Rorate Caeli

Joint Declarations Are Out of the Question


DICI’s latest English issue (DICI 212) has the translation of the interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay published recently in Fideliter. Here are some excerpts:

In your opinion, are the theologians chosen by Rome representative of mainstream theology in the Church today? Or are they closer to a particular trend? Does their way of thinking align with that of Benedict XVI?

Our interlocutors seem to me to hold very closely to the Pope’s positions. They belong to what we may call the conservative line, in that they advocate the most traditional possible reading of the Council. They desire the good of the Church but at the same time wish to save the Council: that is like trying to square the circle.

***

In the talks, what will be the points of reference, besides Revelation, Scripture, and Tradition? The Magisterium before Vatican II exclusively? Or Church teaching since then also?

The problem concerns Vatican II. Therefore in light of the previous Tradition we will examine whether or not the post-conciliar Magisterium is a rupture.

Some people fear that our theologians, taken with the atmosphere of the Vatican offices, might lower their guard during the talks. Can you reassure them?

We go to Rome to testify to the faith, and the atmosphere of the offices is of little concern to us. Our theologians will meet every two or three months in a large room of the Palace of the Holy Office, not in the offices…

As to the duration of these talks, considering the difficulty of most of the subjects, each needing at least a year or two, could they last any less than five or ten years?

I hope that it will not be so… in any case, when one addresses with someone, whoever it may be, the question of the Mass, of religious freedom, or of ecumenism, one does not need all that time to convince him!

Do you not fear that, in the course of these discussions, Rome will finally end up responding to our objections (concerning religious freedom or the new Mass) with the argument from authority: Rome has decided, and Rome cannot be wrong, etc?

We might fear that, of course, but in this case, it would show that Rome did not really have the intention of participating in discussions. And yet, the debate over Vatican II is incontrovertible. The recent book by Msgr. Gherardini, a well-known Roman theologian, proves it enough. Vatican II can be discussed, it must be.

Shouldn’t we fear that these talks might end in joint declarations, in which the parties agree on common points, but do not resolve the underlying debates, somewhat like the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans on justification?

Joint declarations are out of the question.

***

For those who haven’t read it yet, here is the link to English translations of some interesting excerpts from Bishop Bernard Fellay’s January 2010 Conference in Paris:


Sample excerpt:

Please, let us not use the word negotiations, it completely misses the point. This has nothing to do with negotiating, bargaining—nothing at all…. For us, we must really see this opportunity for the discussions with Rome as truly a disposition of Divine Providence, as truly an amazing grace to be able to present to the highest authorities in the Church what that Church has always said and which, thanks be to God, we have kept; thus, to make it resound at the very top of the Church. To bear witness to the Faith is a great grace. And even at Rome, a certain number [of prelates] are expecting from these discussions—and it’s a direct quote— “very much good for the Church.”

40 comments:

SJH said...

Overall, this sounds encouraging.

Anonymous said...

Your quarrels and your religion are totally irrelevant to real life. Soon Europe will be taken over by Islam. No Catholics have the tenth of the zealous missionary spirit that Muslims have. It is too late.

Anonymous said...

I pray for a successful outcome: SSPX reincorporated into the Church with sufficient protection from it being dismantled by its detractors once inside. We desperately need the reform of the rupture in the Church created by the Council (V II).

Failure of the talks is not an option for Rome or for the SSPX. I fear a protracted break this time would be worse than the reformation.

The current German, French, and English/American Novus Ordo rite and its interpretation of the meaning of V II will take its adherents on a slippery slope to oblivion in another generation or two.

Recent trends in the US indicate the existence of a de facto schism, most notably in Los Angeles dioscese but in other places also. The schism is evolving in an athmosphere of episcopal indifference or defeatism. In my parish, year by year, one sees the emergence of religious indifference and syncretism even among those who are regular church goers.

The recent behavior of the pro-abortion CHA, or the long departed older Catholic academic institutions, and the stubornly dissenting religious sisters are further examples of alienation from the Catholic Church by its previously most consequential members.

The choice for those who are still loyal to the magisterium is clear: save what can be saved with the help of the SSPX. If Rome pushes them away this time the consequences will be tragic for many years to come.

Anonymous said...

Well said!!! I believe that after the Third Secret is released and the Consecration of Russia is done; it will become obvious to the Pope and Rome that Vatican II has to be scrapped! It is as Bishop Williamson said a 'rotten apple'.

