Sunday, August 13, 2017

Bishop Schneider: "Personally Very Sad" About Rome's Letter to the SSPX -- "They Wouldn't Treat the Orthodox Like This"



(Lisbon) Just before Cardinal Gerhard Müller was dismissed on 30 June by Pope Francis as Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith, he sent Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, a letter. In this he announced that the General Assembly of the Congregation for the Congregation, with papal approval, as a condition for a possible Church recognition of the Society, again demanded the doctrinal preamble of 2012.

On 14 July, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of Astana, has asked, in the course of a lecture held in Fatima, about the abrupt turning-point in the discussions between the Society and the Holy See. The question came from a member of the Spanish-speaking Catholic news site, Adelante la Fe, who was the organizer of the event. One of the founders of Adelante la Fe is the countryman, deceased in 2015, by Pope Francis Bishop Rogelio Livieres of Ciudad del Este, whom Pope Francis had deposed without a hearing and without mentioning reasons in 2014. In a press release of the Holy See, it was said that the harmony had been restored in the Paraguayan Episcopal Conference. The following text is the title of an audio section. Bishop Schneider spoke Portuguese in Fatima:
Adelante la Fe: Recently, a letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was publicly announced to the Superior General of the Society of Pius X, with which, as it seems, Rome returned to the point where the conversations under Benedict XVI. had broken down. The outcome of the current negotiations had given the impression that the problematic issues related to the Second Vatican Council in Rome might seem to be able to be the object of discussion, while now a priori a written agreement has been broached where agreement is demanded to the entire Vatican II and also to some parts of the post-conciliar Magisterium. Can you tell us something about this situation?
Msgr. Schneider: Personally, this document makes me very sad because I was one of the visitors of the Holy See who was sent to the Society of St. Pius X two years ago. There were four bishops. I was one of them. I have presented a report and proposed some solutions, and now almost everything we have done has proved to be useless. I think this is very anti-pastoral. For three years, the Holy See has encouraged visits and not followed a maximalistic path, but a pastoral way of integrating these realities of the Church, the FSSPX, pastorally to give it a chance to participate fully in the structures of the Church.
I think, therefore, that this is a very anti-pastoral gesture, and in contradiction to the whole mercy rhetoric that is being put forth - unfortunately. At the same time, on the other hand, implicitly, the entire Council is being made infallible, which is contrary to the whole tradition ... The Council is not infallible, according to its own statements, and the Popes John XIII. and Paul VI. have emphasized on numerous occasions that the Second Vatican Council had only pastoral aims. Paul VI. said many times that the Council has announced no new doctrines and that there is nothing in contradiction with the previous ones. So if nothing has been changed, then why this attitude? I see no justifiable reason for expressly declaring such a thing [expressly the recognition of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar period, as it is said in the letter of Cardinal Müller, Editor's note].
For example: Now we talk a lot of ecumenism, with particular generosity, and in the discussions with the Orthodox, the Lutherans are only required the minimum .... The minimum is required. Within the Church, however, one demands the maximum. The FSSPX, however, believes in the eternal dogmas. All dogmas. All. While the Orthodox Church, for example, denies the dogma of infallibility and of the papal primacy, and the Holy See does not even require the most indispensable.
For example, I know the Orthodox very well, because I am among them. I know their mentality. Regarding the conversion of Russia: This is not just for me, there are others who have seen it. A secret saint, who has perished in the persecution in Kazakhstan, shares the same opinion. He said, saying that the conversion of Russia ultimately means that the Orthodox Church will unite with the pope, with Rome. That is their conversion. I believe I hope it will be so. If the Russian Orthodox Church recognizes the primacy of the Pope, it will be a miracle to recognize the dogma of the Pope's infallibility, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception that she does not recognize today, and the Holy See says: "We accept all of your Dogmas, but the Second Vatican Council is strange to us: it is only pastoral, its language is not always clear, the whole about freedom of religion, ecumenism, etc. that does not convince us very much, and some statements of the Magisterium, we are here not sure. All the rest [the dogmas] we accept.
Imagine this: if the Orthodox Church were thus to be converted, the Holy See would at once grant the ecclesiastical communion without demanding what they did not yet agree with it. I'm sure. Of course one could ask oneself: "Would they do with the Orthodox what they do with the FSSPX?" No. I consider this to be very doubtful, but Divine Providence always works, and I also believe that the time is not yet ripe. It will take place when God wants it.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi Photo: Adelante la Fe (Screenshot)

 On July 26, was LifeSiteNews published the letter from Cardinal Müller, the interpretation that the former Prefect of the CDF wanted to put the talks with the SSPX on the shelf for the time being to save the Motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. At the beginning of July, a few days after Müller's letter became known, La Croix, the daily newspaper of the French Bishops'Conference, and the New York Times, had speculated that Pope Francis was allowing the recognition of the Society of Pius X in order to reverse Summorum Pontificum. Cardinal Müller, according to this interpretation, he had overturned the pope's plans and saved Summorum Pontificum.

 Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com AMDG

108 comments:

  1. The Vatican under P Francis is the cancer. SSPX cannot be wrong because all that they are preaching is what the Church preached for over 1500 years. P. Francis is in an untenable position. You just cannot obliterate tradition of such a length.----P Francis is a Marxist who has accepted Liberation Theology and the beliefs of Teihard de Chardin, SJ. He is merging the Church with society in order to create a one world religion which will dovetail with a one world government.----Malachi Martin also SJ who died in 1999, predicted and prophesied the entire scenario in his writings and particularly his book "The Jesuits".---The pontiff is transparent in his goals. If he indeed is breaking free from both the Ten Commandments and Holy Scripture, then he is indeed, with my suspicion, the "false prophet" who is awaiting the emergence of the Anti Christ.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pope Francis has been more magnanimous with SSPX than Pope Benedict. Francis has extended the faculty for SSPX to hear confessions and allowed for SSPX marriages to be legitimized with the presence of a priest in union with Rome.

      Whereas Pope Benedict insisted that SSPX will have to approve of all things promulgated by Vatican II before it can be reconciled. I suppose that includes the Novus Ordo.

      Delete
    2. FSSP are not required to celebrate the Novus Ordo, therefore they cannot require the same of SSPX

      Delete
    3. They can require anything they want....just ask the FFI.

