Wed 30th Jul 2014 | Last updated: Tue 29th Jul 2014 at 16:36pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Head of the CDF urges Catholics to welcome ordinariate converts

By on Wednesday, 19 December 2012

Archbishop Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Photo: CNS)

Archbishop Müller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Photo: CNS)

Catholics in England and Wales should welcome members of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, the new prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has said.

In an interview with Mary O’Regan, Archbishop Gerhard Müller said: “Many of those who have entered into full communion through the ordinariates have sacrificed a great deal in order to be true to their consciences. They should be welcomed wholeheartedly by the Catholic community – not as prodigals but as brothers and sisters in Christ who bring with them into the Church a worthy patrimony of worship and spirituality.”

Archbishop Müller, who was appointed prefect in July this year, oversees reconciliation talks with the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) in his new role. He told the Herald that “the SSPX must accept the fullness of the Catholic faith and its practice” as “disunity always damages the proclamation of the Gospel by darkening the testimony of Jesus Christ”.

He said: “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.”

He later continued: “Everyone who is Catholic must ask themselves if they are cherry-picking points from the Church’s teachings for the sake of supporting an ideology. Which is more important: an ideology or the faith? I want to say to people in extreme groups to put their ideology to one side and come to Jesus Christ.”

Archbishop Müller also said that he had been an admirer of the current Pope since he was in seminary and used to read the Pope’s book An Introduction to Christianity during his formation. He said: “It was a new book at the time and the concentrated theological insights are ever present in my mind today.”

In his new position as prefect for the CDF he has a weekly meeting with the Pope for an hour. He said: “In private, we speak in our mother tongue, German, but in an official context we must speak in Italian.”

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

    “Extreme groups”? So the Traditionalist, holding to the Faith of centuries, is now an “extremist”? Pathetic. 

    What is missing from this discourse is the content of the theological discussions between Rome and the SSPX, during which, we are reliably informed, Rome found itself accepting many of the points made by the SSPX representatives. 

    The content of these discussions should be made public as a matter of urgency. 

    However, comments on the Ordinariate – fully concur. Welcome all fellow Catholics in the Ordinariate and may England fully return to the bosom of Holy Mother Church sooner rather than later!

  • Gildaswiseman

    Benedict! You may have read it already where Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta analysed the situation and the state of relations between the SSPX and Rome in a conference on the 13th of October. It is an interesting analysis which begins with the teaching of Cardinal Pie. 
    If the Society is extreme in its understanding of the faith, then the total teaching of the Church up to Vatican 11 must also be extreme because they hold firm to it, as you will agree. I would suggest that the novel teachings that have emanated out of the council are the extreme changes in theology and appear to contradict the doctrines of the Church in certain areas.

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

    Yes, at least appear to. 

    If only the Magisterium would clarify these festering wounds in the Church’s life by issuing a full and final position on each of the worrying areas. 

  • Popadopulous

    Details of discussions with the SSPX have no logical part of what is essentially a message concerning a welcoming disposition towards fellow Christians joining the Ordinariate.

  • Alban

    Why should details of the discussions with SSPX be part of a message which essentially urges a welcoming attitude to fellow Christians becoming members of the Ordinariate.

  • Cestius

    I welcome the new converts, and wish them every blessing. As someone who made the same journey of faith nearly 20 years ago, I remember the warmth with which I was received, and would hope that they will receive the same.

  • Kevin

    “not as prodigals”

    Who would think of them as that?

  • http://twitter.com/holysmoke Damian Thompson

    I hope Archbishop Müller realises how little the Bishops of England and Wales have done to help the Ordinariate, while carefully giving the impression that they’re right behind it. For example, how many pastoral letters have been devoted to this historic development? Most English Catholics know next to nothing about the Ordinariate, and their episcopal pastors don’t seem to be in a hurry to enlighten them. 

  • Charles

    Perhaps we can better organize a strategy for raising money for the Ordinariate to have a home church. Only in the UK is the Ordinariate without a base cathedral. The easiest solution would be to restore an old Anglican (formerly Catholic) church or use a current Catholic parish that might need the additional numbers. In any case, a goal must be set to help them acquire a suitable home base Church and end their wandering gypsy status.

  • BobHayes

    How about transferring the Church of the Assumption & St Gregory, Warwick Street, to the Ordinariate? This fine church building would be in safe hands with the Ordinariate – in marked contrast to the profanities to which it is presently subjected.

