joined with her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms deeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Florence,Cantate Domino,1443)

  • Rick DeLano

    Here is what every Catholic says.

    If you do not say this, you are not Catholic.

    “The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’ (Mt. 25:41)unless before death they are joined with her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms deeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they remain within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Florence,Cantate Domino,1443)

  • JabbaPapa

    “The Most Holy Roman Church” >< "The Catholic Church"

    Given that both are specifically mentioned in this text, "The Catholic Church" refers to the Universal Church of Christ, which includes whomsoever shall be saved by the Grace of God but who might have been outside The Most Holy Roman Church during life.

  • JabbaPapa

    The Council of Constance is not the Second Vatican Council ; Vatican II has been explicitly and infallibly approved by several Popes, and as such it would be heretical to describe it as a “failed Council” in the vein of the first sessions of the Council of Constance.

    I am not saying that there has never been any such thing as a “failed Council” …

  • Rick DeLano

    “”The Catholic Church” refers to the Universal Church of Christ, which includes whomsoever shall be saved by the Grace of God but who might have been outside The Most Holy Roman Church during life.”

    >> Such an heresy could never be taught by the Holy Roman Church, nor believed by any Catholic.

    “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council).

    “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam).”

    You have a religion you propound here, Jabba, but please do not deceive yourself.

    It is not the Catholic Faith.

  • Rick DeLano

    There is no doctrine which has the slightest power to reverse, derogate, or change the meaning of any dogma into its opposite.

    This is precisely the problem with the unprecedented ambiguities of Vatican II.

    It imposes upon the faithful an obligation to somehow find a way to establish theological continuity between defined, solemn, irreformable dogmas, and doctrines which are plausibly alleged to contradict them, or to impose some obligation of conscience to reject the sense in which they have been understood “always and everywhere, by everyone”.

    There is certainly a solution, of course.

    The Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to formulate a teaching which is actually heretical.

    But the Holy Spirit will allow the subtle gnostics and modernists to formulate ambiguities which can then be employed to sow confusion, even to the extent of convincing a very great many Catholics that the following is “no longer true”:

    “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council).”We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam).”The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgiving, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church” (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino).If you do not believe these three infallible definitions, please do not imagine yourself to hold the Catholic Faith.

  • JabbaPapa

    Good grief, why is it that those of your ilk rely in such a strange manner on these bad 19th century English translations of doctrines, and are simultaneously so eager to denounce others as “not Catholic” ???

    Unam Sanctam : Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis.

    – means —

    Moreover, that every human creature is to be subject to the Roman pontiff, we declare, we state, we define, and we pronounce to be entirely from the necessity of salvation.

    (in other words, your 19th century translation has it completely backwards — subjection to the Pope is a consequence of an individual’s salvation, rather than a necessary precondition — which is to say that an individual’s road towards salvation will lead that individual into communion, to whichever degree, with the Universal (Catholic) Church, and therefore into communion with the Pope, and therefore into the religious necessity of obedience to him.)

    Your Fourth Lateran Council quote disagrees with my position not in the slightest.

    Such an heresy could never be taught by the Holy Roman Church, nor believed by any Catholic.

    It is in fact a doctrinal Error on your own part to declare any such thing. Far from being heresy, it is a paraphrase of the teachings of our Church concerning both the nature of the Church of Christ and the possibility that some of those outside the visible Earthly Church might be provided with Salvation.

  • JabbaPapa

    There is no doctrine which has the slightest power to reverse, derogate, or change the meaning of any dogma into its opposite.

    There is nothing that I have ever seen in any Vatican II document that attempts to do any such thing, despite some people’s protestations otherwise.

    Furthermore, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has just clarified that this so-called claim that there has been a “rupture” is heretical.

    “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam)

    Wrong, Unam Sanctam actually says : “Moreover, that every human creature is to be subject to the Roman pontiff, we declare, we state, we define, and we pronounce to be entirely from the necessity of salvation.” — which is the opposite of your bad translation of it.

    As for Cantate Domino, I have already given my opinion on it, so that simply repeating the text to me serves little purpose.

    Oh and do please stop these extremely silly “not Catholic” accusations, as they appear to be completely meaningless.

  • Rick DeLano

    “The following English translation of ‘Unam’ is taken from a doctoral dissertation written in the Dept. of Philosophy at the Catholic University of America, and published by CUA Press in 1927………….

    “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

    Perhaps you can teleport yourself back and straighten the poor fellows at CUA out about their Latin, and straighten out the Catholic Encyclopedia while you are at it….