      Delete
    4. The word "magnanimity" belongs to a lexicon totally foreign to Pope Francis. It is well known that he is a very ignorant man who only knows his native Spanish and some Italian.

      Delete
    5. Anopnymous at 1:36:

      Magnanimity comes from a Latin word, the opposite of pettiness. Spanish and Italian are also rooted in Latin.

      Educate yourself and don't be petty.

      Delete
    6. Marie, it is you who are in dire need of an education (and of lessons in logic so you can think and write coherently). "Magnanimity" is indeed of Latin origin (did anyone dispute this, or did you hallucinate and saw something that is not there?), coming from "magnus" or great; it connotes largeness of soul, that is to say generosity. Although generosity (a quality the present pontiff seems to lack, if one is to go by his constant diatribes and insults against orthodox Catholics and his hounding of orthodox prelates) can be the opposite of being petty, its more common sense is openness or largeness of spirit---what in English is also called "largesse" (via the French). Stop being petty and ignorant, Marie.

      Delete
    7. JBQ
      The Vatican under P Francis is the cancer. SSPX cannot be wrong because all that they are preaching is what the Church preached for over 1500 years
      Lionel:
      This is not true. There can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II with two different premises.
      The premise being used by the present magisterium since Pius XII is not the one used by for example the missionaries in the 16th century.
      So something has definitely changed.
      Pope Benedict also noted this in his interview in Avvenire last year when he said that EENS was no more like it was for the missioanries in teh 16th century.He said there was a development with Vatican Council II.
      He meant Vatican Council II ( Cushingite).
      While he was not going to affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) in public since then there would be no development with the dogma EENS

      Delete
    8. Not sure I follow your post but, for the avoidance of doubt, dogma cannot change and EENs is dogma. It's not Father Feeney's dogma but that of the Catholic Church which he defended valiantly - and rightly predicted that the failure to adhere to it is at the root of all the doctrinal chaos we now see at every level of the hierarchy of the Church - even in traditionalist circles. The extraordinary magisterium: Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV [1] (A.D. 1215): “One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved…”
      Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam [2] (A.D. 1302): “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 Eugene IV and the Council of Florence [3] (A.D. 1438 – 1445): “[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

      Delete
  2. So will Frank still allow SSPX confessions and marriages where a rainbow sash clad Novus Ordo hippie priest is present ?

    Seattle kim

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The former fag-hag and current sede-vacantist continues to presume a right to comment on anything in the Catholic Church and to demean the person of the Pope and persist with that dopey, tired and pantomime slap-stick about the Novus Ordo.

      Delete
    2. The Novus Ordo is too cheap and absurd to even lend itself to caricature. "Jim P" seems very inclined to abuse women---a trait of a certain type of "men."

      Delete
    3. Speaking of cheap and absurd, the last novus ordo i willingly attended before switching 100% to the TLM, had a classic fr jazz hands who evidently missed his calling on Broadway. He had a sparkly watch, not sure if it was diamonds or what, probably since these types love wealth and material goods. Anyway, at the consecraton he would raise up the bread, presumably make the consecration (thought I can't confirm form, matter, intention) and he would say in a creeper voice "all eyes on Jesus". Said priest also gave a homily about the song "locked out of heaven" by Bruno Mars which has explicit sexual lyrics. That's the priest that pushed me over the edge and out of the novus ordo forever. Soon after I watched Fr. Hesse's videos and I resolved never to attend a NO mass again. I did have to break that resolution once, for the funeral of my mother. I had no say in the planning of the funeral mass and I did not make any responses during the mass nor did I receive Holy Communion valid though it may have been, it could never have been licit.

      Delete
  3. "The FSSPX, however, believes in the eternal dogmas. All dogmas. All."

    Well, not quite "all." Bishop Fellay and the SSPX believe that any good-willed Jew as a Jew, Moslem as a Moslem, Protestant as a Protestant, Hindu as a Hindu, etc., etc., etc. can go to heaven without believing any revealed truth, receive any sacrament, being a member of the Church or a subject of the Roman Pontiff. They are willing to throw aside the literal meaning of every Catholic Dogma that addresses what is necessary for salvation as a necessity of means. They actually believe that the only thing necessary for salvation is the explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes. This is taken to indicate an implicit desire to be a member of the Church. This is called 'salvation by implicit desire.'

    The bottom line is that since SSPX does not believe in the literal interpretation of some dogmas, they cannot marshal a principled argument against any Modernist or Neo-modernist who denies every dogma.

    The difference between the SSPX and Neo-modernist Rome is one of degree and not one of kind.

    Drew

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Drew, you wrote:

      "Bishop Fellay and the SSPX believe that any good-willed Jew as a Jew, Moslem as a Moslem, Protestant as a Protestant, Hindu as a Hindu, etc., etc., etc. can go to heaven without believing any revealed truth, receive any sacrament, being a member of the Church or a subject of the Roman Pontiff."

      Really? I didn't know that. Thank you. God bless you.

      Delete
    2. You didn't know that because it isn't true.

      Delete
    3. Drew:

      Perhaps I am misreading the representations you’ve attributed to Bishop Fellay and the FSSPX, but such revelation is entirely new to me, and I would strongly suggest that you are mistaken. If you believe I am wrong in this regard, please refer me to the source upon which you rely to make those representations. I suspect you have confused the beliefs of the late Mother Teresa of Calcutta with the bishop, as that certainly was the theology she professed.

      Bishop Fellay, I am absolutely certain, does not in any way challenge the dogmatic teachings of Pope Pius IX as set forth in his encyclical, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore. I suggest you re-read that encyclical and see where he affirms that one not need be a Baptized Catholic to be saved, but only if he is blinded by “invincible ignorance”. As such, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Protestants etc. may well attain eternal life––depending, as the encyclical states, how that person has lived their life.

      That is entirely different than suggesting a Jew need only be a good Jew, etc. If this is not your understanding, please enlighten me.