  • Sixupman

    For “Disunity” perhaps the CDF could run the rule over some of ++Muller’s erstwhile colleagues in the Germanic Bishops’ Conferences?

  • AlexB

    There seems to be an error with the byline of this article. The interview was conducted in Rome by Mary O’Regan. Credit should be given where due. The full and properly credited interview is here: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/2012/12/19/catholics-ought-to-avoid-extremes/

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

    Both topics were written about in the article …. therefore they each got a comment.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DXBSLIWDHLSL2SLVZYRINOSTGY Mchicha

    I am a Traditionalist.  I have to say this to St. Pius X people. Whatever you say, This ‘fight’ can only be fought from within.
     
    There is no single saint I can think of that achived any reform outside the walls of Rome. Not St. Francis, Not St. Theresa, Not St. John of the Cross, etc, etc.. non of them.
     
    Its much easier to win this fight by coming into the Church, and preaching than being outside of the Church. There might be Friendly Bishops out there, in Africa, Asia and Even Europe who might be open or desprate for priests, how can they work with youwhen you are involved in a spat with the Holy Father.Your arrogance will not get you anywhere. Do what all the other traditionalist orders are doing, join the Church and fight for souls by real examples of holiness and faithfulness to the true Church treasure.
     
     

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DXBSLIWDHLSL2SLVZYRINOSTGY Mchicha

    Now if only this Archbishop Mueller and the Holy Father would apply the same Zeal they have for oppressing St. Pius X  by suppressing LWCR.

    LWCR is a much more incideous attack on the Holy Mother Church and should have been excommunicated a long time ago.

  • paulpriest

     Hey – wait a minute Benedict; I’m not mega-keen on Muller-Lite being at the CDF but we have to remember that what’s being said here is in reponse to specific questions in an interview – and they’re questions asked by a particular interviewer – which I’m guessing wasn’t Madeleine but Mary O’Regan.

    So we have a case of Chinese whispers:
    A asking B with implications and presumed mutual understanding of terms, conditions and circumstances, B interpreting and responding with an implication which A has to infer and then translate; followed by a third party C who cuts and pastes a precis of the interview here.

    Paragraphs four and five are not in answer to the same question or in regard to the same circumstances or even the same parties – and even then we aren’t exactly certain the exact questions and the corresponding enthymemes were asked.

    Wait for the full interview – and scrutinise what’s being asked before you can interpret the answer.

  • 12Maria34

    I agree with you Mchicha.  I am traditionalist too.  LCWR nuns are within and SSPX are outside.  I hope it reverses but better yet, if all are with Rome.

  • paulpriest

    Now be fair: How ‘briefed’ do you think our Bishops were?

    Certainly there’d be a few who’d never give a monkey’s; but do you think our illustrious magic circle would ever risk allowing those who might care a glimpse ‘behind the veil’?

    Some might envision Eccleston Sq committees resembling futuristic s.p.e.c.t.r.e. conferences with 3d-powerpoints, global video-conferencing. laser-displays and chrome egg-shaped seats rising out the floor..+Vin stroking a white persian behind a bulletproof screen…

    Or a clericalised version of ‘The Thick of it’ or “Yes Minister” or “The West Wing”

    Maybe there are a few among us who think it’s Barchester Towers or All Gas & Gaiters

    But the reality’s a little more redolent of a dumbed-down Vicar of Dibley Parish council…

  • paulpriest

    Reminded of Einstein and golf for some reason…

  • Mary O’Regan

    Correct, Paul, I went to Rome and did the interview and it is clear to me why Madeleine Teahan’s name is put here to my interview, without any mention in the body of text above that these answers were given to me exclusively. It’s not true that the interview was ‘by Madeleine Teahan’. I will rectify this. The full interview is available in full down the home page. So, my interview has been posted twice on this website, but the above is not correctly attributed to the journalist who got the story, me.

  • paulpriest

    In all fairness to Madeleine there was definitely no self-attribution and it is normative Herald practice to offer a brief summation of lengthier interviews in their news section without mentioning the interviewer’s name. It’s subsequently followed elsewhere by significant repeated promotion of the interviewer [with hyperlinks to their previous articles]; so even from my perspective – and Luke will tell you I’m one of the Herald’s severest critics – I don’t think there was any inadvertent misattribution.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DXBSLIWDHLSL2SLVZYRINOSTGY Mchicha

    LWCR are  totally heretical. There is absolutely nothing about them that is remotely Christian let alone Catholic.