M. A. said...

"Well said!!! I believe that after the Third Secret is released and the Consecration of Russia is done; it will become obvious to the Pope and Rome that Vatican II has to be scrapped! It is as Bishop Williamson said a 'rotten apple'."
________________________

The Holy Father has read the third part. He very well knows the warnings of Our Lady, but it seems that he still would prefer to put full credibility in a council he believes was inspired and guided by the Holy Ghost rather than in what he deems merely to be 'private revelation.'

We must pray very much for him because like Peter, he too is wavering. Our Lady cannot obfuscate...but a pastoral Council which deliberately dismissed it's prerogative to teach infallibly, and which was hijacked by liberals?? Well, yes. The results were the work of men, and thus carry no note of infallibility except for the reiteration of already accepted doctrine.

It seems that there is a struggle in the mind of our Holy Father: Vatican II vs. Fatima. How will he decide? So far, he has shown his preference for VII.

Oliver said...

One still wonders why a Rome resigned into accepting her loss of spiritual authority within Christendom and her reduced power in the world would now be seeking the approbation of maverick traditionalists. It is an though she wants that neat changeover as befitting her destiny without the embarrassment of revolt from various quarters.

Mr. Ortiz said...

There is no hope, I believe, for the position that VII must be "scrapped". Rome has the chair; the authority of the VII documents is unquestionable, even as different docs have different levels of authority. It doesn't make a lot of sense to accept the magisterium BEFORE the Council, and REJECT it after the council. Yes, yes, and again yes, the heretical interpretation of VII must stop, must even be condemned, but let's not blame every evil on the VII documents; the liturgical abuse happened after the council closed.

SSPX must accept the authority of Rome, Eternal Rome, but also living Rome, even as they vigorously protest the idiocy that has taken possession of the World and large parts of the Church.

Anonymous said...

How come that we never hear from the Roman theologians? It would be interesting to hear how they think things are going.

-- Brian2

LeonG said...

The objective evidence of rupture is ubiquitous & begins with the liturgy. Anyone who seriously believes the two rites are the same with the same effects must have a very vivid imagination or a fluid phenomenological orientation. They quite clearly come from totally different paradigms with only one that is absolutely and infallibly Roman Catholic.

The pre- & post-conciliar ecumenical & inter-religious models have completely opposing bases also. They are now founded on the convergence principle having almost negated the normal Catholic approach of conversion.

Papal governance has all but vanished in a church which has a very strong decentralised episcopal emphasis with a pope as primus inter pares. This is demonstrated amply by the continual questioning by bishops of papal statements on such issues as abortion, use of condoms, homosexuality, clerical celibacy and others. Some even challenge any notion of papal authority at all. Everywhere we witness disobedience as a norm.

How could SSPX with its pathway clearly set out before it to promote the pre-conciliar traditional paradigm, make a joint declaration? This smacks of the marriage of convenience with Lutherans. This is utterly impracticable.

LeonG said...

"Soon Europe will be taken over by Islam."

Your mohamatenism is cursed with inimical divisions too with a strong trend toward violence and unrequited anger. If Europe succumbs to this then it spells the nether end of civilisation therein. It will not bring unity if it happened but further division, civic strife and inevitable backwardness.

"It is too late."

Laughable arrogance which mohamatens claimed centuries ago but Christianity reasserted itself under the papal banner and removed the threat from Europe.

Anonymous said...

Wonderfully encouraging words from His Excellency!
Things seem to be looking up for the Church and the Holy Father!

D.P.H.

LeonG said...

SSPX does not need options. It needs to be patient and take time. This is because, in the meantime, the post-conciliar church is a crumbling edifice of which the consequences justify a total reassessment of the liberal modernist processes that have infected ecclesiastical life. As this unfolds before our very eyes today this puts the councils into necessary question & suggests that The Confraternity actually possesses the remedy of which the church is in dire need.

Joe B said...

"Your quarrels and your religion are totally irrelevant to real life. Soon Europe will be taken over by Islam. No Catholics have the tenth of the zealous missionary spirit that Muslims have. It is too late."

Man, are you ever backing the wrong horse. It might help if you Muslims actually read history books, but then that would drive you away from that infernal religion of yours, wouldn't it?

