Rorate Caeli

IMPORTANT
Decree for the removal of excommunications on the Pope's desk?

From Spanish blog La Cigüeña de la Torre:

On the Holy Father's bureau stands a prepared decree which will lift that of excommunion, of 1988, which applied to the consecrating [Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer] and consecrated bishops [Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Alfonso de Galarreta, and Richard Williamson]. I mean removing the decree, and not absolving of the excommunication.

The thesis of the subjective element, extenuating or mitigating of fault, and, therefore, of the penalty, according to Canons 1323, 4 and 7, and 1324, 1, 8, and 3, has prevailed.


The information sounds highly credible, it matches recent events (including the Rosary Crusade), and Spanish conservative Catholic lawyer Francisco José Fernández de la Cigoña usually only posts on future events (such as the nomination of Bishops) when he is truly certain of the matter. Nonetheless, even if the information is accurate, there is no way of knowing when the Holy Father will sign the document, or when it will be made public.

The referenced canons of the Code of Canon Law (CIC) are the following:

Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:
...
4/ a person who acted coerced by grave fear, even if only relatively grave, or due to necessity or grave inconvenience unless the act is intrinsically evil or tends to the harm of souls;
...
7/ a person who without negligence thought that one of the circumstances mentioned in nn. 4 or 5 was present.

Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed:
...
8/ by a person who thought in culpable error that one of the circumstances mentioned in can. 1323, nn. 4 or 5 was present;
...
§3. In the circumstances mentioned in §1, the accused is not bound by a latae sententiae penalty.

______________________
Thanks to a dear contributor.

84 comments:

Anonymous said...

Looks like that Million Rosary Crusade is working more quickly than expected!

Laus Deo et Mariae!

Ingrida said...

I am sure excommunications will be lifted soon!

Anonymous said...

Even if the excommunication of the SSPX were lifted, the Society is so fraught with problems that incur canonical impediments that a hornet's nest will be stirred up. Not least of these is the question of whether they will accept canonical jurisdiction. Knowing their perverse character this is unlikely.

Confiteor said...

Did you feel that tremor?

It was the progressives and modernists shuddering at the thought that this rumor might prove true.

J. Smith said...

Praise be Jesus Christ!

Long-Skirts said...

The Black Sails

The power of the cassock
Is to lure
Like fishermen
To nets secure.

The power of the cassock,
Ebony shine,
A hull of hues
On deck Divine.

The power of the cassock
Anchors the man,
Dead to the world
In his sea-span.

The power of the cassock,
Weighted strength,
Before the mast
It's linen length.

The power of the cassock
Sails your soul
To greater depths
From shallow shoal.

The power of the cassock,
Captains' pure.
The fishermen,
Our land-locked cure.

Anonymous said...

It seems at the very worst that canon about culpable error could govern and that a lesser penance could be applied. Perhaps that lesser penance can be fulfilled simply by the time already spent in excommunication up to this point--although, would that require an act of contrition from the four?

Most Excellent Sledgehammer said...

could someone explain the difference between the elimination of the decree and the lifting of the excommunication?

Dan Hunter said...

Thank the good Lord above!

If this occurs, will the FSSPX now have the faculties to hear confessions?
Their priests are excellent confessors.

Anonymous said...

Don't count on it. If it requires anything at all from the Lefevrite bishops and does not evidence complete capitulation by Rome on everything these bishops demand, it will go nowhere.

Don't be mistaken: the SSPX believe themselves infallible and will only be satisfied with by the pope grovelling and condemning the Second Vatican Council. they could not care less about the excommuncations--they don't think the pope has any power over them.

Sad, but that's the facts. Proven many times in the past.

Stanislas Wojtiech, from Stanislawów (modern Ukraine) said...

For a regularization of the Society of Saint Pius X with the "Church of Vatican II" of Benedict XVI, first a doctrinal discussion commission evaluating, proving and reconciling all dogmatic seeming contradictions and heretical denials after 1958/1965 must be called in. I doubt whether Benedict XVI would allow such a necessary discussion commission, given his fanatical attachment to the 2nd Vatican Council, its ambiguous statements (sometimes open to heresy, sometimes actually favouring errors and possibly even heresy) and its fruits. The revocation of 'Ecclesia Dei' is a mere confirmation of a juridically positivist battle with allegedly 'papal' neoconservatives who fanatically defend every novelty from the Vatican since 1958 as "divine providence".

The problems are not the liturgy or mere incidents (like the heretical Assisi Interreligious Conferences) or this decree of "excommunications", but rather dogmatics, ecclesiology, and doctrine and the magisterium as a whole. The problem of the seeming heresies against "former" Roman Catholic dogma (contradictions to these truths of faith), and the other innovations seemingly previously condemned as at least erroneous, at most as heretical. Neomodernism is theological. Küng and Schillebeeckx celebrated the Old Mass without excommunication in 1964. So did the heretic Chenu O.P. condemned in 1942 and put on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, who celebrated the Tridentine Mass. Do you realize this? It is not about liturgy or excommunications or some church power battle. It is about Roman Catholic dogma and its 'antithesis' found in the Conciliar documents alongside Kant's synthesis.

Anonymous said...

If this rumour is true then, once again, it would contradict everything emanating out of Rome for the last two decades. But there would be a parallel here: "Summorum Pontificum", 2007, clearly contradicts "De Missali Romano", 1971, directly.

Of course, the mere lifting of the decree (which would mean lifting of the penalty, since an automatic penalty is not to be assumed unless declared, or stemming from one which was declared) will have little legal effect. Really, it only applies to the four bishops. Its importance lies in its social effect.

Rome has now said that Society Masses can fulfil the Sunday obligation, that every priest has a general right to celebrate the old Mass, and now, perhaps, this. The intent here is clearly to put pressure on (and within) the S.S.P.X to accept the jurisdiction, the international and personal diocese. Let us pray that that will happen. However, we must keep in mind that the S.S.P.X has taken the position that no structure will be accepted until the doctrinal matters are solved. And that is the huge problem for the future.

Of course, if their Masses fulfil the obligaton, as P.C.E.D. letters of the past have admitted, who cares if they're in or out? We can go to their chapels and circumvent the local bishops. That should put pressure on said bishops to implement S.P., thereby making the S.S.P.X ultiamtely unnecessary. So the Society should act to ensure its own survival--by accepting the jurisdiction.

P.K.T.P.

Dan Hunter said...

"Don't be mistaken: the SSPX believe themselves infallible"

Anonymous,
I do not mean to offend you, but that above statement is nonsense.