  • 12Maria34

    I do not have any sympathy for LCWR specially what they did in the pro-life work.  Our Church is composed of saints and sinners.  Who am I to pass judgement on them?  Our Blessed Lord died for all of us that we might have the chance to be with Him.  Many have accepted the call but not all.  If LCWR will accept rehabilitation, why not?  I will reserve the right whatever Pope Benedict XVI will hand to them and I will respect it.

    As for SSPX, they are outside our Church.  I would like to see them inside the church and I would be very very happy that once they are inside the Church they will take care of LCWR.  

    The Holy See is demanding rehabilitation from LCWR but SSPX demands from the Holy See rehabilitation.  This is how I see it and this is the difference.

    The Holy Father as the successor of St Peter, is task for the unity of all of us, sinners and saints alike.  I will respect whatever PBXVI will do to this two extreme group.  I like a happy ending.

    As for the Ordinariate, I am very happy that they are now home as well as to all converts.

  • Gildaswiseman

    The SSPX are not outside of the Church. They do not have canonilcal recognition it is true, however their position is to defend orthodoxy against progressive and modernist interpretations of the Church’s mission. To be outside of the Church one has to be a heretic or a schismatic. The society is neither. Just in the same way St. Athanasius was not a heretic or schismatic when he was “excommunicated”, They appeal to canon law 1323, 1324. It should be realised that the order, SSPX was never lawfully suppressed and therefore has a right to exist within the Church and continue its mission to preserve the traditional Mass and priesthood.

  • Sweetjae

    Dear Ben, WHERE did the Archbishop said above the SSPX is an extremist group??? I agree to all what the Archbishop said specially this point:

    “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.”

    When will the SSPX finally realize between the deliberate acts of the will (abuses) from the true Teachings of V2? When?

  • Sweetjae

    The BIGGEST part of that Sacred Tradition is a catholic must abide and give obedience to the Teaching Authority of ALL LEGITIMATE COUNCILS of the Church. If one doesn’t then what else separate hom from being another Martin Luther??? Who also believes that an Ecumenical/General Councils of the Church can err?

    At the end of the day, any legit Council can err not me!

  • Sweetjae

    LWCR (not all) holds some ideas like women ordinations, gay-blessings as incompatible with the Church Teachings but they are still within the Church. Most of them don’t even agree with their leaders who are just vocal and as we speak, some of the leadership are submitting to the Church. I don’t outright condemn these nuns who are also in the front lines of helping the most marginalized and the poorest amongst us.

    How about the SSPX, do they submit theirs? Or just to their own interpretive abilities?

  • Sweetjae

    The SSPX is a catholic group BUT NOT yet fully reconciled with Peter and the Church. (The reason why there is a Doctrinal discussion for full reconcialiation!)

    If you agree that defending orthodoxy against the modernists is due to their flawed interpretation of Vat2, then why do the leadership of SSPX put the blame to Vat2? Why put your faith on the people who claims they are right with Tradition and not the 5-Pontiffs and a legitimate Council of the Church? Why???

    Biggest part of Orthodoxy is abiding to the authority of all the Church’s Councils. Are you aware of this??

  • Sweetjae

    See my reply below….most of the nuns don’t even agree with the LWCR vocal leaders. Don’t carpet bomb the entire country for some few rebel areas.

    The root cause is disobedience which must be cast out, how about the SSPX, are they doing their part as well?

  • Sweetjae

    The big 2 “novel” teachings according to SSPX and Sedevacantists that contradicted the Doctrines of the Church are:

    1.) Religious Freedom-Vat 2 said that Religious freedom is inherent human dignity that must be recognize and should not be suppress nor violated by any law or government. Vat2 didn’t contradict Tradition that says error has no rights rather deepened our understanding of this subject that human beings created by God from the moment of conception has been endowed with inherent dignity and one of those is FREEDOM, this gives him the right to exercise his freewill regardless if the outcome is an error because this freedom is not based upon on the error that he might profess searching for the Truth.