It is true that Scripture says the children of the world are much more zealous of their goals than are children of the light, but that imbalance can and has been righted by Divine intervention throughout history. You Muslims have always been better killers. We Catholics have usually been farmers, and usually our nations had no standing armies, or very small ones at best. Yet you failed time and again to overcome our disadvantage. Why so, Muslim?

The gates of Hell shall not overcome God's Holy Faith, and that's a guarantee worth betting your soul on, Muslim.

Jay said...

Why not to work on and publish the 'Guide to V2' and ammend on this accasion all that may be ambiguous and give trouble. I cannot imagine declaration saying, sorry V2 was a reckless mistake, from now on...etc come on!

Anonymous said...

"Laughable arrogance which mohamatens claimed centuries ago but Christianity reasserted itself under the papal banner and removed the threat from Europe."

Key words: "Centuries ago."

Today's reality is today's reality.

Today, the reality is that Pope Benedict XVI has declared that the Catholic Faith is in danger of dying in vast areas of the world.

Anonymous said...

As far as SSPX calls for the "consecration of Russia"...
So let me get this straight- a group that is not subordinate to the Roman See (the SSPX) is calling on another group that is not subordinate to the Roman See (the Russian Orthodox) to be "consecrated to the Blessed Virgin" toward the end that they may convert to the Roman See.
Has Fellay examined the logic of this?
I am an Orthodox Christian myself, and I've had SSPXer's tell me "submit to the Pope!" -to which I immediately reply- "you first!"

Anonymous said...

"Your mohamatenism is cursed with inimical divisions too with a strong trend toward violence and unrequited anger."

When they live among the infidels they act together against them. Whatever you think, they know how to use violence prudently. Every time they set cars on fire they win some concessions, and this is not going to end.

"If Europe succumbs to this then it spells the nether end of civilisation therein."

Bingo!

"It will not bring unity if it happened but further division, civic strife and inevitable backwardness."

At least the few surviving Europeans will have something to live and die for.

"Laughable arrogance which mohamatens claimed centuries ago but Christianity reasserted itself under the papal banner and removed the threat from Europe."

Wake up, there's no "Christianity" more.

Face reality, Europe is filled with cowardly people. Those few who still consider themselves Christians (or religious at all) are usually even more demoralized and always ready to turn the other cheek.

This is not the 16th century. Now the Catholics, Protestants and all other Christian sects are MENTALLY INCAPABLE AND UNWILLING to defend themselves even from the liberal press. How much more is the "love, peace & understanding" type afraid of people who are ready to cut throats if needed?

rezzoni said...

"Papal governance has all but vanished in a church which has a very strong decentralised episcopal emphasis with a pope as primus inter pares."

In effect the roman curia, a centuries-long efficient apparatus, is today totally incapable of acting. The Partito Romano had been curtailed not only by collegiality but according to conservative the renowned {german canonist also by its "internalization".

Paul Haley said...

Who ever said that there should be a joint declaration? Look, doctrine and dogma have been settled for hundreds of years and Trent and Vatican I were the last Councils that treated it specifically. So, then, what can we expect out of the talks? A recognition by the Vatican that the SSPX is now and has always been adhering to the truths of the Catholic Faith, that their bishops and priests are no longer under any suspension whatsoever and the priests of the Society can and should be incardinated for practice of the liturgical books in effect in 1962 in any Catholic diocese much as those of any other order of religious and, furthermore, the bishops of the Society are free to continue to ordain priests for the Society and accept those papal assignments that may be offered to them in future.

Yeah, I know, that elixir of insanity again. The only fly in the ointment - I'm not so sure the Society wants or would accept such a conclusion given the state of the New Order parishes around the world and the utter intransigence of New Order bishops insofar as Tradition is concerned.

Brian said...

It doesn't make a lot of sense to accept the magisterium BEFORE the Council, and REJECT it after the council.

In writing and debating their documents, the Fathers and periti of VC2 REJECTED the magisterium BEFORE the Council; so how is one to take seriously the documents of V2 after the Council?

Anonymous said...

"As far as SSPX calls for the "consecration of Russia"..."

Anonymous:

As for the FSSPX caling for Russia to be consecrated for its conversion, this is not the FSSPX's call, but rather the Mother of God's and therefore Christs,s call.
The Blessed Mother explicitely told Lucia, to tell the Holy Father to Consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart with all of the bishops of the world on one particular day.
She said that once this was done there would be the conversion of Russia to the one true Church, the Catholic Church, and there would be a reign of peace in the world.