    It is really amazing the degree to which our gnostics are prepared to go to impute error to the Church, in Her own understanding of Her own dogmas.

    But then again, what else can they do?

  • Rick DeLano

    “The following English translation of ‘Unam’ is taken from a doctoral dissertation written in the Dept. of Philosophy at the Catholic University of America, and published by CUA Press in 1927………….

    “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

    Perhaps you can teleport yourself back and straighten the poor fellows at CUA out about their Latin, and straighten out the Catholic Encyclopedia while you are at it….

    It is really amazing the degree to which our gnostics are prepared to go to impute error to the Church, in Her own understanding of Her own dogmas.

    But then again, what else can they do?

  • stanpad

    simply put: Peter was there!

  • JabbaPapa

    Good grief man, just read the Latin !!!

    Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis. is simply NOT accurately translated as you have suggested.

    And if that’s the translation that was used in that doctoral dissertation and in the out-of-date online version of Catholic Encyclopedia, then both of those sources are in error.

    And “gnostic” now ??? /roll-eyes/

  • JabbaPapa

    I see that presenting facts to you is insufficient.

    /throws hands in the air/

  • Parasum

    “Archbishop Müller specified that by “continuity” Pope Benedict meant a
    “permanent correspondence with the origin, not an adaption of whatever
    has been, which also can lead the wrong way”.”

    ## So what did the Pope mean by that ? What is needed in matters of doctrine is the greatest possible clarity. And, if possible, brevity. All the more, when the Church concerned sets a very high value on doctrine. Theologians – Popes among them – ought to take vows of clarity and brevity. The moment they have to explain something by piling up dependent clauses, they should start a new sentence. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OTCKAYXC6V65WVJUPZFYCCUEUU Lee

    Though off topic, who notices how dire and extremely minimalist the Roman Rite clerics have become compared to most other rites, as if to impress the world with a turn for post-modern minimalism. It really brings no respect from any quarters at all. As for Muller stating that it is heresy to state that Vatican II was a rupture, please go and tell that to the followers of the Bologna School or to Traditionalists who can clearly see a break but in all things dogmatic, continue to affirm and believe ! I think he shall be laughed and riducled  at by all. What a seriously weak Bishop. He definitely needs our biddings.

  • Sweetjae

    What?? I dont deny that there were people from the 1st century that celebrate the Liturgy in Latin, the point is they are the very few minority because Latin is not the official language of the Liturgy back then in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centurythen don’t tell us we are wrong because history in NOT on your side.

    Here is a direct citation:

    “The Church in Rome used Greek from the beginning. Only gradually was Latin introduced until the fourth century when the Church in Rome was definitely latinized (cf. A.G. Martimort: The Dialogue between God and his People, in A.G. Martimort, ed.: The Church at Prayer, Collegeville, 1992, I, p. 161-165).

  • Parasum

     They do, and very often right, if the traditional “mind of the Church” is to be believed. They are not inventing a new religion, but continuing with the old one.  They acknowledge the validity of the tradition of this religion, on its terms, in accord with the traditional teaching of the Church.

    They do not have the responsibility for the purity of the Faith that the Pope – and therefore, on his behalf & that of rest of the Church – the Cardinal Prefect of the SCDF has. That is the difference.  He has a responsibility they do not, because although they are bound to confess the whole faith of the Church without dilution, perversion, addition, omission & in the sense in which has traditionally understood it, the Cardinal Prefect of the SCDF has the responsibility not only of guarding this faith but of judging with a high er degree of authority than other bishops whether a doctrinal position   is compatible with the Faith. Their episcoipal authority is not as wide-ranging as his: & he differs from other bishops only because he has been chosen by the Pope to speak for the Pope on the matters within the scope of the competence of the SCDF. The bishops of the SSPX lack that scope.