    2.) Ecumenism-Vat2 didn’t teach watering down the Faith in order to accomodate non-catholics going inside rather opening the doors wider to accomodate all of them going inside. Good example the Anglican Ordinariate. Vat 2 also recognized that there exists some real Truths they shared with the Catholic Church found in protestant churches that the All Merciful God might use to reveal Himself to these lost children. Im talking about the Doctrines of Holy Trinity, the Divinity of Jesus Christ, His Incarnation and Redemption on the Cross, etc.

    Also read the documents of the Council of Florence, an Ecumenism in action.

    So what the fuss is the SSPX complaining about???

  • Nat_ons

    If Sede Vacante rhetoric is not ‘extreme’ and its vocal membership (at least on-line) is not ‘extremist’ then I’s like to know what is.
     
     
    http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?catname=10&id=70
     
     
    ‘Pope Ratzinger’, ‘Frakenchurch’, ‘Evil-Mass’ ideas are the standard usages of many tradition-ists – as is much of the Old Catholic manner.
     
     
    Adherence to the ancient Catholic faith;
    maintenance of the rights of Catholics as such;
    rejection of the new dogmas,
    adherence to the constitutions of the ancient Church with repudiation of every dogma of faith not in harmony with the actual consciousness of the Church;
    reform of the Church with constitutional participation of the laity;
    preparation of the way for reunion of the Christian confessions;
    reform of the training and position of the clergy;
    adherence to the State against the attacks of Ultramontanism;
    rejection of the Society of Jesus;
    solemn assertion of the claims of Catholics as such to the real property of the Church and to the title to it.
     
     
    Of course any material confusion of the aims of the Old Catholic insistance on ‘the ancient Catholic faith’ and the insistence of the Sede Vacante position is vain; only the form conicides.
     
     
    The invective of the Ratzinger-haters, the John XIII-deposers, the Paul VI and John Paul II-defamers belongs with the assaults of the Pius XII-accusers. It is worse than mere vanity, it is outright falsehood; after all, one might well hate Benedict XVI in a spirit of protest against the church catholic, one cannot resort to such hatred and be a faithful Catholic. For while the Mass Order of John XIII – following on from the reforms institued by Pius XII, and the Mass Order approved by Paul VI – following on from the approved Rite of Mass issued during the Vatican Council, do differ, they are both based on the one and the same form: Low Mass (the most common form available to most Catholics .. with or without music, preaching, or dialogue).
     
     
    The appalling errors imposed on the Catholic Church in the name of the Second Vatican Council’s ‘spirit’ were often and repeatedly condemned by the valient and much maligned Servant of God Paul VI. Yet there can be no doubt both he and John Paul II took part in some of the most egregious offences against a resolute adherence to the clear teaching of the Church through the ages, in catholicity and orthodoxy .. in the name of oecumenical friendship. One might – at a push – level something of this ‘friendship’ at Josef Cardinal Ratzinger and now at His Grace Archbishop Mueller, but only if one also desires to denounce His Grace Bishop Fellay of apostacy or label the awesome Benedict XVI as a Nazi (many tradition-ists already have – along with the fellow travelling protesters of all hues).

  • Nat_ons

    If Sede Vacante rhetoric is not ‘extreme’ and its vocal membership (at least on-line) is not ‘extremist’ then I’s like to know what is.
     
     
    http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?catname=10&id=70
     
     
    ‘Pope Ratzinger’, ‘Frankenchurch’, ‘Evil-Mass’ ideas are the standard usages of many tradition-ists – as is much of the Old Catholic manner.
     
     
    Adherence to the ancient Catholic faith;
    maintenance of the rights of Catholics as such;
    rejection of the new dogmas,
    adherence to the constitutions of the ancient Church with repudiation of every dogma of faith not in harmony with the actual consciousness of the Church;
    reform of the Church with constitutional participation of the laity;
    preparation of the way for reunion of the Christian confessions;
    reform of the training and position of the clergy;
    adherence to the State against the attacks of Ultramontanism;
    rejection of the Society of Jesus;
    solemn assertion of the claims of Catholics as such to the real property of the Church and to the title to it.
     
     
    Of course any material confusion of the aims of the Old Catholic insistance on ‘the ancient Catholic faith’ and the insistance of the Sede Vacante position is vain; only the appearance form conicides.
     