      Delete
    4. It most certainly is true. The link is to a letter I wrote published in Culture Wars Magazine, edited by E. Michael Jones, Ph.D., which addresses the question in detail. Entitled, Why the SSPX Cannot Defend Tradition.
      http://www.saintspeterandpaulrcm.com/OPEN%20LETTERS/Culture%20Wars%20reply%20for%20web%20posting%209-10.htm

      Let’s begin with a quote from Bishop Fellay:

      And the Church has always taught that you have people who will be in heaven, who are in the state of grace, who have been saved without knowing the Catholic Church. We know this. And yet, how is it possible if you cannot be saved outside the Church? It is absolutely true that they will be saved through the Catholic Church because they will be united to Christ, to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. It will, however, remain invisible, because this visible link is impossible for them. Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.
      Bishop Bernard Fellay, The Angelus, A Talk Heard Round the World, April, 2006

      Here we have Bishop Fellay placing the good “Hindu in Tibet” as a member of the Catholic Church and obtaining salvation without belief in a single article of revealed Truth, without receiving a single sacrament, without being a subject of the Roman Pontiff all of which are defined dogmas. The efficient cause of his salvation is that “he lives according to his conscience” which is Pelagianism. The obvious problem with this is that if this “Hindu in Tibet” is in the state of grace and a temple of the Holy Ghost, why not publicly pray with him? Why not have the Assisi Prayer Meeting every day?

      Now Mr. Tom O’Reilly would agree with this quote of +Fellay. He believes that this is the “dogmatic teachings of Pope Pius IX as set forth in his encyclical, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore….. where he affirms that one not need be a Baptized Catholic to be saved, but only if he is blinded by ‘invincible ignorance’.” The problem is that this affirmation by O’Reilly is non-sense. Pope Pius IX did not teach anything of the sort in this encyclical and to affirm as much is to utterly corrupt the Catholic teaching on salvation. Here is a link in which this claim is refuted in detail: http://catholicism.org/rptal-part2.html

      Recent developments with Pope Francis who has directly rejected Catholic Dogma, such as his public affirmation that Luther was correct in his doctrine of justification, have brought the central question to the foreground: What is the proximate Rule of Faith for faithful Catholics? Is it the Pope or is it Dogma? Historically it has always been Dogma which is the formal object of divine and Catholic Faith.

      The problem was addressed by Fr. Leonard Feeney who defended the literal meaning of Dogma. He specifically affirmed the Dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. He said that the Dogmas concerning what was necessary for salvation as a necessity of means must be understood, like all Dogmas, in their literal sense. The teaching that these Dogmas could be taken in a non-literal sense meant in practice that any Catholic could not rely on what the Dogma said but must turn to an “expert” to unravel for him what had become a Gnostic Cipher. The Pope then became the Rule of Faith by default.

      Only by the return of all Catholic to the correct Rule of Faith can the current crisis be addressed.

      Drew

      Delete
    5. You have provided a lengthy explanation for simply saying that you and catholicism.org do not accept Catholic teaching on this subject, but prefer to adopt Fr Leonard Feeney’s theology––at least what it seems he professed most of his life. (My understanding was that he actually recanted his position on his deathbed, but there are conflicting reports on this.)
      With that, I could probably simply say that you’re entitled to your opinion, but the fact that you have led readers into believing something very false about Bishop Fellay and the SSPX is concerning enough to see that I feel I should go a bit further. Moreover, even the arguments you are relying upon to make your case are hollow.

      To begin with, as for denying Pope Pius IX’s doctrine on invincible ignorance, you must realize that the argument advanced by catholicism.org to refute it is almost laughable. Perhaps someone else might be intimidated by the wordiness and the stridency of this document but I would hope it would be few. It simply couldn't be more empty. Not one of the cited “sources” that were relied upon addressed the issue at hand: they simply confirm what everyone one of us agree upon already, namely, that if one is NOT invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church, but still denies her truth, they will not be saved. That is not in dispute! In fact, the only challenge to the actual issue in dispute is the attempt by catholicism.org to reinterpret the words of Pope Pius IX’s words in his encyclical. That attempt could only be described as pathetic.

      First, here is the relevant text of the encyclical:
      “There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.” [emphasis provided if allowed]

      This language could not be more clear that the Church teaches that there are noted situations where those who are invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church under the outlined circumstance could see God. The Hindu and many others might fall under this spiritual exception.

      But the argument being made in that site is simply to say that the words mean something other than their plain meaning! That is not an argument, it’s an opinion––and we all have them. But what is even more puzzling is that after unjustifiably claiming that the words do not actually mean what they purport to mean, he then attempts to claim that the pope contradicts himself with additional words a few lines down. Clearly, you must realize that the further language referred to merely re-states the Catholic dogma that is at issue. It does not add or refute anything. I could say much more about the entire site, but most charitable response is that I was not at all impressed.

      But I do understand what you and the others in the site you referred me are relying upon, which I suppose, is your choice. In short, you and the authors of that site don’t believe that specific teaching of the Catholic Church. Fine. I’m sure there are many people like you that deny that teaching, and perhaps many other teachings of the Church as well. That, however, does not mean for a moment any of you are correct.

      But I do have to return to comment on your original post. Boldly accusing Bishop Fellay of teaching the same false theology of Mother Teresa was, quite frankly, misleading and disingenuous. What would have been an accurate representation of Bishops Fellay’s position, along with the SSPX, is that they support the teachings of the Catholic Church that has been taught for at least a century before the Second Vatican Council.

      Delete
    6. Thus spake the lay bishop of York, PA.

      Delete
    7. Marie,
      Bishop Fellay also think that a priest, out of spite, angry with his bishop can go into a bakery or winery and say the words of consecration and validly consecrate the whole bakery/winery. Listen to his own words in this video in the first few seconds:
      https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/fr-caldern-refutes-bishop-fellay/

      Delete
    8. O’Reilly said: “First, here is the relevant text of the encyclical:
      ‘There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.’

      “This language could not be more clear that the Church teaches that there are noted situations where those who are invincibly ignorant of the Catholic Church under the outlined circumstance could see God. The Hindu and many others might fall under this spiritual exception.”


      There are two ways to interpret this text. Either Pope Pius IX is affirming the Catholic Dogmas regarding salvation, and this “Hindu in Tibet” that Bishop Fellay is talking about, will, “by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace,” be brought to the true faith, receive the sacraments, become a member of the Church, and, if he perseveres, obtain salvation. For, Pope Pius IX continues in the same encyclical in the next paragraph, “Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church.”