Now, you can either believe that the Blessed Mother meant this seriously
or
you can believe that she was lying.
The choice is yours, but we are only free to choose what is true and good.
God bless

D.P.H.

Anonymous said...

I really wonder what a practising muslim is doing here, on a catholic website? hey mr muslim, you may dream of islam taking over Europe, but that will not happen, simply because Jesus Christ the Son of God has promised that the Church will suffer at the end of times but will come out victorious, you may dream that our empty churches, bad priests, weak laity and silly bishops will make us fall, but that will also not happen, you see this is Traditional Catholicism, the kind of Faith that driven out the muslims many times, the weakness of Christianity now will transform itself in a glorious victory over all fake religions and evil sects like yours, go spread your propaganda on other websites, and one more thing, if I were you I would be very afraid, because Traditional Catholicism will be back, before the cult of mohammed even gets to realise that crusaders are on the march again.
Don' t make me laugh, an evil sect who spreads her faith by the sword against the Catholic Faith who was spread by the blood old martyrs and Saints? get lost!!!

Anonymous said...

I see these talks as having limited but important value. As a result of them, Rome may very well issue some clarifications that will exclude certain egregious misinterpretations of Council documents popularised since the 1960s.

So these talks are potentially very good for the Church. That needs to be stressed. Having noted this, I cannot see how these talks can resolve the impasse between the curia and the S.S.P.X. At the end of the day, this will become a discussion about hermeneutical principles. The position of the S.S.P.X cannot be excluded because the Society only follows the constant teaching of the Church in accordance with established (and therefore permitted) standards of interpretation. It may withhold assent from some authentic Church teaching (perhaps) but only where such withholding of assent is allowed by the Church.

The question, then, is whether or not the Church 'refuses to anathematise' cerain alternate interpretations of Church teaching. In other words, the Church could say, in effect:

'We allow the Society to hold its positions and even to condemn interpretations which we do not forbid; however, we refuse to forbid all the intepretations that the Society wants us to forbid.'

Only the Successor of St. Peter has the authority to anathematise any interpretations of Church teaching, so the S.S.P.X cannot force him to do so. It can only urge that. He or his successors might one day issue such limitations on meaning, but no one on earth can require this of the Roman Pontiff. In the end, therefore, the Pope can simply refuse to forbid certain alternate interpretations and shelve such questions for future decades, or even future centuries, or forever.

Since Rome is within her rights (insofar as we can know them) to limit or not to limit interpretations, the Society will one day have to decide if it will accept regularisation or not, Rome having allowed it to continue in its beliefs, which are allowed. At that point, if it refuses to obey, it puts itself into schism.

In the mean time, it is certainly not in schism and can do much good by urging Rome to clarify as much as possible. Since the Society is not in schism and does hold entirely to Catholic positons (or at least has never so far rejected any Catholic teaching), it makes sense for the good of souls to declare publicly and at law that the Society is presumed to be Catholic and has presumably acted under an honest perception of an emergency. Therefore, Rome can declare publicly that its Masses fulfil the obligation and that the Church supplies jurisdiction for its other Sacraments. This should be done soon, while Benedict XVI (not 'Pope Benedict', who is long dead) is still the Supreme Pontiff.

None of this changes the fact that the Pope has a sacred duty to proclaim the truth with the greatest degree of clarity possible to him. But it only for God to say what that entails specifically. We cannot tell if he is doing his best job at this or not. It is not for us to say.

An additional reason for the Pope to recognise Society faculties and Masses is simply that its priests are apparently needed to implement "Summorum Pontificum". It is now clear that Mgr. Jordan of Reims, for example, simply cannot find a priest to offer our Mass every Sunday. None of his priests apparently has the intelligence or knowledge to do so. He needs help! and the Society would be only too happy to supply it.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

I really wonder what a practising muslim is doing here, on a catholic website?

Are we sure that Anonymous commenter is a Muslim? Not every non-Catholic who notes that Europe is in danger of being Islamised and that modern Catholics do not have the zeal to spread the Faith the way Muslims are zealous to spread their false religion is necessarily a Muslim.

Whether he's Muslim or not, he's wrong that "our quarrels and our religion" are irrelevant to real life, or that it is too late to prevent Europe from succumbing to Islam.

Anonymous said...