     
    The invective of the Ratzinger-haters, the John XXIII-deposers, the Paul VI and John Paul II-defamers belongs with the assaults of the Pius XII-accusers. It is worse than mere vanity, it is outright falsehood; after all, one might well hate Benedict XVI in a spirit of protest against the church catholic, one cannot resort to such hatred and be a faithful Catholic. For while the Mass Order of John XXIII – following on from the reforms institued by Pius XII, and the Mass Order approved by Paul VI – following on from the approved Rite of Mass issued during the Vatican Council, do differ, they are both based on the one and the same form: Low Mass (the most common form available to most Catholics .. with or without music, preaching, or dialogue).
     
     
    The appalling errors imposed on the Catholic Church in the name of the Second Vatican Council’s ‘spirit’ were often and repeatedly condemned by the valient and much maligned Servant of God Paul VI. Yet there can be no doubt both he and John Paul II took part in some of the most egregious offences against a resolute adherence to the clear teaching of the Church through the ages, in catholicity and orthodoxy .. in the name of oecumenical friendship. One might – at a push – level something of this ‘friendship’ at Josef Cardinal Ratzinger and now at His Grace Archbishop Mueller, but only if one also desires to denounce His Grace Bishop Fellay of apostacy or label the awesome Benedict XVI as a Nazi (many tradition-ists already have – along with the fellow travelling protesters of all hues).

  • Nat_ons

    I wouldn’t go holding my breath DT, after all look at how eagerly the bishops welcomed any of the Benedictine challanges to the hermeneutic of rupture (or the attempts of John Paul II to revive an authentic liturgy, and use of the ancient form of the Mass)!
     
    However, I have greater hopes of the Walsingham Ordinary than of the bishops themesleves rushing to implement even the simplest of requirements for communion with Rome, the ancient Faith, and fidelity to its continuity.
     
    Where permissible – and in any manner practicable – I trust all Catholics may attend, financially support and with fraternal charity embrace the Walsingham witness .. humble by their experience and faith.

  • Gildaswiseman

    This is absolute nonsense. One cannot be a part of a Catholic anything, One is either a Catholic or not. Heretics, schismatic are no longer Catholic. The society is in disagreement with aspect of the Council that has weakened and seemingly changed the faith as we knew it and were taught it. Presumably you are too young to appreciate this.
     Ecumenism, which means universal,is a Protestant invention and has caused huge amounts of damage to the Church. One can consider the influence of Assisi upon many of the faithful. I know of elderly ladies who attend Protestant ‘Masses’ because they say “They are good people and anyway we are all the same now” The fact that converts en- masse have come back to the Church is nothing new and long before the modern, noval movement of ecumenism. Look at the Anglican Benedictine order from Caldey Island who became the Catholic monks of Prinknash Abbey.
    Religious liberty is a serious error that contradicts the authentic teaching of Popes, Councils and saintly theologians. Check it out! Religious tolerance makes more sense. Jesus Christ and his Catholic Church is our saviour nothing else .How can liberty be offered to religions that contradict this fact. We respect people of many faiths. We do not know the condition of their souls, Only God knows this. However it is the mission of the Church to primarily protect and foster the faithful from the influences of error. Religious liberty is an influence from the French revolution. it should be avoided at all costs. Catholic missions is a better idea. 
     To be a faithful Catholic, Sweetjea, does not mean that we have to agree with everything the Council taught or the Pope come to that matter.. You must remember that the Council was controlled by liberal bishops, Freemasons, a very liberal periti and the liberal and progressive media. The council defined weakly and refused to condemn error in the modern world ,particularly communism. it had enormouse flaws and semantic difficulties.The council was not dogmatic.it was purely pastoral  It refused to define anything as Pope Paul V1 testified in 1966. He said it “had avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility”. The ordinary universal magisterium is not a defining power, it passes on the authentic teaching of the Church as it has always been taught.
    The simple authentic magisterium is also the passing on of the deposits of the faith.
        Do you think that the great Cardinals Heenen, Ottaviani Bacci and many more are wrong in their conclusions and fears regarding the Council and the Novas Ordo? Do you think these great men made heretical or schismatic statements? Read Sweetjea! Read what these great Churchmen said about it. Do not bang on about legit councils as if you have a mandate to decide what one can criticise from the language, and inherent weakness emanating from a number of the council documents.
      You know it it was not for Archbishop Lefebvre and the order he founded we would not have the Tridentine rite or the priesthood that still takes the oath against modernism and is faithful to the ancient Mass of all times.. The liberal factions were determined to destroy the old rite and nearly did so. How long were we told that our priests were no longer allowed to celebrate this Mass without the permission of the bishops? How many bishops gave their permission; even after Blessed Pope John Paul allowed the Mass to be celebrated. Yet the dogmatic council of Trent allowed the Tridentine Mass to be said by any priest in perpetuity.
    The fact is Sweetjea, many good Catholics have tried to explain to you that the Church is in crisis and that an extraordinary situation exists in order to combat the errors that have occurred since the Council. I realise of course that those many errors existed, in a covert manner, prior to the council but the council gave impetus to the unorthodox teachings that have attacked the true Church over the last fifty years.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DXBSLIWDHLSL2SLVZYRINOSTGY Mchicha