      There is another way to interpret this passage, that is, how you and Bishop Fellay have done. You believe that Pope Pius IX is denying the Dogmas that the Catholic faith is necessary for salvation, that the sacraments are necessary for salvation as a necessity of means, and that being subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. You make this presumptions error because you think Dogma is a human invention open to the free and independent non-literal interpretation of churchmen. It is not. Dogma is the formal object of divine and Catholic Faith. It is the proximate Rule of Faith. As St. Pius X affirmed, it is a “truth fallen from heaven.”

      Bishop Fellay and you who claim that this “Hindu in Tibet” is a secret member of the Church and in the state of grace without professing a single article of revealed truth, without receiving a single sacrament, without being subject to the Roman Pontiff believe that every Dogma of the Church concerning what is necessary as a necessity of means for salvation need not be taken in a literal sense. You believe in the “anonymous Christian” that Fr. Karl Rahner wrote about. You believe that he obtains this state of grace by following his conscience. There is no reason why you and Bishop Fellay cannot grab a potted plant and attend the next Prayer Meeting at Assisi. If these “pagans” are acceptable to God and temples of the Holy Ghost, why are they not acceptable for you to pray with them?

      I have never met this “Hindu in Tibet” and neither have you or Bishop Fellay. But I know by divine and Catholic Faith that he cannot be saved as a “Hindu.” He must profess the Catholic Faith and become a member of the Church. The problem is that when you deny the literal meaning of any Dogma, you have destroyed the authority of all Dogma, which is the end of all Modernism and Neo-modernism. Consequent to this, you have no argument against the abuse of authority.

      Drew

      Delete
    9. dmdrew
      I agree with you.
      The SSPX interprets the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism.
      They interpret the Nicene Creed with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism.
      They interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism as a philosophy and theology.

      Delete
  4. The Vat2 had only pastoral aims, is not infallible, but.....it's a Dogma, Roma locuta, causa finita, and the Bishop of Rome is more interested in lutheran ways.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Respectfully, if the teachings of Vatican II were defined “dogma”, which they are not (even Pope Benedict XVI has acknowledged that), then they would be infallible.
      But in fact, there are almost countless examples of Conciliar language that attempts to re-state dogma in such a way that it actually denies established dogma. That is heresy.

      Yes, the Modernist popes and bishops of the Church (Francis and many others), have convinced many unwitting Catholics that the false and heretical teachings of the Council must be followed. But Archbishop Lefebvre never believed that, nor do his followers and many others today believe it.

      We are in difficult times and the “diabolical confusion” is rampant. If ever there is a time when we must be as “wise as serpents” it is now. As it has been so accurately stated, the only thing worse than a wolf in sheep’s clothing is a “shepherd” in sheep’s clothing. That is what we are facing in the Catholic Church today.

      Delete
    2. Both Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI insisted that Vatican II contains, teaches and passes on the core teachings of all previous General Councils of the Church therefore, it was and is not just a take it or leave it piece of pastoral commentary. If it was just that why are people on this board in a permanent state of uproar about the liturgical renewal that emerged from Vatican II to say nothing of Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate. These are not optional, they are central to the Church's teaching. To say anything else is to choose the lazy excuse for continuing the teenage rants against those aspects of post Vatican II life which are 'inconvenient.'

      Delete
    3. Nothing but lies, distortion, and subterfuge from the defenders of the rogue Council. The liturgical destruction---costing millions to lose their faith---is not and cannot be infallibly mandated. God does not contradict Himself nor does He bring about the destruction of the bimillenial work of His Son's Church nor does He wish for the perdition of souls. Do not listen to liars and dissemblers on this blog---and, Blog Master, could you find a way to block the heretics from the commentary section? It is getting tiresome, which is their purpose after all: to shut the Catholics up by injecting fatigue in our conversation. Malevolent like their Fallen Father.

      Delete
    4. Refute John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Unfocused rants aren't working for you at all. Put up or shut up.

      Delete
    5. Peter, calm down. There's actually a very short answer. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were Modernists! In fact, they were Modernists of the first order. If you knew even a small amount of Church history leading p to the Council you would know that the Council was the goal they had been seeking for 50 years under the three weak, but non-Modernist popes. There's only so much space to teach own these comments, but I'd suggest you do some reading on this topic that has been written by someone other than Modernists.
      If you so wish, I would be more than happy to provide you with a few suggestions to get you started on learning the truth. But jumping up and down and screaming "rant" isn't very productive.

      Delete
    6. And you, Tom, might go off and ponder the meaning of 'quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.'
      The onus is on you to demonstrate conclusively that these two Popes are wrong and that Vatican II is the end result of a 'Modernist' conspiracy.

      Delete
    7. Peter W calling someone's entry a rant is the pot calling the kettle black. What a hysterical ninny!

      Delete
    8. Peter, you are obviously a fully indoctrinated Catholic of the Conciliar Church. I am not. I continue to follow the true teach of the Catholic Church. You’re disinterest in understanding what I was trying to explain to you was manifested in your complete lack of interest in even learning on what I was suggesting that you do to get started on at least learning my point of view. Instead you shout back some inane comments about the nonsense you believe and demand that I prove you wrong. Quite frankly, I'd sooner talk to a wall than communicate with you.

      But if you ever do decide that you’d at least like to learn what people like me (and many others who also recognize that Vatican II was a Modernist scheme to bring the Church to where she is today, let me know. I’ll still be willing to provide you with the names of publications that may teach you something that you don’t know.

      Believe or not, as smart as you apparently think you are, you could actually learn something if you tried to understand what the other side was trying to tell you.

      Delete
    9. Tom, you are trapped, walking around in your own circular thinking.
      If you are serious about persuading anybody about your claims, then provide evidence that they are credible.
      I would hope that if you ever had to retain a lawyer in a court of law, that he/she would be primarily concerned about gathering evidence that supported your cause. Think about it Tom.

      Delete
    10. Tom, excellent. You are a more-than-worthy opponent to Peter the Modernist. I salute you! Lucy

      Delete

    11. Peter W. In perusing this site, and more specifically, your posts, I’ve come to the conclusion that you really are a committed Conciliar Catholic––which, by the way, is a confirmation that you are clearly uniformed about the teachings of the Catholic Church. Yet you uncontrollably demand that others prove you're wrong in whatever you do believe––most specifically about the two Modernists popes, John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

      The first problem with attempting to engage in any back and forth with you is that you have a very thin understanding about the true Catholic faith. You are a member of the “Conciliar” religion, not the “Catholic” Church. They are two separate religions. Yes, the pope and the bishops where two hats (one for each religion), but the members in the pews are completely oblivious that this has happened to them.