    What they do not lack is responsibility for the Faith. And because the Faith is not the property of the Church, or of the Popes, or of the Catholic episcopate, but is a sacred trust for the well-being and salvation of men, & the Glory of God, which  Christ the Eternal Shepherd has in His mercy bestowed upon His Church, it follows that the neither the Church as a People, nor any member of it, however eminent in virtue,holiness, or authority of any kind, can be called its owner or lord. Bishops are its stewards – they are slaves in the Household of God, under the authority of His Son & Heir. And if they do not fulfil their stewardship faithfully, but presume instead to lord it over their fellow-slaves, they must expect to be severely punished when the Heir returns to take up the inheritance it is His Father’s good pleasure to settle upon Him. Therefore, by calling the authorities He has established in His Church to be faithful to the stewardship required of them, the critics of those stewards are helping to build up the Church. There would be no need for a Traditionalist movement, if the Church were faithful to her Tradition. The proper & natural place  for Tradition is in the Church. But because the Church has let herself be distractred from faithfulness to her Tradition, she must, for the  sake of the mission laid on her by Christ, be recalled to it. Far from being a disservice to the Church, this is a service to her, & to the entire human race.  That the Pope & the Cardinal Prefect  exceed these bishops in authority & responsibility makes errors on their part all the more destructive. Traditionalist criticisms of their authority are affirmations of that authority – not underminings of it.

    Popes & Cardinals Prefect of the SCDF are not private persons, except when working as private theologians rathef than as teachers of the Faith. They have no right to their own ideas when teaching the Church at large – they have no business to teach anything but the traditional Faith that is the shared inheritance of the Church. If they introduce their own ideas into the teaching of the Church, then they must be rebuked. St. Peter had the humility to be rebuked by St. Paul; a man who claims succession from St. Peter should be more eager than other Christians to imitate that Apostle’s virtues. A truly Petrine Pope would have all St. Peter’s graces & virtues:including his repentance. To criticise Popes for their errors does not imply rejection of their authority, but only of what they do amiss. And it does not imply that they cannot receive the grace of repentance. Fraternal correction includes correction of Popes & Cardinals, when they need it. This implies, not greater authority in the human corrector (who may well be a subject correcting his ecclesiastical superior), but greater sensitivity to what Christ, the King & Shepherd of the Church, requires in His ministers. It is an act of charity, not disobedience, pride or schism, for a priest or bishop to correct those appointed  by Christ to govern the Flock of God.

    “My understanding is that every council is supposed to be understood in the light of previous ones.”

    ## That is a point of very great importance. But it is too complex & ambiguous an issue  to discuss usefully in this post, which is too long already. How one sees councils in relation to each other bring up many issues in the history and theology of doctrinal development, & – as is the way in theology -  they can’t be done justice on the back of a postage stamp. Unfortunately. Even so, that point cries out for discussion & analysis, because it concerns the Church’s mission, her identity, & much much more. 

     

  • Sweetjae

    The reason why the Universal Church of God is bigger than the Catholic Church per se is because God has bound salvation through His Church and Sacraments, but here’s the clincher, GOD IS NOT BOUND BY HIS CHURCH AND SACRAMENTS IN WHOMEVER HE WISHES TO SAVE!!!

    Non-catholics can be saved by Baptism by Desire (Trent) and others that God in His infinite Mercy only knows even outside the clear boundaries of the Catholic Church. That is also the reason why most probably, Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah, Isaiah, Solomon and others are in Heaven.

  • Parasum

     I must be remembering incorrectly, but I thought your position was close to that of the OP. Personally, I see no point in a council that teaches if its teaching has no authority as teaching. And as for the kerfuffle over the word “pastoral”, as though the pastoral  & the doctrinal were Polar opposites,or were at least not compatible: to think they are incompatible is muddled. To teach the Flock of Christ committed to their care the teaching of Christ, is one of the duties of the pastors of the Church.

    This opposing of “pastoral” to “doctrinal” is like the depressing implication given by some that the conscience plays no part in the act of believing – which implies that there is no moral quality in accepting a doctrine as  having a claim to be believed. Some people are so watchful against the use of conscience as a cloak for self-will, that they come out in hives when the word is mentioned in connection with the act of believing :(

  • Sweetjae

    Most ‘traditionalists’ say that….that one has to be member of the Catholic Church in order to be saved or that exclusively only through the Catholic Church one is able to save. Of course it does matter for salvation what is your religion but what the Church is saying is there are elements of truth also found in the majority of protestant churches that God could use and reveal Himself to save those people who belonged not by fault of their even outside the clear boundaries of the Catholic Church.

  • Sweetjae

    Hey Rick this is what your problem, THERE IS ALWAYS EXEMPTION TO THE RULE. Read the Holy Scripture for pete’s sake, and see God and Jesus Christ always put exemptions to whomever He desire. I also noticed you guys always cite text from Tradition and not from Holy Scripture…wonder why?

  • Sweetjae

    Though i agree with this man’s description of the false “spirit of V2″ but its total rubbish to say Modernism and secularism had certainly influenced some documents of V2, therefore what? A rupture?……this is heretical mind.