" It doesn't make a lot of sense to accept the magisterium BEFORE the Council, and REJECT it after the council"

The Fsspx does not reject the magisterium after the Council, it rejects the whole modernistic tendencies, philosophies and humanism that infiltrated the Catholic Church and triumphed at the VCII. The problem is that the people who drafted the documents where already drinking modernism like water, the writings of modern theologians were already in circulation in the 40's, 50's and 60's, in most seminaries. The great Thomist Fr.Garrigou Lagrange speaks of this in his book about the thomistic synthesis.
It is very difficult to attack a philosophical reasoning without attacking unintentionally the people who are "living" that philosophical error. The ordinary magisterium of the church is more or less fallible, the extraordinary magisterium isn't. Cardinal Cajetan wrote a great thesis about this.

Timothy Mulligan said...

Does anyone know whether "The Ecumenical Vatican Council II: A Much Needed Discussion," by Monsignor Brunero Gherardini, is available in English yet? I saw a blog post that suggests it is: http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2010/03/brunero-gherardini-ecumenical-vatican.html.

Irenaeus of New York said...

Anathemas can no longer be declared. Existing ones are still in effect though. Its use was abolished by Pope JPII in the 80's.

Jordanes said...

And any Pope or future Council could readily "unabolish" the anathema if they wanted to. The Church at this time unwisely has put the anathema on the shelf. She needs to get it down and brush off the dust bunnies and put it back to work.

Anonymous said...

Dear Jordanes and company:

Yes, you have a point about the anathemas. But the principle remains valid. The Church can authoritatively declare that certain propositions are inonsistent with the teaching of the Church. She can do so infallibly or otherwise. Even in the latter case, it would be difficult to reverse such declarations. They might be clarified but not likely reversed. At any rate, as long as they were not reversed, the S.S.P.X could be happy with that and the state of necessity might cease.

So what the S.S.P.X needs to do in the end is to submit a list of propositions to be formally condemned (or 'rejected'). These propositions would be very carefully and accurately written so as to condemn the garbage coming from, say, Karl Rahner. In some cases, they would even paraphrae or quote him.

Then Rome would examine them one by one. Let us imagine that Rome would receive 27 of these propositions. She could condemn, say, 14 of them outright, clarify a few and then condemn the clarified versions, and reserve certain others for future consideration.

In addition, Rome could find that no position of the S.S.P.X was incompatible with the Faith, and even that it was free to condemn all 27 of the propositions. However, it would not forbid *other* faithful to adhere to some of those until it had considered them further.

In such a scenario, what could the Society do? It would have to submit and accept regularisation. This would be true even if Rome reserved all 27. The Society cannot be Catholic and yet deny that the Successors of St. Peter alone have the authority to condemn or exclude any given propositions.

Lastly, any Pope can *also* 'unshelve' anathemas any time he wants.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Ireneaus,

The ceremonial anathema--a special excommunication-- was omitted from the new Code of Canon Law. It hadn't been used for decades (well before VII) anyway. In other words, we don't do excommunications with the full ceremony (snuffing out of candles, etc.)

The anathemas used to define the doctrines of the faith are different. They are more general--they don't mean that those who assert those errors received the extra ceremony with their excommunication--they simply mean that person is no longer a member of the faithful by virtue of their heresy.

Anyway, these definitions are possible without using the term anathema. Pius XII did the same thing, but with a different formula, for example:

"45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

Sean said...

I suspect that the Father Feeney solution will be applied at the end of the Vatican-SSPX dialogue.

Father Feeney, at the time of his regularization, was told by the Prefect of the Holy Office (Cardinal Ratzinger)that his "strict" interpretation of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" was legitimate (along, of course, with less strict interpretations).

Pope Benedict may well decide that the SSPX interpretations of the Conciliar documents are legitimate and can be held. This would be a massive breakthrough with historic consequences for the Church.

John McFarland said...

The issue is not the SSPX or the Vatican.

It is the Faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

The virtue of the SSPX is that it upholds every jot and tittle of that Faith. It has no other.

The problem with the Vatican is that it does not uphold every jot and tittle of that Faith. It is trying both the uphold that Faith and cut a deal with the world, and that can't be done.

If the SSPX were to make a deal with the Vatican based on anything but a joint agreement to uphold the Faith, it would betray the Faith and so its whole raison d'etre.