      No, it didn’t happen in one day, but over 50 years the new religion has been fairly well defined.You suggest that you wish to “debate” the issues (at least at some level), but you are unaware as to how your religion is different than the Catholic Church. Let me give you an example. Your new religion has defined a new definition for “Religious Liberty” (in Vatican II) . Now you can’t debate that because you don’t know what the traditional definition is for Religious Liberty.

      Here’s another example. Your religion adopted something you people call “ecumenism”. Now our faith, the Catholic Church condemned that practice as a heresy by an earlier pope. Yet you are completely unaware of that. How in the world can you and I discuss any of these issues if you are in the dark about the arguments on the other side. Your approach (I’ve read your other comments) is to insist that you are right and you demand that someone prove you wrong. That’s pure silliness.

      And what about Collegiality? Are you not aware that your religion dredged up that heretical practice from the past that was not only condemn by the Catholic Church many years ago, but was actually feared by the bishops. It was actually a principle issues that gave rise to the reign of an anti-pope. But you know nothing about that. So where do we start? With me trying to prove your silliness wrong? Please?

      And by the way, Peter, I never mentioned how little you know about the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, or the fact that the Novus Ordo Mass which your religion adopted, was patterned after a “mass” that the Protestants, who had attempted to destroy my Church (the Catholic Church) earlier, and you don’t even know that. In fact There is so little you know on this topic I’m actually somewhat impressed by the fact that you are able to comment as much as you do.

      But all that being said, listen, her’s what I’m willing to do for you. I can give you the names of 2 or 3 books that you can buy online (about twenty bucks each) that would start bringing you up to speed. I’m not saying you have to leave your religion, you can continue with it as you learn about the Catholic Church. In fact, I’ll even refer you to a set of eight (I believe) documents that set out in some detail (much I’m sure will be over your head, but you’ll pick it up in time), the serious issues with the Second Vatican Council. And finally, I’ll even suggest a couple of great books that will show you what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass actually is. You’ll be amazed.

      Delete
    12. An excellent apologetic against a heretic, Tom. More of us should be doing the same---maybe then these Modernist bullies would be put in their places. RCC

      Delete
    13. A pox on both your houses.

      Delete
    14. Once again, Tancred gratuitously attacking our own. Why "the pox on Tom O'Reilly's orthodox and clear and most accurate post?! This is irrational and mean-spirited. I have often noticed that Tancred is angered by people who can write well (unlike him, perhaps it is jealousy) and who articulate the Catholic Faith and history with lucidity and clarity (unlike his posts). Fascinating! Time to go to another, rational blog for orthodox Catholic commentary for me---to which I a certain Tancred would say "good riddance," in the totalitarian spirit of the Communist hell hole from which he came. Anonymous (just like "Tancred")

      Delete
  5. http://sspx.org/en/bishop-fellays-interview-radio-courtoisie

    Bishop Fellay: We have some contacts, yes. And they are even increasing. Obviously, it is not the vast majority. But we do have some. And that is a very important element in this battle, but perhaps within Tradition we do not have a very clear perception of it, because it is discreet. People continue to see that things are not good, and that is about it. They have a very hard time seeing something else that really is real and that for me becomes clearer every day: that there is – at least in some – a desire for renewal, for a return to Tradition to be precise. And so a certain number of churchmen protest, not as loudly as us, not as publicly as us, but as strongly as us on the level of ideas, they protest against the novelties. It exists.

    I recently met with a bishop who on his own, for he had never celebrated the Old Mass – he discovered it with Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio, took an interest in it and studied it – on his own, he told me that with the New Mass, they had changed the “substance of the rite.” So all by himself, he came to this conclusion which is precisely our reproach to the New Mass. Well, there you have a bishop who comes to this conclusion, a bishop who is simply honest. Obviously, he draws conclusions and consequences for himself and for his diocese. And he is not the only one. I received a letter from another bishop telling me: “Hold strong!” on all these points: religious freedom, ecumenism, Nostra aetate, relations with other religions. When you say Nostra aetate it is not just the Jews, it is the Muslims, the Buddhists, and Hindus . . . all the non-Christian religions. It is much broader. And this bishop adds: “There are many of us in the hierarchy, many of us bishops think like you.” Obviously, they do not say so publicly, because they would be decapitated. But they think about it, they see the situation. And in fact, they count on us, they count on us as – it is a modern word, but let’s try to use it correctly – as a witness. To use a perhaps more traditional term, as a lighthouse, even if we do not wish put ourselves on a pedestal. They simply count on us to represent the light that was once the light of the Church. This light that has remained lit in our midst, they count on it. They say, “You take the blows, but we are with you. We support you.”

    ReplyDelete
  6. http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/do-jews-have-special-place-salvation-13449

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bishop Schneider has got it wrong on Vatican Council II.

    AUGUST 14, 2017
    Vatican hides the Leonard Feeney secret from secular newspapers : CDF made an objective error
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/08/vatican-is-hiding-leonard-feeney-issue.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bergoglio's entire papacy is a contradiction. It contradicts what the Church has taught for 2000 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 8: 29 AM wrote:
      AnonymousAugust 14, 2017 at 8:29 AM

      "Bergoglio's entire papacy is a contradiction. It contradicts what the Church has taught for 2000 years."

      This is an assertion. The onus is on you to provide 2000 years of evidence to support it.
      Please do so or retract.

      Delete
    2. Peter W, this may be the wrong blog for you. Go back to Aleteia or NCR territory where you belong.

      Delete
    3. You mean that I'm not allowed to play in your sand pit anymore? Stop bleating and substantiate your allegations or do you feel completely comfortable about someone publicly accusing you of civil wrong doing not defending yourself.
      What a strange notion of natural and divine justice.

      Delete
    4. Yes, error has no rights, as Holy Church has always taught---no matter what liberal sociopaths think, say or write. Block the heretics, Tancred.

      Delete
    5. And venters on unsubstantiated allegations forfeit all rights to be taken seriously.
      Censorship is a lazy excuse for not taking responsibility for accusations without proof.