I have heard an FSSPX pastor state that "the Society is not perfect and we always need to be humble and subserviant to the Will of Almighty God.
Father then when on to say that this was exactly what he was told by His Excelleny Bishop Fellay.


God bless you.

jacc62 said...

Well done, Long Skirts! Great nautical imagery:

The power of the cassock,
Captains' pure.
The fishermen,
Our land-locked cure.

Anonymous said...

V2 attack!
I agree the SSPX seem a tad proud. I know they have a fighting mission but they could be more diplomatic and kinder after all the good Saint said, "you get more flies with honey than vinegar."

I still sympathize though and will continue with the rosary.

Re:Pope Benedict, I don't think it is insulting to discuss his errors as long as it is not personal attacks.

Confiteor, you ask for instances where the Pope appears to be a heretic. How about in his book, "Christanity and the Crisis" where the Cardinal claims the Jews did not commit idolatry when they worshipped the calf. This is direct contraction to scripture and Traditional Catholic teaching.

Jxxxxx, fighting mad for the true Catholic faith

Paul Haley said...

I don't doubt for a minute that the pope has such a document "at the ready" shall we say. But with a public request by Bishop Fellay for a rosary crusade for the lifting of the excommunications already out there, one wonders what else is lacking?

I will tell you, folks, what I think for better or worse and here it is. The hierarchy would simply go ballistic if the pope removed the sanctions without the hierarchy being vindicated. In other words without the SSPX admitting they were at fault...at least in their defiance of the pope in 1988.

So, the pope knows that he is dealing with a powder keg and he is desperately trying to find a way for both sides to claim they acted in good faith. At the same time he knows that the hierarchy will never give up what they have been doing and preaching since the end of the 2nd Vatican Council and he would have a wholesale mutiny on his hands if he were to adopt in toto the SSPX views on Vatican II.

He also knows that the SSPX will not admit to any objective "culpability." Their position all along has been that they acted out of grave fear that they would be able to defend Tradition without the 1988 consecrations. With the state of the church such as it is today who can reasonably argue with that view? It seems, at least to me, a slam dunk in favor of their position but the hierarchy would say: no way!

So, one would ask: what can be done since it appears there is no solution? Ahah, but there is a solution. The rosary crusade, the intervention of both the Blessed Mother and St. Joseph and the juridical structure necessary for the SSPX to function within the church without in any way adopting modernist practices. The way is clear, it seems to me, that a worldwide apostolic administration, with the SSPX bishops at the helm, answering only to the Holy Father himself, having no possibility of interference by those of the modernist persuasion, is the only way out of this stalemate.

In the future, who knows? The graces flowing from all these traditional masses would be enormous and who knows what good the Church will receive in such a scenario.

As a matter of fact, the Ecclesia Dei Commission itself could be "morphed" into this Apostolic Administration (AA) without much trouble since its original purpose has been more or less superseded with Summorum Pontificum. Does this mean we could see traditional masses at both the diocesan level and within the AA? Of course, what is wrong with that?

More prayers, then, is the only solution - prayers to Blessed Mother and St. Joseph for the pope to act to withdraw the sanctions and soon for the good of the church and the salvation of souls. The intercession of Blessed Mother and St. Joseph via our prayers is needed above all else. They can move the holy father in ways no one else can. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the holy father can do this and still maintain peace in the church but he will need the help of Blessed Mother and St. Joseph to carry it out. I should say not only prayer but sacrifices as well and what better season than Advent to do that.

At the same time he will need the help of Bishop Fellay, Bishop Williamson, Bishop de Galleretta, and Bishop Tissier de Mallerais to make it work and they must show their willingness to do so, their fealty to him as Vicar of Christ on earth. I don't know how they would do this but I'm sure they know of a way to pull it off.

Anonymous said...

To disprove the erronious idea that
the SSPX beliives itself infallible, read the post by Bishop Richard Williamson on his "Dinoscopus" blog from 24 May,
2008 entitled "Last Cartridge". Verification of claims seems to be necessary. Not merely claims of facts. It might be beneficial if Rorate Coeli would reproduce it.

A.M. LaPietra

Anonymous said...

I read the blog entry alluded to by Bp. Williamson and I didn't see it say anywhere that the SSPX position could be wrong--in fact, quite the opposite.

I do believe if one were to ask them if they thought they were infallible, they would say, "of course not."

However, if one asked if they agreed with the Church of Rome today (the concrete Rome, not the ethereal "eternal Rome")they would say "no." If one asked who Catholics should agree with Rome or the SSPX, they would say SSPX. And that is where the problem lies.

Joe B said...

There's that double Novus Ordo standard again - SSPX deserves to be out because they have nasty people and disagree with the Holy Father on some of the documents of VC II. So how many bishops agree with Transubstantiation? How many of those guys are nice when it comes to unborn children?

Planks in the eye.

John McFarland said...

First of all, I'd advise against our holding our collective breath: as with the MP, we're probably in for some months of the Pope's standing with his wet finger in the wind. Among other things, he's a pretty accomplished politician.

Would that Mr. Perkins were right in thinking that if and when it comes, the lifting of the excommunications will render the SSPX unnecessary.

Even assuming that there's just a straight lifting, and no effort to try to keep the Society under some kind of canonical or pseudo-canonical disability (the "lack of full communion" balderdash in one form or another), the only practical result will be that it will become much harder to maintain that the SSPX are bad guys and not to be listened to.

But they and other right-minded traditionalists will still have to be listened to, and still have to be understood. That's a tall order when even a majority of non-SSPX traditionalists don't understand that the battle is over the faith, because they don't really understand what the true faith is after forty years of a deficient and adulterated substitute. It's going to take a long time for the real message to get through to a significant number of people, and there'll be plenty of opposition that won't have scruples about mendacity and intimidation.

In order for the Mass to have its efficacy, it must be rooted in the one true faith; and knowledge of the faith is in real bad shape, even among many who fancy themselves stout traditionalists. The mere fact that most of the denizens of this site think that the current Pope is more or less a friend of tradition, when in fact he's an arch-modernist, pretty much demonstrates the point.

So if the rumor turns out to be true, and we get the word before Christmas, we'll still have plenty of use for the balance of those million rosaries, and more millions besides.

Anonymous said...

Actually,to respond to a previous poster, the Pope SHOULD condemn alot of Vatican II, especially with what happened to the Mass.

So it wouldn't be groveling to meet SSPX demands, but rather finally being honest. And there's nothing but applause for that.