    You defend those that have nothing to stand on, save for the
    sacraments and vows that they now make a mockery of.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DXBSLIWDHLSL2SLVZYRINOSTGY Mchicha

    When you have people going on National TV on National
    political platforms to confuse the faithful about Church teaching on grave
    matters, pretending to be Bishops (as in holding the teaching office), dressed
    like secular career women without any outward sign that they are consecrated to
    our Lord, you have a serious problem, you better be swiftly act before you put
    more souls in Jeopardy.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DXBSLIWDHLSL2SLVZYRINOSTGY Mchicha

    What exactly are you saying?

  • 12Maria34

    I see LCWR as the younger son and SSPX the older son in the Parable of the Prodigal Son.

  • Sweetjae

    You are right only for the hard core few. Same coukd be said of SSPX where a lot of its priests went to Sedevacantism and other radical right.

  • Sweetjae

    I have already refuted all your objections on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism posted by me above and you can find all further clarifications on the Vatican and Catholic apologetic websites.

    I said again which you don’t seem to understand, SSPX is a catholic group YET NOT FULLY reconcile with the Church of Rome. You only seem to listen to the propaganda from your side. The official purpose of the Doctrinal Meeting with the SSPX and Rome is for the former to give assent to the Doctrinal Preamble set forth by the latter in order for the former (SSPX) to move to a FULL Reconciliation with the Church. They have no canonical ministry in the Church as agreed yet the SSPX still deliberately disobey the Church and the Pope by ordaining priests in Winona. Talking about obedience and good faith going to the drain.

    This is the problem with the SSPX. They have put themselves as the final arbiter and authority to interpret what the Sacred Tradition truly says. They insist they are infallibly right and not the Popes and a legitimate Council of the Church. Period.

    Blind Obedience? Really? Who really is adhering to blind obedience here?

  • Sweetjae

    LCWR originated as being faithful to her vows way back then started to led astray a few years ago by some hard-core modernists. SSPX originated as already a rebellious group outright rejecting the Teachings of a valid Council and the Popes.

    Obedience is the Key that both LCWR and SSPX are lacking.

    Jesus Christ said to St. Margaret Mary, “I love obedience and Without IT nothing can please Me.”

  • Sweetjae

    What he was saying, there are a lot of people in Church’s history with devotion, pious and good intentions that have mistakenly assert that the Church is wrong and they are right that would lead them eventually astray.

    Look at Martin Luther, Calvin, Huss, Sedevacantists, Old Catholics etc, they really believed they were right and even using the Holy Bible and Tradition to prove the Catholic Church and her Councils are wrong.

  • Sweetjae

    Madam I have two questions for you which I haven’t found an honest and cohesive answer from SSPX, mind you I don’t hate the SSPX in fact I’m a Traditionalist myself (FSSP, Christ the King)

    1.). If a duly convened and legitimate General Council can teach and promulagte errors to the Universal Church, what would stop a catholic from considering other past Councils have erred too? What are your parameters to agree with a Council?

    2.) Where does in Scripture and Tradition say and teach, a catholic can refuse obedience to a legit Council of the Church or cherry pick which teaching is orthodox or not?

    Enlighten us pleas.

  • Sweetjae

    The Council gave “impetus” to unorthodox teachings of the Church????

    The Council of Nicea also gave “impetus” to unorthodox teachings like the Deity of Jesus Christ according to the Arians citing Apostolic and Scriptural sources.

    The Council of Constantinople also gave “impetus” to unorthodox teachings like the Homousion (one with the Father) that gave rise to the Nestorians and Albigensians.

    The Councils of Constance and Lateran also gave “impetus” to novel teachings like Merits and Indulgences according to the Protestant Reformers.