      Delete
    6. Censorship is the legitimate protection, when done by real Catholics, of the souls of others. Take your precious "freedom of expression" to the Masonic Lodge where it came from and where it belongs. Freedom, in Catholic terms, is only the freedom to do good and spread the Truth---neither of which this so-called Peter W seems inclined to do.

      Delete
    7. Censorship is for the weak minded and easily manipulated by ideologists as in Stalinist Russia, present China and North Korea. Think about it or,
      get out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat as the old saying goes.

      Delete
    8. Censorship has always been employed by sane, enlightened societies, in the certain knowledge that good does not normally win in this world when in competition with evil (with all its lies and tricks and general detachment from ethics). The real weak-mindedness and laziness (not to speak of cowardice) lie in the utopian belief that truth will win in the market place of ideas---a purely liberal and pelagian notion. Such a notion rejects, at least implicitly, the reality of original sin and its consequences. So Heretic Peter W, go tune your hippie guitar and sing "Kumbaya" until the very monsters that your precious false freedom nurtures come to slit your throat---and they will, as history proves again and again that the Revolution always devours its own. Bon apetit! RCC

      Delete
  9. Bishop Schneider said,"Within the Church, however, one demands the maximum. The FSSPX, however, believes in the eternal dogmas. All dogmas."

    Not according to Pope Benedict XVI. Benedict said that the problems still to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes, which apparently SSPX does not.

    "The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society," Benedict said.

    https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living
      Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero.
      The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately
      chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat
      it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the
      importance of all the rest.

      “This idea is made stronger by things that are now happening. That which previously
      was considered most holy — the form in which the liturgy was handed down —
      suddenly appears as the most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can safely
      be prohibited. It is intolerable to criticize decisions which have been taken
      since the Council; on the other hand, if men make question of ancient rules, or
      even of the great truths of the Faith — for instance, the corporal virginity of
      Mary, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the immortality of the soul, etc. —
      nobody complains or only does so with the greatest moderation. I myself, when
      I was a professor, have seen how the very same bishop who, before the Council,
      ad fired a teacher who was really irreproachable, for a certain crudeness of
      speech, was not prepared, after the Council, to dismiss a professor who openly
      denied certain fundamental truths of the Faith.
      http://unavoce.org/resources/cardinal-ratzingers-address-to-bishops-of-chile/

      Delete
    2. You quote therefore you are. Congratulations Tancred, but this does not refute the clear teaching of two very conservative Popes, JP II and Benedict XVI that Vatican II is not some kind of optional appendage to the Tradition of the Church but actually contains, articulates and hands on the core teachings of the Catholic Church expressed in all previous councils.
      You don't like that; it greatly inconveniences your party line but so far, you are either unwilling or totally incapable of dealing with it or refuting it. Venting, declaiming, citing lengthy bits of nostalgic free association proves nothing but profound weakness.

      Delete
    3. Peter, "conservative" is a political term, it does not exist in the Church, no such thing. You're Catholic and believe all of it or you don't.

      Delete
    4. @Peter W: JPII and Benedict were "custodians" and not popes. The true ruling elite within the structure made it plain who was in charge by being evidently complicit in the shooting of JPII and the forced resignation of Benedict. Tancred has it right. You have it way wrong.

      Delete
    5. JBQ, you can assert till your cows come home but I you have not provided proof that JP II and Benedict XVI were not legitimate Popes.
      Have another try.

      Delete
  10. There's nothing wrong in demanding from the SSPX that they conform to normative Catholic teaching. It's the SSPX that must return to the Church, not the Church to the SSPX.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The SSPX is the (remnant) Church. You actually believe that the lavender, culture of death, heretical hierarchy today is the Church as established by Christ? You believe they represent the "normative Catholic teaching?" They should be seeking "regularization" from Bishop Fellay. Read Archbishop Lefebvre and you will see he was right all along and trying to keep Catholics on the true path..So you believe those poseurs who happen to occupy traditional Catholic real estate today are faithful Catholics? Good luck with that.

      Delete
    2. Well said, Sam Sham. I very much enjoy reading the comments of a faithful Catholic.

      Delete
    3. For those of you who may not know it: the distorted tirade against the Society of St. Pius X (which does not hold to heretical ecumenism at all but will admit, with the Church, that there could be exceptional cases of baptism of desire) is from a layman in Pennsylvania who seems to believe he is an authoritative voice of Catholicism. Not difficult to learn more about this should you be so inclined.

      Delete
    4. The SSPX has never left the Church, so you cannot "return" to what you never left. It is the long-condemned Modernists who are outside the Church, as they have always been

      Delete
  11. I hope the SSPX stays put. It is because of the Society that the TLM has survived and is now spreading once again. But to come under modernist Rome....I do not trust anything from the Vatican these days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't forget all the offshoots of the SSPX---CMRI, SSPV---populated mainly by ex-SSPX members who feared what union with Rome might mean.

      Delete
    2. Not necessarily. The Union of Utrecht (so-called "Old Catholic Church") has been at it (TLM) from the when they questioned papal infallibility sometime after Vatican I (Vatican One).

      Delete
    3. The CMRI and SSPV are sedevacantist.
      There is another offshoot of the SSPX that is not Sedevacantist, which consists of four bishops working together - all former members of the SSPX, which includes Bishop Richard Williamson. They, of course, believe that it's not a good idea to reconcile with Rome until Rome returns to Tradition. To put oneself under the control of Modernists in order to battle Modernism may not be a good idea.

      M. Ray

      Delete
    4. The Utrechtines had a liturgy in the vernacular long before Vatican II, which missal i looked at, resembled the NOM very much.

      Delete
    5. Unknown,
      All the 'ofshoots' of the SSPX are interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism when there is a rational alternative available.
      They can switch to Vatican Council II interpreted without an irrational premise and their conclusion will change. The Council will no more be a rupture with Tradition.
      For example LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, GS 22, NA 2 etc can be interpreted as referring to personally known people saved outside the Church.
      Or they can be interpreted as being hypothetical cases known only to God and so they are not exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
      So we have two premises and two conclusions.
      Do you know any one saved outside the Church this year?
      No.
      So there can be only one rational interpretation and this one is not being affirmed by the SSPX or the magisterium or the sedevacantists.

      Delete
  12. The Eastern Orthodox are a separate Church (even when we were in Communion). It is foolish to integrate a group into the Latin Church that rejects its theological developments, ones even Pope Benedict considered legitimate.