If the Pope were to begin upholding the Faith, the whole Faith, and nothing but the Faith, the SSPX would have no choice but to rally to the Pope, its superior in any event, or betray the Faith and so the Society's whole raison d'etre.

It is not a question of the Vatican's capitulating to the SSPX, or vice versa. It is a question of capitulation to the Faith by everyone who has yet to do so.

If and when the Pope or one of his successors "capitulates," things will be a mess for decades and perhaps even centuries. Indeed, his reward could very well be martyrdom, although more likely in the style of the CIA than of Hadrian or Diocletian or Leo the Isaurian. We traditionalists might end up pining for the calm and quiet decadence of 2010, like the Israelites for the fleshpots of Egypt. But then Jesus didn't promise neat and pretty; indeed, he promised the opposite.

The Faith is what the Apostles learned from Jesus, and have taught directly or indirectly to the rest of us. That Faith is infallible. The infallible extraordinary magisterium is just a fine-tuning of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith in response to heresies. There is no "new" in the Faith. Nor is there any "new" in its evangelization. If you're not evangelizing the same thing that St. Paul taught on Pentecost of 33 A.D., and St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, and St. Augustine to the Angles and St. Isaac Jogues to the Hurons, then you're not evangelizing.

The real distinction is not between what was taught before and after Vatican II; the real distinction is what has been taught as part of the doctrine handed down from the Apostles and what has not, whether on Pentecost in 33 A.D. or yesterday afternoon at 3.

If that is understood, then it is easy to understand that schemes to get the worst excesses of Vatican II "repealed" without hurting the Pope's feelings is politics, not religion, and so just an exercise in rearranging the deck chairs on the conciliar Titanic.

Sheryl said...

Will the subject of annulment come up during these talks? Bishop Fellay and Pope Benedict are on the same side of the issue, I think. Both have spoken out on the fact that too many declarations of nullity are granted on lack of due discretion based on Gaudium et Spes #48, which doesn't add new grounds for nullity. In my opinion, this abuse has practically destroyed the Catholic family in America and has to be taken care of right away.

Roger C. Wilson said...

I didn't take Anonymous No. 1 for a moment as being a Muslim. Pagan, maybe. But of course it does not matter in the least anyway for purposes of assessing his comments. Agree with them or not, but I do not think his last three sentences are beyond the Pale or lacking in evidentiary support.

Roger C. Wilson said...

And I should add, what an impressive fellow, Msgr. Fellay!

LeonG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LeonG said...

"Wake up, there's no "Christianity" more."

If you wish to believe such an illusion then it is your privilege.

What happened centuries ago has repeated itself manifestly many times. It will happen again. The pope rightly draws our attention to the need for action. This is already in process amongst traditionalists.

Unfortunately for false religions when The Christ shall come for the second and last time it will not be for those who adhere to false beliefs but to those who have kept the Gospel truth. In the early Christian era the Romans did all they could to wipe out a small group of Christians but failed. The Huns also made efforts but failed. The mohamatens have tried and failed many times. Unfortunately, you will be bitterly disappointed when the time comes. True martyrdom begins in dying for Our Blessed Lord in genuine repentance for our sins and in forgiving our enemies. Salvation cannot be gained by ruthless conquest and forced conversion. Nor can true martyrdom be won by suicide bombing of innocent civilians or by continual agitation against those who have welcomed you into their homes as we Europeans have: so many immigrants lacking jobs and the proper means of life.

Delusion guides you toward the precipice of the eternal loss of your soul without Jesus Christ as your advocate. Neither natural death nor true Christian martyrdom can keep us from His love.

How can a religion which claims to be true threaten its followers with death if they convert to another religion? When we question the essential elements of mohamatenism they do not stand the test which is why you are not allowed to question them. This is no more than akin to communism which also threatened to take over the world but, as yet has not done so. Who can justify the murder of a daughter because she marries outside of a particular faith?

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"Father Feeney, at the time of his regularization, was told by the Prefect of the Holy Office (Cardinal Ratzinger)"

Cardinal Seper.

LeonG said...

"(along, of course, with less strict interpretations)"

There is a very characteristic post-conciliar liberal compromise to interpretive differences.

Tim said...

12-MILLION ROSARIES
CRUSADE UPDATE
At Econe, during the Pontifical Mass on Easter Sunday, Bishop Fellay announced that the 12 million rosaries have been "greatly exceeded." He also invited all the faithful to pray for the Holy Father who suffers from the media's attacks.