    So on and so forth. What else is there?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_DXBSLIWDHLSL2SLVZYRINOSTGY Mchicha

    great point. SPPX is close to the proverbial cliff. 

  • Gildaswiseman

    Certainly! First of all I am not a madam. Gildas was a 6th century Welsh saint, scholar and monk. Secondly, Sweetjae, ask Fr de Malleray the answer to these questions.I am sorry but I could give you chapter and verse regarding the status of the Council and its dogmatic place amongst other councils, which incidentally were convoked to fight heresy unlike Vatican II, and you would not care to understand. Read the Great facade by Christopher A. Ferrara
    and Thomas E. Woods, Jr. These authors will enlighten you as to how good Catholics can understand tradition and the Church, particularly the Council
    Like you I also support FSSP, Christ the King and the Latin Mass Society. I have no argument with any branch of the Church that is in keeping with tradition. I simply do not agree with your understanding as to what constitutes Catholic membership and the will of God in the Church within this terrible crisis of the faith.

  • Gildaswiseman

    Read Pope John’s Council by the late Michael Davies to understand this question. The teaching from the other councils were not novel, they were handed down by the Apostles and defined by the Church when they were under attack. Ecumenism and Religious Liberty contrary to what you may believe, has always been condemned by the Church. Religious tolerance was accepted but only as a manner of keeping the peace. Again, I ask you how can people be given assistance to follow error and the consequent damnation of their souls? Read St ,Thomas Aquinas read Mortalium Animos  read Quanta Cura for an answer to these questions. 
    What I consider here is not so much the Council, but how the Pope, Cardinals, bishops, priests and theologians practised these new teachings. The language, ambiguities and intent of the experts and Rhine liberal bishops was radically change the Church. They indeed succeeded in their scandalous deeds.I said that the manner in which the Council was framed ignited these time bombs. Again read the biography of Cardinal Heenen, the former Archbishop of Westminster who was a Council Father. I will paste this bit of information for you to read “A participant of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), Heenan showed himself to be of a conservative mind. He opposed Gaudium et Spes, the Council’s constitution on the Church in the modern world, saying that it had been “written by clerics with no knowledge of the world.”[4] The English prelate also condemned the periti, or theological experts, who sought to change the Church’s doctrine on birth control.[4] Moreover, despite the risks to ecumenism, Heenan later supported the canonization of the forty martyrs”The Cardinal was also critical of the new Mass and predicted that many would leave the Church because of it. He was correct there too.Is the good cardinal to be seen as a disobedient son of the Church because he disagrees with a council document? It would be preposterous to think so.
    I am not going to debate this any more;I think you should look to sources of information that will give to a balanced diet in order to distinguish between a doctrinal council and a non- doctrinal council and what that means to the Catholic faithful disturbed by the radical and detrimental changes that have ravaged Holy Mother Church over the last fifty years.

  • Sweetjae

    Obviously in your first paragraph you didn’t get the crux of the argument. Secondly, you are greatly mistaken as with your group because you didn’t distinguish between TRUE ecumenism and FALSE ecumenism which the past Popes had condenmed. So there are two distinct kinds…..as there is TRUE repentance and FALSE repentance of the soul.

    Mortalium Animos didn’t say nor prohibit a catholic apart from the Faith to engage non-catholics. What it prohibits is a catholic who leaves his Faith behind to engage with non-catholics. There are so many many more misrepresentation and misunderstandings made by SSPX in reading other past documents including Freedom of Religion that has intimate link with man’s Freewill.

    Ecumenism and Religious Liberty had been thoroughly disscussed on the previous threads that I don’t want to repeat them again.

  • Sweetjae

    Another false assertion repeated by SSPX…”Vat 2 is just a Pastoral Council not Dogmatic”……So???? Does it say a catholic can refuse the Council because its nature is pastoral?? Where is this novel idea came from? Scripture? No. Tradition? No. Where?

    Mind you, most Apostolic, Pontifical and Encyclical teachings are pastoral in nature, good example Artificial Contraception, do we have the right to refuse it too?

  • Ryan

    Wow, Cherry picking!!??  Catholics since VII have been the biggest bunch of cherry pickers or ‘  Cafeteria Catholics’.  It is the legacy of VII for the sake of making everyone happy or to like us and it does NOT work. SSPX is absolutely the opposite of that.  Stick to the Faith no matter who like us.