    ReplyDelete
  13. We can all agree that Pope Francis and his appointees are the greatest disaster since Arianism. I think it was Pat Buchanan, who said, that we will be returning to the catacombs.

    ReplyDelete

  14. @Drew

    http://www.culturewars.com/2016/JewsMuslimsvsSSPX.htm

    ReplyDelete
  15. For more than 50 years, Vatican 2 has been treated, by Popes, by the 1000s of bishops in peace and communion with them, & by the Catholic Faithful worldwide, as a legitimate and Ecumenical Council of the CC. This acceptance and recognition, which has had many results for doctrine, theology, pastoral practice and Divine worship, including extensive sacramental revisions and the promulgation of revised liturgical books, cannot simply be ignored or wished away. The Church has commiitted herself far too completely to V2 for the Council to be discarded. If she tries to disown it now, after defending and drawing upon it for a time longer than some ppl have lived, her claims to infallibility in teaching will be simply incredible. She cannot, without utterly destroying her credibiilty, disown V2. She is stuck with it, and needs to make the very best use of it.

    It has a claim to the obedience and adherence of Catholics, by virtue of its standing as an Ecumenical Council, regardless of whether it proposed to teach infallibly by its own act, or not.

    There was a lot of kerfuffle after V1, about what Catholics were to think of it. That has been almost entirely forgotten. So, eventually, will the kerfuffle we are living through.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. God doesn't author kerfuffle or confusion.
      As Mary Magdalene lamented: "They've taken away my Lord and I do not know where..."

      Delete
    2. One kerfuffle after V1 resulted in the breaking off of a branch of the Netherland's Utrecht Diocese to what is now called the "Old Catholic Church." The schism was due to Utrecht's refusal to accept the dogma of papal infallibility.

      Delete
    3. This comparison between the Old Catholic schism after Vatican I and the horrors that followed Vatican II is false and misleading. The birth of a sect, like the Old Catholics, though tragic cannot be compared to the almost universal apostasy introduced by Vatican II, whether intentionally or not (I suspect the former). This sort of false equivalencies is the sort of thing moderate liberals love to propose to 1) appear balanced and judicious and 2) dilute the horror that liberalism always wreaks---whether in society or in the Church.

      Delete
  16. The subversion of the True Religion is not a "kerfuffle" but an act of sacriligeous vandalism and spiritual violence. The battle will not go away until the heretics occupying sees and the Holy See are out---and God will dispose of the as He sees fit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 9: 12 PM with an attitude like that, you demonstrate that you are in schism and probably have been for some time.

      Delete
    2. "Schism" is today's cowardly and slanderous cry of leftist Modernists to shut up real Catholics, whom they hate (their hypocrital babbling about "love" notwithstanding). The real schismatics are those who reject the millenial Tradition of the Church, like you, "Jack D," and your heretical and evil pope. Your religion began in 1965 with the close of your precious anti-Council. "Will the Lord find any faith when He returns?" The answer is He will not find it in the Modernist caricature of the True Church.

      Delete
    3. Better to be in the fake "schism" of liberal slander than in the real heresy of Modernist "Catholics"---any time.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous
      There can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II, Cushingism and Feeneyism.Cushingism is irrational and it is supported by the Left.When the SSPX does not accept Vatican Council II(Cushingite) the left cries Schism! Now it is important for the SSPX to affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) which is traditional. In this way they will not be rejecting the Council and so the Left cannot say they are schismatics.At the same time they would not be rejecting Vatican Council II.
      They instead could tell the Left that their interpretation of the Council is irrational, non traditional and heretical as compared to theirs. They could say that the Left are in an irregular situation for not accepting Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and that Vatican Council II (Cushingite) is a rupture with Tradition.

      Delete
  17. Tancred, my post to which you responded was not my own opinion but Pope Benedict's whom I quoted and provided the link to.

    That document is what Adelante de la Fe was referring to when it told Bishop Schneider of CDF's letter stating that new negotiations with SSPX must start "where the conversations under Benedict XVI had broken down."

    Bishop Schneider is sad about the CDF letter and seems to think it is unfair that SSPX is subjected to too high a hurdle that neither the Russian Orthodox nor the Lutherans will have to clear if they were to seek reconciliation.

    I don't know how Bishop Schneider could say the Orthodox and Lutherans have an advantage over SSPX, since none of them have yet been successful in their attempts to reconcile with the Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, you're offering you interpretation of what he said.

      Delete
    2. Did you even read the document?

      Delete
  18. Vatican 2 and the Novus Ordo prefigured in the book of the Maccabees:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gmllfSZC2A&sns=em

    ReplyDelete
  19. Putting all discussion of legitimacy of Vatican 2 aside, and step back 2 steps, one can see as plain as day that certain parts of the Council cannot be reconciled with Divine Justice by violating Natural Law. Dignitatis Humanae grants proAbortion proDivorce proSodomite and antiFamily Faiths and individual malformed or misinformed consciences equality under the law. If we embrace prayers with them, we reinforce them in their errors in putting aside Christ's full and orthodox Teachings handed down to us, and accept that some goods can come out of it without the True Christ as author of and source of all Goodness.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. We do not need a Pope or Magisterium to see that Vatican II was evil. It is Natural Law that informs our Reason. All False faiths, while violating Divine Law, at some point turn to violating Natural Law. And as we know, Natural Law requires Human Reason, not Divine Magisterium, to inform us. Every known false religion Teaches or accepts antifamily or antilife. Because when one cuts oneself off from the Creator of Life, dogmatically, one eventually loses the proper understanding of the Creation, and its proper ordering. Democracy and freedom of expression of falsehood gives all men equality, despite their errors in understanding the Creator, the Creation, and His Relation to His Creation, and the proper Dignity The Creator granted us all. If we want Justice and Love it must be seen through the eyes if he Creator, not by men whose intelligence and understanding is dulled or hijacked by their own personal lusts or greed, or by their misinformed or malformed conscience. Democracy, supported by Vatican II is a False prophet because it grants (in theory)equality of expression and represention to manipulated misinformed malformed snd corrupted majorities, regardless of faith, or lack of faith, in forming a national conscience and consensus. And the US worships this National Conscience as God and source of all Truth. As does the Vatican today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Constantine,
      It is not about Natural Law.There can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II and one of them is irrational and heretical. The other is not.