  • Sweetjae

    “Modern Church really does seem to have set aside the Biblical truth”…..fabrication and total nonsense.

  • Sweetjae

    First session is NOT the whole Council of Constance. Geesh!

  • Sweetjae

    Internal survey inside the SSPX found that 20% of that group adhere and lean towards Sedevacantism……actually some obvious ones were expelled, do the names of Fr. Kelly and Fr. Cedeka ring a bell, Mr “c”?

    Therefore its not a red herring but the truth.

  • Sweetjae

    “if a Councilbreaks with Tradition”……I pressumed you mean by LEGITIMATE Council, therefore it can NEVER happen and will never happen as long as God is God and Jesus Christ is still the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

    What happen to the Words of Christ in the Scripture?You people have no trust at all.

  • Sweetjae

    By the way the true Catholic Traditionalists are to name a few belongs to FSSP, Christ the King, St. Cure d’ars, Papa Stronsay Monastery etc…..NOT the Sedevacantist, Conclavists, SSPV and SSPX (yet).

  • Dferraro

    It is the Liturgy that was ruptured! How sad, Thank God for Pope Benedict XVI, restoring the Mass Of 1962 as the Holy Father said it should have never NOT been permitted….as it was and still is in many dioceses around the world….Truly what are the bishops and priests afraid of…maybe more vocations?????

  • Sweetjae

    Paul said, “certain texts of V2 indicate that He (God) manisfest Himself in those SINISTER spirits…”, Could you please, please provide us here with direct citation from the official documents/texts of V2 that say that????If not, then who is the real sinister here?

  • Sweetjae

    Absolutely….outside Peter are just protestants with variety of colors.

  • Sweetjae

    The Papacy itself is a Tradition as well as abiding to a legit Council, are you aware of that Margaret?

  • Charles Martel

    Good grief. We have a doctrinal watchdog who does not know the meaning of heresy! Back to school, Your Grace! (Of course, we know why he is using the word. Having been accused by some traditionalists of statements tending to heresy, he is still smarting – especially because the accusations were by and large correct – and has been itching to swipe back at his critics. Hardly appropriate behaviour for someone of such rank, but that is his character. And make no mistake – these comments were aimed at trads, not progressives!).

  • JabbaPapa

    We have a doctrinal watchdog who does not know the meaning of heresy!

    This is obviously untrue — the rejection of the teachings of Ecumenical Councils has *always* been described as heretical.

    And make no mistake – these comments were aimed at trads, not progressives!

    Oh don’t be silly — the Archbishop has explicitly stated that the comments are aimed both at certain radical conservatives (not “traditionalists” in general) and at certain radically progressive liberals.

  • JabbaPapa

    who notices how dire and extremely minimalist the Roman Rite clerics have become compared to most other rites

    Not me !!!

    The traditional Latin Mass that I attend somewhat irregularly might possibly be described as “minimalist”, but the Novus Ordo Mass that I regularly attend has a beautiful choir singing Gregorian hymns, beautiful liturgy, and the requirement of Latin in the text of the Mass (though most is in French) as was envisioned by the Council Fathers.

  • JabbaPapa

    ???

    Whoever said that Latin was an “official” language ?

    For starters, I doubt that the Church even *had* an official language at any time during the First Millennium !!!

    I dont deny that there were people from the 1st century that celebrate the Liturgy in Latin

    Next time, just try typing “I agree with you” then — you’ll find it easier than all this sound and fury…

  • JabbaPapa

    Eastern Orthodox are NOT Protestants, ergo you are wrong.

  • Sweetjae

    Don’t flatter yourself because the modernists in the Church hated him even more. Anyways, the supposedly “heretical” statements hurled by some ‘trads’ of Archbishop Muller are just due to lost in translation or just plain taken out-of-context with bias tendency.

    The Archbishop gave an interview and published in a ‘tradirionalist’ blog called, Rorate Caeli in which quoting him:

    ““These are not criticisms, they are provocations. And not very intelligent provocations at that,” he said. “Either they have not read what I have written or they have not understood it.”

    “Our Catholic faith is very clear,” he explained,“that at the consecration during Mass a change occurs so that the whole substance of the bread and wine is changed into the whole substance body and blood of Jesus Christ, and that this change is rightly called transubstantiation. And we have refused to accept all the other interpretations, consubstantiation, transignification, transfinalisation and so on.”

    The Church is also equally clear on the “virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus, mother of God, before, during and after the birth of Christ,” Archbishop Muller stated.