Anonymous said...

In an article at http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/209045?eng=y

Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini criticizes Humanae Vitae as a misguided encyclical that caused “serious damage,” leading : "many people have withdrawn from the Church, and the Church from people."

According to Cardinal Martin, “I am firmly convinced that the Church can point out a better way than it did with Humanae Vitae. Being able to admit one's mistakes and the limitations of one's previous viewpoints is a sign of greatness of soul and of confidence. The Church would regain credibility and competence."

It is not the SSPX, but this nonsense that has caused the real spiritual damage.

There seems to be a double-standard.

Jordanes said...

could someone explain the difference between the elimination of the decree and the lifting of the excommunication?

In the first case, it means a declaration that the excommunications were never valid. In the second case, the excommunications were deemed valid but have been rescinded, whether due to repentance on the part of the offender or mercy on the part of the judge.

Jordanes said...

Confiteor, you ask for instances where the Pope appears to be a heretic. How about in his book, "Christanity and the Crisis" where the Cardinal claims the Jews did not commit idolatry when they worshipped the calf. This is direct contraction to scripture and Traditional Catholic teaching.

That would be an erroneous interpretation of Scripture, but erroneous interpretations of Scripture are not necessarily "heresy."

Anyway, are you sure it is "Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures, Values in a Time of Upheaval" where Cardinal Ratzinger discusses the golden calf incident. I know he does in "The Spirit of the Liturgy," but what he says there does not in any way contradict what the Scriptures say about the idolatry of the golden calf. He does not say it isn't idolatry, but he says what he thinks the real problem with their idolatry was: that the Israelites wanted to bring God down to their own level by fabricating a new religion and a new liturgy.

Jordanes said...

So how many bishops agree with Transubstantiation? How many of those guys are nice when it comes to unborn children?

Most of them, it would appear, with certain likely exceptions.

Stanislas Wojtiech, Stanislawów, Ukraine said...

The problem is about dogmatics, doctrine, seeming contradiction of Catholic dogma and defined "former" (pre-1958) Catholic doctrine and teaching, by the 2nd Vatican Council and post-conciliar acts of the alleged magisterium.

The essence of this largest Crisis in our holy Roman Catholic Church ever, is doctrine, dogma and theology.

Not mere consequences like liturgy or some phony "excommunication decree".

It is necessary to take care of the doctrinal questions. And Benedict XVI as liberal Council peritus Joseph Ratzinger does not seem ready to admit a Theological Commission for Discussion of these points.

Only after clarifying that none of the conciliar popes since John XXIII were public and formal heretics, and that Vatican II and post-conciliar documents do nót contradict Catholic dogma and "previous" teaching (as it is alleged by many traditionalist scholars and publications and institutes), there can be a "reconciliation". In fact, after such a discussion, no "reconciliation" would be necessary. It would follow automatically.

It is the neomodernists in the Vatican City who are the problem, not the SSPX. It is theologian Benedict XVI who is part of the problem. Not the SSPX.

It is about dogma and personal orthodoxy and legitimacy of the ecclesiastical offices exercised by alleged neo-modernists since 1958.

That is the core issue. Not this decree of "excommunication" or the ambiguous 'Summorum pontificum' motu-proprio.

It is about dogma and real continuity. Not 'development in continuity' according to Hegel, Kant, Le Fort, Heidegger and other modern erroneous philosophers, as Ratzinger seems to pursue by a claimed "hermeneutic of continuity" while simultaneously receiving a "Messianic horn" from Jews and praying unshoed inside a mosque next to an imam. Thesis-antithesis-synthesis is nót continuity. Continuitiy is essential identicity. This essential identicity of pre-Conciliar and (post-)Conciliar "official teaching" has not been proven. It must be for all traditional, orthodox Roman Catholics now in Resistance against neo-modernism and the neo-protestant Novus Ordo Mass.

Jeff said...

This is what I predicted--and I don't remember anyone else predicting it--way back when Ratzinger was first elected Pope.

He would

1. Free the old Mass
2. Simply lift the excommunications and restore the SSPX to full communion and all the problems that would bring to them.

cdntrad said...

I've been praying for the removal of the late-Archbishop's excommunication for a couple years. I would be more hesitant in removing the excommunication against Williamson though.

John L said...

Mr. McFarland, describing the Pope as an 'arch-modernist' is slander of the sort that brings the SSPX into disrepute. The principal modernists, Loisy and Tyrrell, denied every doctrine of the Catholic faith except a vague belief in the existence of God (not even that in some cases); Tyrrell, for example, did not believe that Jesus intended to found a Church, and though that St. Pius X was an antichrist (see e.g. David F. Wells, ‘The Pope as Antichrist: The Substance of George Tyrrell's Polemic’, Harvard Theological Review 65 (1972), for some documentation). If these are modernists, what is the Pope as archmodernist? Can you substantiate your claim by citing a single assertion in which he has ever clearly denied a doctrine of the Catholic faith? You should apologize for that remark, although I'm not holding my breath for it to happen.

Anonymous said...

"The Spirit of the Liturgy,"

Jordanes is correct about the title of the book in question. I would still disagree with his version of 'idolatry'. But I will re-read again to be certain.

JXXXXX

Anonymous said...

Dear Jeff:

Lifting the decree of excommunication will not 'restore the S.S.P.X to full communion', whatever that is (since communion is an absolute, like pregnancy and death).

In law, the action will only affect the four bishops. Period. It will not make the Society a regularised organisation and, therefore, in Rome's view, its Masses will remain illicit, even if they do fulfil the Sunday obligation for laics.

The issue is clear and the rest is a smokescreen. The Society says, Resolve the doctrinal issues over Vatican II and we'll accept a canonical structure. Rome says, accept a canonical structure and we'll resolve the doctrinal issues over time. That ordering of events is directly contradictory.

P.K.T.P.

St. Rafael said...

When it comes to being a Modernist, Pope Benedict is a Modernist, but in a different way. He is a mix of Tradition and Modernism.

He is not an all out Modernist like Cardinal Kasper or Cardinal Mahoney. He belives in synthesis.

Having read his books, Cardinal Ratzinger confused me like no other man and I had never seen such contradiction in someone, until found out Pope Benedict is Hegelian.

Pope benedict follows the philosophy of Hegel when it comes to thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis.
The pre-Vatican II Church was the thesis, The Modernist Post-Vatican II Conciliar Church is the Anti-thesis and Pope Benedict wants to have a synthesis.