      ________________________

      Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.It is practical. There obviously are no known cases of the baptism of desire (BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) in 2017.So there are no practical exceptions to EENS.Neither was BOD,BOB and I.I an exception to Feeneyite EENS in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office was issued to the Archbishop of Boston. The cardinals made an objective mistake. Mentioning BOD and I.I in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) along side the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church was superfluous.

      Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning.It assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.
      http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/when-will-rorate-caeili-learn.html

      Delete
  22. I'm not sad, this must be God's will for now. The SSPX is the TLM safety belt. I'm not foolish enough to believe I'd have two local TLM's daily and FSSP about 45 mins away without the SSPX. Unfortunately the SSPX chapels are further or I would be there. More like 2 hours plus if I want to get there.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Constantine says:
    "We do not need a Pope or Magisterium to see that Vatican II was evil."
    That's right, but we do need a Pope and Magisterium to have a Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Church structure exists in theory, on paper, with a Pope, his gang of 9, and bishops priests and laypeople who don't know what is Natural Law and need conservative Protestant to tell them what it is.That is technically required to have a still existing Catholic Church. And technically the Pope at the top never said anything to respond to any Dubia that shows he may be against any formal Catholic dogma.

      Delete
    2. Marie,
      We now know more about Vatican Council II. It can be interpreted with the Cushingism or Feeneyism and the conclusion changes.
      http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/07/when-will-rorate-caeili-learn.html

      Delete
  24. Tancred, Okay. So tell me the point where negotiations with Pope Benedict has broken down, as reported above by Adelante la Fe?

    And why does Archbishop Schneider think Russian Orthodox and Lutherans have an advantage over SSPX in their attempt to reconcile with the Church?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd think it was obvious, nobody is talking about them accepting all of the dogmas of the Catholic Church, at least no one important.

      Delete
    2. @Marie: I can answer that one. Benedict was a straight shooter. SSPX rebelled against the reform. Like a bee which is attracted to the light, PF is trying to draw in the Orthodox and the Lutherans into a socialist agenda. Once they are in, they will be subverted into a socialist entity.---Actually, this is plainly seen in a pronouncement from the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs on August 14, 2017. In a meetin in Dimane, Lebanon, 7 patriarchs signed a letter which is a "prophetic appeal" against a "plan of genocide" in the Middle East.---As seen in a comment to the announcement, the patriarchs view this issue as one of corporal and spiritual works of mercy. This individual sees the role of the Church as "moral and spiritual". Francis looks at the same Rohrschach test as a political one.---The idea is to "infiltrate and destroy" on the road to a one world religion and one world government. Please read Malachi Martin "The Jesuits". He died in 1999, had read the Third Secret, and was a former Jesuit who predicted what would happen with a Jesuit pope and the "New World Order".

      Delete
    3. The Orthodox and the Lutherans aren't Socialist entities already?

      Delete
  25. AUGUST 16, 2017
    Bishop Athanasius Schneider does not proclaim the Catholic Faith honestly in Kazhkistan
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/08/bishop-athanasius-schneider-does-not.html

    ReplyDelete
  26. AUGUST 17, 2017

    Bishops Fellay, Schneider are not proclaiming the Social Reign of Christ the King supported by Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite)
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/08/bishops-fellay-schneider-are-not.html

    ReplyDelete
  27. And the author of "Catholic Mission" sorely needs a few extended sessions with a solid Catholic psychiatrist.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Considering the history of relation between SSPX and the Holy See this is hardly surprising. The main effort always seems to be ensure that the lesson is learned that whatever the Society's position, they MUST answer to and be subject to Rome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wendy,
      This is not true.We now know there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II, Cushingism and Feeneyism. Every one is using the irrational interpretation of Cushingism.Once the SSPX switches to Feeneyism the game plan changes. The reconciliation talks change.
      http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/08/for-sacred-heart-major-seminary-detroit.html
      http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/08/sspx-italy-is-not-affirming-vatican.html

      Delete
  29. Call the white van with men in white suits to handle "Catholic Mission." It is urgent!

    ReplyDelete
  30. This Feeneyism vs Cushingite argument is interesting, not so much for the crux of the argument itself (and I will candidly admit up front that I am not a Feeneyite), but that it is an assault against the SSPX from “within”. That is, it is not the progressive left that is making the argument against Cardinal Cushing’s statement, it is those who would claim to be traditional Catholics. They are essentially saying that the SSPX is “not Catholic enough".

    Modernism is a heresy that attacked the Church from within. And, as we know, the progressives who advanced the teachings of Modernism (and ultimately Vatican II) were the Catholics from within the Church. The SSPX does not claim to be "the" Catholic Church, they claim to be “Catholic”. They see their mission as “preserving” the faith until Rome wakes up to the the great error that was adopted during and after the Second Vatican Council. They follow the teachings of the Church––which include recognizing the pope as the Vicar of Christ.

    So while the commenters on this site suggest that the SSPX must adopt Feeneyism, they are essentially saying that they must ascribe to a teaching that was rejected by the Catholic Church long before Vatican II was even imagined. The fact that Vatican II accepted that teaching should not lead anyone to believe that it was not a Catholic teaching. the Council accepted many Catholic teachings––they just adopted many false teachings as well.

    Fr. Leonard Feeney advanced what he believed, ins mind, to be the “true” meaning of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. But this was his “opinion”, and that opinion was rejected by the Church. Indeed, he was excommunicated (although that excommunication was lifted on his deathbed) by Pope Pius XII. The teaching he opposed had been affirmed by numerous popes before he decided that they were wrong. It is also opposed by all faithful Catholics today––including the SSPX.

    Now the alleged traditional Catholic commenters on this site are criticizing the SSPX for not adopting this non-Catholic teaching. Quite frankly, I find it very difficult to distinguish the goal of all of these commenters from the “Modernists”. The only difference is that the Modernists (and Vatican II) attacked the Church from the left, while the “Neo-Feeneyites” are attacking the Church from the right.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This blog, unfortunately as it can do much good in defense of the Faith, is seriously vitiated by too many Modernist trolls---who should not have a voice here, even to foster debate as debate should be among those who value objective truth---and an irrational blog master who at times lashes out without ostensible reasons against those who defend the traditional Catholic Faith, willy-nilly.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...