 |
| Kardinal Christoph von Schönborn © Pressefoto bischofskonferenz.at |
As if the World Were Still in Order
The Cardinal previously entered the Order of the Dominicans in 1963. With him were 18 novices.
Then the instruction was in Latin, he recalled.
He is supposed to have received a classical Dominican education.
With the Second Vatican Council the Crisis Came
During the Council -- in the years 1964 or 1965 -- the "great Church crisis" began.
There were unbelievable "upheavals, ruptures, but above all ruptures".
The Church had seen ruptures, launches, transitions and beginnings, spluttered the well-spoken Cardinal.
Total Collapse
In the novitiate of the Dominicans the most recent reports from the Council were read during mid-day.
An unbelievable mood of enchantment reigned. The largest however:
"Withing a few years, the Cloister almost lost half of its number. The vocations dropped radically.
Brothers who had been years in the Cloister, married and went away.
Within ten years 80,000 priests in the Catholic Church left their offices to marry.
You must understand that my euphoria about the rupture of the Council simply from that, what I had experienced, is very defined.
It was much more in view of the rupture, but it was a powerful rupture. It was a powerful downturn, also."
The Council Heralded the Decline
Cardinal Schönborn explained that the Austrian Dominican Province had closed the three of its four cloisters:
"From the four Dominican cloisters, which were in Austria, only one would remain."
Much of it which was then existing in the 50s and 60s are today, lost.
A Clearly Non-Existent Generation
Catholic children and youth found themselves to be in a minority.
The Cardinal noted this from his own experience in the parishes. There are "sometimes" even individual youth.
Upon asking the children, who had more classmates in the school, who regularly went to Mass on Sunday, he received the answer: "I am the only one".
The Cardinal concludes from that one Generation - obviously non-existent - may grow, which is experiencing a radical experience of practicing Christianity as a minority.
Link to kreuz.net...
THE SSPX ACCEPTS VATICAN COUNIL II ACCORDING TO TRADITION (DOGMA): SECONDARY ISSUES PREVENT RECONCILIATION
ReplyDeleteThe SSPX accepts Vatican Council according to Tradition and rejects the Council as a break from Tradition and so will criticize the non traditional version which rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
According to Vatican Insider there are three conditions presented by the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) to the Vatican before they can accept Vatican Council II and receive canonical recognition.
Here are the conditions:
1.“The freedom to preserve, share and teach the sound doctrine of the constant Magisterium of the Church and the unchanging truth of the divine tradition and the freedom to accuse and even to correct the promoters of the errors or the innovations of modernism, liberalism, and Vatican II and its aftermath.” Discerning Catholics will always criticize the we-can-see-the-dead-version of Vatican Council II.
The Muller-Koch-Ladaria-Di Noia version of Vatican Council II claims those dead and saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire,elements of sanctification tc are known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation. This results in a new interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
They want the SSPX to accept this error and not criticize them for their irrationality.
2. The exclusive use of the Liturgy of 1962. The retention of the sacramental practice that we currently maintain (including: orders, confirmation, and marriage).
3.‘The letter also includes other conditions which are considered desirable but not essential: the possibility of having a separate ecclesiastical court of the first instance; the exemption of the houses of the Society of St. Pius X from the diocesan bishops and a Pontifical Commission for the tradition of Rome, which depends directly from the Pope, with the majority of the members and the president in favour of tradition.’
The SSPX has accepted Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of continuity, they are in accord with Tradition (the dogma).
The issue really is no more Vatican Council II which the SSPX accepts according to the dogma as indicated in their communique of July 19,2012. Here it is:
'the Roman Catholic Church, the only Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation and no possibility of finding the means that lead to it.. -SSPX Communique.
According to the SSPX version of Vatican Council II all non Catholics need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation (to avoid Hell) and there can only be an ecumenism of return.-Lionel Andrades
SSPX ASK CARDINAL SCHONBORN AND BISHOP GERHARD MULLER TO ANSWER THE TWO QUESTIONS WHICH CARDINAL SEAN O'MALLEY WILL NOT : ENTIRE CONCEPT OF VATICAN COUNCIL II CHANGES
ReplyDeleteThe Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) communique ( July 19, 2012) supports the priest from Boston on whom the Archdiocese placed sanctions.
This is why its seems to us opportune to reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the only Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation and no possibility of finding the means that lead to it; in its monarchical constitution, willed by Our Lord, which means that the supreme power of governance over the whole Church belongs to the pope alone, the Vicar of Christ on earth; in the universal kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the creator of the natural and supernatural order, to whom every human being and all society must submit. - SSPX Communique(Emphasis added).
The SSPX communique is saying there is no possibility of finding the means of salvation outside the Catholic Church. It is not possible to know anyone with implicit desire or who will be saved in invincible ignorance. Humanly this is not real.
It is possible to accept in theory, in faith and in pricniple that someone can be saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience (LG 16) but not as a known possibility on earth. The SSPX is affirming the literal interpretation of the dogma as was done by Fr.Leonad Feeney. So they are answering positively the two questions asked of the Archdiocese of Boston weeks back and to which there is no response. The two questions are:
1) Do we personally know the dead saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc ?
2) Since we do not know any of these cases, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
If the SSPX would ask Bishop Gerhard Muller to respond to these two questions the CDF Prefect would have the same understanding of Vatican Council II as the SSPX.Probably this frightens the Archdiocese of Boston .
We now know that Fr.Leonard Feeney the priest from Boston answered the two questions in harmony with Tradition and was falsely penalized for rejecting the baptism of desire, as if the baptism of desire was relevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma.
If Cardinal Gerhard Muller says that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston rejected the literal interpretation of the dogma, then it means there was an objective mistake made by the Holy Office.The baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma. It is irrelevant to the dogma.
If Cardinal Muller and Cardinal Schonborn agree that we do not know the dead saved then it means LG 16 is not an exception to the dogma.So there is nothing in Vatican Council II or the Catechism of the Catholic Chruch which contradicts the literal interpretation of the dogma as expressed in the SSPX communique. We do not know anyone saved with 'elements of sanctification' (LG 8), seeds of the Word, in imperfect communion with the Church and other implicit cases known only to God.
So holding the literal interpretation of the dogma is an affirmation of Vatican Council II according to Tradition. Ad Gentes 7 supports Fr.Leonard Feeney and the SSPX position while LG 16, LG 8 etc are not known exceptions.-Lionel Andrades
That an error was made in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case it was known for a long time: Even the SSPX communique supports the priest from Boston
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/that-error-was-made-in-frleonard-feeney.html#links