He actually believes the Modernism and Traditon can be reconcilled together in a Hermeneutic of Continuity. Pope Benedict will and has caused division among Trads, but in the end he will cause much confusion in the Church. Every Catholic is confused when it comes to this Pope.

Jordanes said...

full communion', whatever that is (since communion is an absolute, like pregnancy and death).

If communion is an absolute, like pregnancy and death, how come Catholics who cannot receive communion make acts of spiritual communion?

When it comes to being a Modernist, Pope Benedict is a Modernist, but in a different way.

Or, more likely, he is not a Modernist at all. I'm as inclined to agree with your diagnosis of Pope Benedict as I am with your claim that Vatican II did not invoke the Holy Spirit.

Confiteor said...

Paul Haley,

You have spoken wisely, again. God bless.

Confiteor said...

If one asked who Catholics should agree with Rome or the SSPX, they would say SSPX. And that is where the problem lies.

When Rome in the person of, say, Cardinal Kasper, announces that the Jews need not be evangelized, what is the problem with agreeing with the SSPX???

confiteor said...

The mere fact that most of the denizens of this site think that the current Pope is more or less a friend of tradition, when in fact he's an arch-modernist, pretty much demonstrates the point.

Arch-modernist? That is a slander. You should retract it.

Prove your assertions by specific reference to Pascendi or, by God, hold your tongue.

St. Rafael said...

Jordanes,

Pope Benedict is a Modernist. The difference between him and other Modernists is that he wants to synthesize his Modernism with Tradition, thus throwing everyone off and making Modernism much more dangerous.

Modernism reconciled through the "light of Tradition".

St. Rafael said...

Jordanes,

As far as the Holy Spirit and Vatican II, praying to the Holy Spirit before a session is not formal invocation. To inoke the Holy Spirit FORMALLY in has to be in the documents themselves.

Like by the power of the Holy Spirit, so and so is true and must be believed. There were Anathemas because their decrees were infallible and protected.

Vatican II issued no anathemas or anything that must be believed as binding. There was no mention of the Holy Ghost in any of the documents protectng a statement as infallible.
This was easilly sen in the canons of other Councils.

Vatican II issued nothing in canon form as defintion but used essay form to write pastoral letters.

Anonymous said...

Vatican II could not have invoked the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit would not inspire heresy and dissent.

Benedict XVI is a Modernist (but not a radical Modernist). He supports ecumenism with Protestants, dialogues with Jews and accepts their insults without reply, and now worst of all, is hosting a "study session" in the Vatican with Muslims. Outrageous.

I always pray/wish for the glory days of the Catholic Church, when we stood up for our beliefs without dialog or compromise. Protestants were considered the epitome of heretics. Dialog with Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists was out of the question.

That's what the SSPX still stands for, which is why I admire them so much.

Anonymous said...

For more people here, but especially anonymous 18:46

Prove your assertions by specific reference to Pascendi or, by God, hold your tongue.

- can you argue more seriously? Maybe for you are proofs well-known and obvious, but not for all here.

Thank you for answer.

Paul Haley said...

There is no doubt that the pope and the SSPX differ widely on their views as to what constitutes acceptable Catholic teaching and what the proper role of the Vicar of Christ should be when dealing with other religions.

However, lobbing rhetorical bombs at each other either individually or through surrogates is not the answer. Let's face it, folks, it took a long time for the Church to get into its current condition and it may take quite a long time for it to get back to what it was in previous times, if ever.

Nevertheless, both sides must come together and discuss their differences, quietly and without polemics. Their aim must be to solidify doctrine and dogma along the lines of what the church has always held to be true and held to be sacred.

The Holy Father must welcome the SSPX into full communion with him by lifting the excommunications and the SSPX must submit themselves to legitimate papal authority by expressing their fealty to the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Implicit in this would be that the SSPX cannot be required to accept anything which has not been definitively declared ex cathedra as required belief of all Catholics. Novel interpretations of theology must be left off the table IMHO for any reconciliation to be achieved.

At the same time it must be possible for the SSPX to function unimpeded in the life of the church and in full defense of Holy Tradition in liturgy, practice and belief. No concessions need be extracted towards any practice not in accord with what the Church has always promulgated to be true.

The problem, as I see it from afar, is that Rome wants the SSPX to accept novelties which do not fall into the category of ex cathedra beliefs. In a word they are being told they must silence their voices when unacceptable novelties in practice and belief are sent down the pike, so-to-speak.

This cannot be since canon law gives them the right to speak in defense of the Faith as they know it; in fact, it is against canon law to prohibit such defenses, when respectfully and conscientiously submitted.

I beg both sides to consider above all else the salvation of souls and think seriously what continued "lack of full communion" will mean to the church at large in these perilous times.

St. Rafael said...

Here's some proof:

Cardinal Ratzinger states that the teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete. Teachings against Modernism were pastoral and only for their times.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_093_Rat-TheologianVocation.html

Kevin said...

In that quotation, Ratzinger is affirming the fundamental idea behind the teachings ("The nucleus remains valid") while stating that these teachings can be better articulated in the future. The basic message can't change, but the particulars of how it is expressed can be better stated in the future.

Anonymous said...

It was Pope Pius XII that loosened restrictions on Biblical studies--restrictions that were tightened in response to Modernism. Such restrictions were not the final say.

Likewise, restrictions as to religious liberty were greater when the threat of radical libertines were undermining the very basis of the Catholic society--however, in a more diverse society, again as Pius XII pointed out, the restrictions often must be less.

The underlying truths remain unchanged, but the decisions applying them may change depending on the circumstances.

Anonymous said...

Ad proofs: Thank you.
But the problem of mine is, I am not educated in history of Church as well as you, so I still cannot see the whole proof. Is there any dogma which would be denied by the position of J.R.?

Lets take an example: I have read the bull Unam Sanctam, which had established a doctrine of papal primacy over all secular powers. The core of this doctrine surely remains valid for today, but "...statements concerning the relations between the spiritual and the secular power are of a purely historical character, so far as they do not refer to the nature of the spiritual power, and are based on the actual conditions of medieval Europe." (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html)

In the same sense I understand quoted expression of J.R. concerning modernism.

I would like to ask you, what is wrong? Is his attitude inconsistent with Pascendi Dominici Gregis?

Thank you again, God bless.

Kevin said...

Actually, I would say that the comments left by Anonymous (04 November, 2008 21:51) are a much better explanation of Ratzinger's words in that passage than what I suggested.

Jordanes said...

