Posted on 08/10/2016 7:04:54 PM PDT by marshmallow
In a recent interview published by the German weekly newspaper Die Zeit (32/2016), Italian Archbishop Guido Pozzo (64), Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED), made some important statements concerning his qualitatively progressing negotiations with the Society of Saint Pius X — negotiations which fall under the purview of the PCED. His comments make it clear that the process of formal inclusion of the SSPX is advancing, and that Pope Francis has offered a personal prelature to the SSPX – similar to the structure under which Opus Dei operates.
There is a section in the interview that is especially worth noting, inasmuch as it may facilitate proper doctrinal discourse among a wide range of conservative and traditional Catholics. In it, Archbishop Pozzo explains why it may be possible for the SSPX to be fully integrated into the structures of the Catholic Church without their previously accepting some of the documents of Vatican II, namely Nostra Aetate, about interreligious dialogue; the decree Unitatis Redintegratio, on ecumenism; the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae, on religious liberty; and, finally, other texts relating to the question of the relationship between Christianity and Modernity. While saying that “the Council is not a pastoral superdogma, but part of the completeness [sic]of tradition and the continuous Magisterium,” Pozzo makes clear that there are some texts of the Council that are not doctrinal and are thus not binding on the Catholic conscience. Pozzo stresses that “the Church’s tradition is developing, but never in the sense of a novelty – which stands in contrast to the previous teaching – but which is a deeper understanding of the Depositum fidei, the authentic deposit of the Faith.” Pozzo continues, by saying that
In this [same] sense, all [the] Church’s documents have to be understood, also those of the Council. These......
(Excerpt) Read more at onepeterfive.com ...
I had learned that in Catholic Doctrine class in college 30 years ago, so it wasn’t news to me. Nice to see it reiterated by someone who knows what he is talking about and has some authority.
There are those that believe the SSPX is in schism and those that believe it is not. There are those in the SSPX who believe the current dialog with Rome is a good thing and those that believe it is a betrayal of its founder. Even outside the SSPX there are conservatives on opposing sides of the Vatican II question. For example, the family split between those still with The Wanderer and those that became The Remnant.
The one thing all of these factions seem to agree on is that ecumenism is a dirty word and so any hope that they will all come together under a common understanding seems futile.
‘It may be possible for the SSPX to be fully integrated.’
Of course. SSPX think they are so special. SSPX have issues that can only be solved by humility and obedience, just as for every one else.
Good reply. Sad that the Wanderer and Remnant split paths. Both revere the sacred. Both fight bravely for the Church. Both have pride that needs constant installments of humility. Just try to swim like Michael Phelps, ride a bicycle like Peter Sagan, hit a baseball like Stan Musial or write a paragraph like St. Augustine. Not going to happen. Get over it. Vatican II has plenty of tools for every orthodox Catholic.
Orthodox Catholics need to ignore all of Vatican II and it's resulting rotten fruit.
What "tools" are you talking about?
However, highly orthodox believers of any particular religion tend to be against all forms of ecumenism and believe that those who don't agree with pretty much 100% of their dogma are going to Hell.
So if an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Orthodox get together to oppose abortion what they are basically saying to one another is: Let's work together on this important issue even though I know you're going to Hell unless you convert to my religion.
I sense this dissonance here in FR where we're all together on defeating Hillary, abortion, the LGBT agenda and all strongly in favor of the 2nd Amendment. Simultaneously the orthodox among us believe that despite our political and moral positions there are Freepers that are bound for Hell because they are Protestants when they ought to be Catholic or vice-versa.
I think this is an issue that needs to brought up and discussed head on. If deep down we believe that most other Freepers are going to Hell because their religion is heretical in our eyes then is joining forces on political or social issues a form of denial?
When the American Republic finally crumbles (and I believe it will) will it divide itself along religious lines? Will there be hundreds of communities similar to the Amish but associated with other faiths such as Catholicism, Judaism, etc.?
I know we're supposed to all quiet down and get along until Hillary is defeated, but that's what they said when we were supposed to support W or McCain or Romney. How long must we go on with this charade?
And yet it appears that Cardinal Muller feels differently. Although the teachings of Vatican II are not ex cathedra dogmas they are to be accepted, not rejected:
But Cardinal Müller, whose insistence on the SSPX adhering to the Council’s teaching is clearly more pronounced than that of the Holy Father, told Herder Korrespondenz that one cannot discount the Council as “only pastoral chatter” just because it adopted no binding dogmas.
The CDF prefect said that no pope has ever proclaimed Christ’s Resurrection as an ex cathedra [infallible] dogma, and yet it “belongs in the center of the creed, it is the foundation.”
“Key statements, even if they are not proclaimed ex cathedra [and thus infallible], are, for us Catholics, still essential,” he said, adding that it is “not acceptable to take one and reject the other.”
Cardinal Müller also said in the interview that one must not be fascinated by every homily from a bishop or pope. Only the magisterium, which is a declaration of faith, needs to be accepted, the cardinal stressed, according to the Kathpress report.
“Religious freedom as a fundamental human right and freedom to protect religion regarding the supernatural revelation in Jesus Christ are recognized by every Catholic without reservation”, he said in reference to the relevant Council declarations.
The recognition of the Second Vatican Council is “not an unreasonably high hurdle” to overcome, he said, adding that it was rather “the adequate remedy to enter into full communion with the Pope and the bishops in communion with him.”
That’s because Vatican II and its popes wrought disunity and schism. There is no unity in the post-conciliar church and unity is supposed to be one of the four marks of the Catholic Church.
Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one."[1] And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"?[2] All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.
So Pius XI would not approve of FR, the NRA, most of the Pro Life organizations, most of the Pro Family organizations, etc.
Capito. Gotcha. I appreciate all your stories.
Vatican II:
I acknowledge that some with to delete 100% of Vatican II. My personal view is that I should delete 30% of Vatican II. I enjoy reading Dei Verbum (1965) and Optatam Totuis (1965). A few of my professors pushed Guadium et Spes (1965) excessively and now I am cautious with the document.
The Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963) has, in my opinion, led to the most damage. Thankfully, Pope Benedict XVI gave the solution in Summorum Pontificum (2007). Too bad many priests reject the last document. Sad that Pope Francis does nothing with the document.
Thanks again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.