St. Rafael said: Pope Benedict is a Modernist. The difference between him and other Modernists is that he wants to synthesize his Modernism with Tradition, thus throwing everyone off and making Modernism much more dangerous.

Yes, you already said that. Merely repeating an assertion does not establish the assertion as true. I submit that you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

As far as the Holy Spirit and Vatican II, praying to the Holy Spirit before a session is not formal invocation.

Sorry, I thought when you said "invocation," you meant "invocation."

To inoke the Holy Spirit FORMALLY in has to be in the documents themselves.

And as I pointed out before, Paul VI's usual ratifying colophon for the documents of Vatican II is:

"Each and every one of the things set forth in this Decree has won the consent of the fathers. We, too, by the Apostolic Authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the venerable fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod be published to God’s glory . . . I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church."

Not only did the Council Fathers invoke the Holy Spirit every morning, but they invoked the Holy Spirit when the Pope approved the documents.

Like by the power of the Holy Spirit, so and so is true and must be believed.

Not even Vatican I invoked the Holy Spirit in that fashion, so I guess you'd question Pastor Aeternus.

Vatican II issued no anathemas or anything that must be believed as binding. There was no mention of the Holy Ghost in any of the documents protectng a statement as infallible.

Can error be established in the Holy Spirit?

This was easilly sen in the canons of other Councils.

Since you know so little about Vatican II, I have to doubt that you know all that much about the earlier councils.

Poperinghe said...

If the Pope was smart he would remove the excommunications tomorrow then the liberal media would be too distracted to attack him!

John McFarland said...

Gentlemen,

I wish I were a slanderer, but I'm just a guy telling the truth to those who don't want to hear it, and with rare exceptions obviously haven't bothered to actually read what the SSPX has to say at any length.

Here's what you need to do. Go on the SSPX websites and start reading what the Society and its allies say about the Pope's various pronouncements both before and after he became Pope.

If you can understand what's being said, come back and report to us why you think what's being said is wrong.

And while you're at it, explain why the Pope never makes himself very clear, and why what he has to say is so little like the work of the pre-conciliar fathers and doctors and saints.

Is it because these are different times? Then why is there less difference between St. Augustine and Father Garrigou-Lagrange,who were born roughly 1500 years apart, than between Father G-L and Josef Ratzinger, who were born about fifty years apart?

And in particular, be ready to explain how the Pope can tout a "healthy secularity." Secularity is worldliness. Jesus tells us in no uncertain terms that we must hate the world. Is Jesus also behind the times?

And don't forget the explanation of why the Pope utters the occasional critical subordinate clause about evolution while the Ratzinger Fan Club swoons, but calls a conference on the topic and only invites evolutionists, and has thus far appointed the same number of anti-evolutionists to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences as his predecessor -- none.

Jordanes said...

I wish I were a slanderer

That's a pretty strange thing to wish for.

Mr. McFarland, judging from your comment (which only repeats what you've said here before), you seem to have difficulty understanding the Holy Father and the Fathers of the Church. There's no shame in admitting that one is not equipped to analyse and interpret what the Pope and the Fathers say. We should always pray that God will grant us the virtues proper to our station, and for many people that station is not going to be one that is equipped to theological discourse.

St. Rafael said...

My final word on Vatican II is simple. It is a collection of essays that contain pastoral advice. There are no infallible statements, decrees, or anathemas.

No Catholic is reqiured to believe in or accept Vatican II. It has led to a severe apostasy among other things.

We will see what happens with Vatican II in the next 25 years and when the Full Third Secret of Fatima is released.

St. Rafael said...

As much as people want to close their eyes to Pope Benedict's Modernism, there is his history.

Joseph Ratzinger is a proponent of the New Theology. The New Theology of Von Balthsar, Rahner, De Lubac, and Kung. They were all friends and architechs of Vatican II and the theology of the Church after Vatican II.

They were part of the Resourcement movement or back to the sources.
Pope Pius XII had condemned those errors in Mediator Dei as the heresy of antiquarianism. The idea that one can ignore the organic development of the Church when it came to Scholasticism and the Middle Ages.

The rejection of Thomism or Scholasticism by the generation of Ratzinger has lead to the current crisis.

Jordanes said...

My final word on Vatican II is simple.

I hope you understand that your word on Vatican II is irrelevant. It's only the Church's word on Vatican II that counts.

It is a collection of essays that contain pastoral advice.

And how many of those "essays" have you read, from beginning to end?

There are no infallible statements, decrees, or anathemas.

Well, two out of three isn't a bad showing for you.

No Catholic is reqiured to believe in or accept Vatican II.

That's pretty difficult to square with the Catholic faith.

We will see what happens with Vatican II in the next 25 years and when the Full Third Secret of Fatima is released.

Ah, I see: an oecumenical council can and should be passed over as irrelevant, but just wait until we find out the alleged true contents of a private revelation that no Catholic is required to believe or accept.

The New Theology of Von Balthsar, Rahner, De Lubac, and Kung.

Something tells me you've never read a single work of those theologians. Okay, De Lubac and La Nouvelle Theologie -- but you lump Rahner, Kung, and Von Balthasar all together too? Apparently you don't recall that Ratzinger ended up opposing Rahner's theology and siding with Von Balthasar.

They were part of the Resourcement movement or back to the sources. Pope Pius XII had condemned those errors in Mediator Dei as the heresy of antiquarianism.

No, Pius XII not condemn the error of antiquarianism as a heresy in Mediator Dei -- he did reject it, but not as a heresy (and of course after his death his rejection of antiquarianism was ignored by Bugnini and the Consilium, which is just one of many things that is wrong with the post-conciliar liturgical reform). Mediator Dei is about liturgy, not theology. It was in Humani Generis that Pius XII criticised and warned against problems of Ressourcement and La Nouvelle Theologie. There can be, of course, a similar tendency, an erroneous tendency, animating both liturgical antiquarianism and theological Ressourcement.

The rejection of Thomism or Scholasticism by the generation of Ratzinger has lead to the current crisis.

I'm inclined to agree with you there, although I doubt you really understand either Thomism or Scholasticism (or Neo-Scholasticism for that matter), and even I am only a dabbling amateur here. It's also important to remember that while Thomism holds pride of place in Catholic theology, it is not the "one true Catholic theology."

Anonymous said...

Jordane please explain how The Holy Ghost of Pope John XXIII could declare that nothing new emanating from his Council would be binding on the conscience of men (when he started it) and then change his mind when Pope Paul finished it.

A.M. LaPietra

Jordanes said...

I can't explain that, A.M. LaPietra, because the Holy Spirit of Pope John XXIII never declared that nothing new emanating from his Council would be binding on the conscience of men. You're probably referring to the nota previa of March 6, 1964, of the Theological Commission of the Council, which says, "In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so. We have to distinguish according to the schemata and the chapters those which have already been the subject of dogmatic definitions in the past; as for the declarations which have a novel character, we have to make reservations." Not exactly the same thing as the Holy Spirit never declaring that nothing new emanating from the council would be binding on the conscience of men, but probably close enough.

Anyway, your question isn't directly relevant to the question of whether or not the Council Fathers of Vatican II invoked the Holy Spirit. Whatever of Vatican II is binding and whatever is not binding, it is indisputable that the Council invoked the Holy Spirit. The Church never does anything without invoking the Holy Spirit.

Dan Hunter said...

I am of the strong belief that Vatican Council II will be one day recognized for its pastoral mistakes and ambiguous and misleading language and this fact will be recognized by the Church, as having misled countless numbers of the faithful away from the Truth.
And yes, I have read all of the documents of the Second Vatican Council, along with "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber", and "Iota Unum", which both act as accurate guideposts written by periti who were present at the Council.

I have also read and studied the philology of the wording of previous Church councils and there is a huge rupture in the manner of exposition of Church teaching betwixt the two.

All Praise the Holy Ghost[Spirit] above!

Anonymous said...

Good for you Dan Hunter. I am in the process of reading those texts and thus far concur with your summary. Albeit I am a 'dabbling amateur'.

Anonymous said...

"Pope benedict follows the philosophy of Hegel when it comes to thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis."

So does St. Augustine, who's "De Vera Religione" speaks of Greek philosophy, which he calls the thesis, Roman pragmaticism, which he calls the anti-thesis, and Christianity, he calls the synthesis. Hegelian dialectic is by no means an un-Christian idea, if you consider Augustine Christian.

Aspen

St. Rafael said...

The Council Fathers could have prayed to the Holy Spirit all they wanted, but if noting in the documents is infallible, it does not have the protection of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit protects from error that with the Church says is infallible or free from error. None of that happened with the Vatican II documents.

The Holy Spirit guides these clerics, but nothing says that they have to listen to him, when they had their own agenda to follow and Modernism to inject into the Church.

Had Pope John XXIIII listened to the Holy Spirit and the message of Fatima, he would never have called a Council.

Leo said...

St. Rafael,

Did the third message of Fatima was about the second vatican council?

St. Rafael said...

We do not have the entire Third Secret of Fatima. I have heard that Vatican II could be part of that secret.

The Vatican is still hiding the last part. Antonio Socci has been in the middle of this battle in the last two years with his book.

Fr. Gruner has been talking about this for years.

Jordanes said...

Ah yes, Nicholas Gruner . . .

Anonymous said...

Jordane, I do believe it appropriate to refer to Nicholas Gruner as Fr. Nicholas Gruner. I do not agree with Fr. Cekada who
sometimes posts on this site but I would never refer to him as merely Anthony Cekada. Don't you agree?

A.M. LaPietra

Jordanes said...

He has been suspended a divinis and forbidden to present himself in public as a priest or to use titles such as "Father." Since his ability to exercise his spiritual paternity is impaired in this way, and since he trafficks in apocalyptic conspiracy theory without the approval of Holy Church, I think it at all inappropriate to refer to Mr. Gruner as "Father."

Anonymous said...

Jordanes said, "since he trafficks in apocalyptic conspiracy theory without the approval of Holy Church"

His suspension is due an act of disobedience to his superiors for not quiting his Marian mandate, which he claims is unjust, nevertheless he suspended.

Fr. Gruner's annual conferences draw many followers including scores of priests and religious.

Would you also claim that Mr. Socci, a respected Vatican journalist,is an apocolyptic conspiracy theorist as well since he too asserts that the Third Secret has not been fully revealed? How about the other credible authors unrelated to Fr. Gruner?

Someone on this board recently said that Fatima is only a private revelation and a Catholic need not obey. But isn't that line of thinking incorrect?

The Miracle of the Sun was witnessed by 70,000 people and there were many other documented manifestations that day including healing, conversions, etc.The press was there and the news spread worldwide.

This is hardly a private message, it is
a message for the entire Church and perhaps even apocalyptic. .

The Vatican has not been a good steward of the Fatima message and I pray the Lord's counsel on this. People have good reason to doubt the Vatican's sincerity.

Jerry

Anonymous said...

I remember a Bishop that in 1976 was suspended for ordainining priests in the Tridentine Rite. As far as I know that suspension was never lifted. Was Bishop Lefebvre wrong or was Pope Paul VI who suspended him? The Bishop was merely doing what he was ordained and consecrated to do and that included not following orders that were deleterious to souls. Perhaps the members of the hierarchy that assist Father Gruner should also be villified in your mind. If
Bishop LeFebvre could not claim his title as long as he was suspended, did Pope Benedict act on the proposal to restore the Tridentine Mass at the behest of Bernard Fellay? My point is that the post Vatican II church needs some discerment before accepting everything they want us to swallow.

A.M. LaPietra

Anonymous said...

Also, in the SSPX site somewhere (if someone knows the link please post it) is an account of a Traditionalist liturgist (I believe?) also suspended for following the faith of all time.

He too was not given due process and set to take the authorities to task and demanded proper justice as per canon law. They never responded. This person's challenge is still there unanswered after decades of deliberate effort to sue for justice.

The belief is that the conciliar hierarchy won't respond because then they have to deal with the problems of V2, NO, et al and they know they will loose or at least they don't want to be definitive about things.

Accountability and justice go hand in hand. I wish the defenders of the Curia, V2, Pope Benedict would also demand justice where injustice is apparent.

Anonymous said...

An informative link on Fatima as per comments in this discussion.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Newsletters/2008/Oct-Mar/Fatima.htm

Jordanes said...

Mr. LaPietra, I don't know what members of the hierarchy, if any, assist the suspended priest Nicholas Gruner, but in any case I am not vilifying him.

Jordanes said...

Jerry said: His suspension is due an act of disobedience to his superiors for not quiting his Marian mandate, which he claims is unjust, nevertheless he suspended.

Correct. He is operating outside of and apart from the Church, having no authorisation to do what he does. For him, his personal views on Fatima trump all.

Would you also claim that Mr. Socci, a respected Vatican journalist, is an apocolyptic conspiracy theorist as well since he too asserts that the Third Secret has not been fully revealed?

Yes, Mr. Socci is a conspiracy theorist. Whether apocalyptic or not, I don't know. I'm aware of the arguments some have advanced to support the assertion that the Holy See is deliberately lying about having released the complete text of the Third Secret, but I think those arguments are unconvincing. When the Third Secret was made public, the Holy See itself noted the discrepancies between what the text said and what Sister Lucia had previously said on various occasions. There's no cover-up. (I don't think the interpretation put forward at the time the secret was published is necessarily the right one, though.)

Someone on this board recently said that Fatima is only a private revelation and a Catholic need not obey. But isn't that line of thinking incorrect?

Fatima certainly is only a private revelation. All faithful Catholics believe public revelation ceased with the death of the Apostle St. John. When it comes to private revelations like Fatima, the most the Church says of them is that they are worthy of belief, not that they are a part of the deposit of faith that Catholics must believe.

Since Fatima is private revelation, there is no obedience that a Catholic is bound to regarding it. A Catholic is permitted to accept Fatima, even encouraged to do so, but not required to.

The Miracle of the Sun was witnessed by 70,000 people and there were many other documented manifestations that day including healing, conversions, etc.The press was there and the news spread worldwide.

True, but the visions or allocutions from Our Lady that the children received were not simultaneously received by those 70,000 people.

This is hardly a private message, it is a message for the entire Church and perhaps even apocalyptic.

It is certainly not a public revelation, and while the Fatima apparitions have been approved as worthy of belief, they will never be a necessary part of the Catholic faith.

St. Rafael said...

Fr. Gruner was the victim of an unjust Persecution from Carinal Sodano, a hardcore Modernist.

Fr. Gruner had been working in Canada since 1978 with the written permission of the Bishop of Avellino, were he was ordained.
Sodano ordered Fr. Gruner to return to that diocese if he could not find a new bishop to incardinate him. Cardinal Sodano then tried to make sure this wouldn't happen, but the Archbishop of Hyderabad agreed to incardinate Father Gruner.
Cardinal Sodano refused to accept it even though
The Archbishop of Hyderabad, strongly reaffirmed his decree of incardination with a new decree.

Anyone can read the truth abou the persecution of the great Fatima priest:

http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/defense/notsusvir.asp

St. Rafael said...

Anyone who wants to discover the truth about the cover-up of the Third Secret can watch this video of Chris Ferrara's press conference in Rome on his book "The Third Secret is still hidden":

http://www.fatima.org/targetrome/chrisspeaks.html

Jordanes said...

Christopher Ferrara's article does not mention all of the relevant facts.

Fr. Gruner had been working in Canada since 1978 with the written permission of the Bishop of Avellino, were he was ordained.

He first went there without his bishop's permission, which was granted only upon condition that he obtain incardination with a Canadian bishop. Father Gruner began his Fatimist apostolate in Canada without seeking or obtain permission from the local bishop, and he has never been incardinated in Canada.

Sodano ordered Fr. Gruner to return to that diocese if he could not find a new bishop to incardinate him.

Father Gruner was directed by his bishop to return to his diocese, but he disregarded his promise of obedience and did not answer his bishop's letter. Cardinal Innocenti, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy -- NOT Cardinal Sodano -- then wrote to Father Gruner and instructed him to return to Avellino, but Father Gruner refused. (Christopher Ferrara doesn't mention any of these things in his article). His bishop then, in 1989, repeated his instruction to return or else find another bishop who would incardinate him. In the mid-1990s his bishop issued a decree declaring Father Gruner to be vagus. Father Gruner appealed, but the Holy See ruled in his bishop's favor and confirmed the suspension.

Cardinal Sodano refused to accept it even though
The Archbishop of Hyderabad, strongly reaffirmed his decree of incardination with a new decree.


Again you're confusing Cardinal Sodano with another cardinal, Cardinal Sepe. A Brazilian bishop had offered to incardinate Father Gruner, but Cardinal Sepe told him that Father Gruner would have to take up residence in that diocese for the incardination to be valid, and after that Father Gruner's new bishop could grant him permission to work outside the diocese. The same goes for the Archbishop of Hyderabad's attempt to incardinate Father Gruner. As far as the Holy See is concerned (and it is only the Holy See's judgment that matters), Nicholas Gruner is suspended a divinis, nor is his Fatimist apostolate authorised and approved by the Catholic Church. The Holy See regards Nicholas Gruner's activities as harmful to the faithful, and therefore have approved his suspension and acted to prevent his incardination in any diocese.

St. Rafael said...

The Holy See has been a mess for many years with all sorts of problems, including problems with Modernism.

The "suspended" Fr. Gruner has recieved letters from Stanis Dziwisz, while he was serving as Pope John Paul's top personal secretary, giving Fr. Gruner his blessing, gratiude, and well wishes:

http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/defense/vitallet.asp

http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/defense/dzisup0503.asp

http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/defense/dzisup0104.asp

Anyone who thinks this is strange, doesn't know how the Vatican works.
Pope Benedict wrote the foreword on Cardinal Bertone's book on the Third Secret in which Bertone savagely attacks Antonio Socci.

Antonio Socci has said he has gotten a personal letter from Pope Benedict thanking him for his book on the cover-up of the Third Secret, and all that Socci has done.

Jordanes said...

A little less Fatima, St. Rafael, and rather more Jesus, please. The Our Lady of Fatima apparitions cannot save us. Only Jesus can.

It would appear that the discussion of the rumored decree of removal of the excommunications of the SSPX bishops has run its course, if all we can find to talk about now is suspended priest Nicholas Gruner.

St. Rafael said...

It seems Jordanes that you are a little confused about the Catholic faith and Marian devotion.

Our Lady of Fatima and the message of Fatima is all about Jesus. Fatima is a call to radical conversion to God. Fatima tells us that the world has become evil, that man has ignored Jesus. That men continue to offend God. It was a prophesy that if man did not return to God there would be punishment.

Our Lady of Fatima was sent by Jesus to tell us that God desires man's salvation. Our Lady of Fatima's role is the same role Mary has played throughout history, to take us to Jesus.

We can reach Jesus through Mary with her intercession. All Marian devotion has been about this. God sent Our Lady of Fatima to tell the world that he wants the devotion of the Immaculate Heart placed next to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

In our times, God has willed that many should be lead on the path towards salvation through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Jesus through Our Lady of Fatima has given us many devotions and sacramentals to aid us in grace towards Jesus and his salvation. This includes Our lady of Fatima's request for the daily recitation of the Rosary, and things like the First Five Saturdays, the Brown Scapular, Miraculous Medal, Morning Offering, and reparations.

Jordanes said...

It seems Jordanes that you are a little confused about the Catholic faith and Marian devotion.

Then how come I said "a little less Fatima" instead of "no Fatima"?

You know, it is possible to believe that Fatima is an authentic apparition, as I do, without believing any of the "Fourth Secret" conspiracy theories or obsessing about Satanic cabals in the Vatican and the imminent end of the world.

There is nothing in the Fatima apparitions that obligates one to believe Nicholas Gruner's allegations or to finance his illicit apostolate.

Our Lady of Fatima and the message of Fatima is all about Jesus.

Right -- Jesus, not unprovable conspiracy theories that the Catholic Church has suppressed a private revelation which Catholics aren't even obligated to believe in anyway.

The way you go on about Fatima and Nicholas Gruner, it is as if they loomed far larger in your faith than Our Lord.

St. Rafael said...

Jordanes,

The Third Secret is not "conspiracy". The first and second secrets were about World War II and hell. The last secret says "in Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved, etc."

This "Etc." to this day has never been revealed. They gave the first part about a bishop in white leaving a half-ruined city and being killed by soldiers. The explanation of this and the etc. is still hidden.

Jesus himself told Sr. Lucia that the Holy Father would consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but it would be too late.

The Third Secret is important because it is a public prophesy about the future of the world and how God will punish mankind with a punishment worse than the deluge.

Read my prior post to see why Fatima and Jesus go together and how my devotion to Fatima takes nothing from Jesus but adds to my faith. I choose heaven's plan for peace and the desire of Jesus to come to him through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Fatima and the Third Secret is important because many souls are on the way to damnation and the Third Secret holds the key that will aid the reparation and salvation of millions. The well being of the Church hangs in the balance. Our lord himself warned that the Holy Father will follow King Louis of France into ruin if the requests of Fatima are not heeded.

Joe B said...

Please explain. I thought the issue was framed by the "etc." given to us in the middle of Our Lady's message at Fatima. This would seem to make it very clear whether part of the message is being withheld. Since she surely used no such word, what exact words come before it and after it, thus making a coherent sentence and thought?

Jordanes said...

The Third Secret is important because it is a public prophesy about the future of the world and how God will punish mankind with a punishment worse than the deluge.

No, the only public prophecies that mention such things are found in Holy Scripture. All other such prophecies are private revelations that add nothing essential to the Catholic faith.

Read my prior post to see why Fatima and Jesus go together and how my devotion to Fatima takes nothing from Jesus but adds to my faith. I choose heaven's plan for peace and the desire of Jesus to come to him through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Sure. But that doesn't call for belief in any conspiracy theories about hidden or suppressed secrets and whatnot.

Fatima and the Third Secret is important because many souls are on the way to damnation and the Third Secret holds the key that will aid the reparation and salvation of millions.

No, human salvaton cannot depend on a private revelation.

The well being of the Church hangs in the balance. Our lord himself warned that the Holy Father will follow King Louis of France into ruin if the requests of Fatima are not heeded.

No need to worry about that, then.

Anonymous said...

Dear New Catholic and readers,
pay attention what you are talking about!!!

What decree to be lifted?

Everyone said it was

"late sententiae!!!!

There was no decree.

What needs to be said that there was no basis for stopping Lefebvre's fidelity to his fidelity to Tradition.
Recall the scriptural reference:
The apostles came to Our Lord complaining:
Master, I saw a man exorcising demons in your name and he does not walking with us." The Lord said, what we today must not ignore and forget:
"DO NOT STOP Him. Anyone who works in my name is not going dishonor me. Who is not against us is with us." (St, Mark 9:38-39.)
No one can accuse Lefebre is infidelity to Christ or the Church.

Jordanes said...

Anonymous, you are correct that the excommunications were deemed "automatic" or latae sententiae, and were not decreed. However, the excommunications were announced and confirmed, and that is the sense is which people have been referred to a "decree" of excommunication being lifted or rescinded.

Bear in mind, however, that New Catholic did not himself refer to a "decree," but merely quoted someone else who used that language.

JK said...

Jordanes wrote: "The Holy See regards Nicholas Gruner's activities as harmful to the faithful, and therefore have approved his suspension and acted to prevent his incardination in any diocese."

Unlike cardinal Mahoney, no doubt... Who is an example of obedience and constitutes no danger whatsoever to the faithful...

The problem with legalism, especially in times of crisis, is that it leaves out a great deal of reality, for instance the bigger picture. Therefore, it ends up being pedantic and inhuman. Especially when applied to the Church.

I know very little about Father Grüner. I do, however, dislike pedantic arguments being thrown at people who live in the turmoil created by the like of cardinal Mahoney and as a consequence feel frustrated. Just imagine having that man for your bishop...

Obedience requires trust. And trust will be restored only when Catholics find Church authorities somewhat coherent again. I know that many in Rome are working in that direction, but we´re not there yet.

Let´s be a little understanding.

Anonymous said...

THE NORMALIZATION OF RELATIONS OF THE VATICAN WITH THE FRATERNAL SOCIETY OF ST.PIUS XTH CAN'T COME FAST ENOUGH AND IT BEGINS WITH IRRADICATING THE UNJUST EXCOMUNICATION OF SSPX BISHOPS BY JOHN PAUL 2. 500 ORTHODOX LATIN RITE PRIESTS, PROBABLY ALL THEIR FOUR BISHOPS AND LITERALLY MILLIONS OF CATHOLICS WORLDWIDE WILL BE RECONCILED WITH ROME AND THE REFORM OF THE REFORM OF POPE BENEDICT THE 16TH WILL BEGIN IN EARNEST. THE DEGRESSIVE 60-ISH LIBERAL BISHOPS AND PRIESTS HATE THE VERY THOUGH OF SSPX/VATICAN RECONCILIATION BUT THEY ARE DYING OFF OR RETIRING AND THEIR CUM BY YA INFLUENCE IS FADING. YES SOME SSPX FOLKS WILL JUMP SHIP WHEN SSPX AND THE POPE RECONCILE BUT WHAT THE HELL DIDN'T THE SEDEVACANTISTS JUMP THE SSPX SHIP IN THE PAST BECAUSE THE SOCIETY REFUSED TO NOT RECOGNIZE THE SUPREMACY OF THE PRESENT AND FORMER POST VATICAN 2 POPES---SHALOM