The article, signed by Lisa Palmieri-Billig, the "representative of the American Jewish Comittee to the Holy See," was published on 28 July. The American Jewish Comittee and Islam representative, Yahya Pallavicini, explained the conditions under which the Catholic Church could recognize the Society of St. Pius X.
The ecumenical [diabolical?] intervention was provoked by an interview by Curia Archbishop Guido Pozzo included in Christ und Welt (issue 32/2016). Archbishop Pozzo is officially entrusted with the talks with the SSPX as secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.
If the Vatican will "sacrifice" Conciliar Documents for SSPX?
The author summarizes what is clear from the interview that the "Society is no longer excommunicated, but has not yet been reintegrated canonically, and despite some initial concessions, continues to reject some important documents of Vatican II." This raises "more questions", say Palmieri-Billig. The "obvious", but so far unasked questions are:
"On what specific points is the Vatican willing to compromise?" And "If the Vatican is prepared to sacrifice the authoritative nature of some documents of the Second Vatican Council, which - although not a dogma - have become valuable tools for Interreligious Dialogue"
Two key areas are in play. The first area concerns the "Pope Francis' very strong desire for pastoral unity within the church and for reconciliation of theological breakthroughs." This precludes the second region, namely "the important impact on the future of basic documents of the Second Vatican Council". Palmieri-Billig explicitly names the document Nostra Aetate , particularly "the relationship of the Catholic Church and the Jewish people", and Dignitatis Humanae on religious freedom.
The authors complained in the statements about Archbishop Guido Pozzo's "complete absence of any reference" to the historical roots of these documents of Vatican II and "thus the reasons why John XXIII., Paul VI. and the Council Fathers felt it was important." Specifically, Palmieri-Billig referred to "Paragraph 4 of Nostra Aetate on relations between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people". This "omission" was all the more serious because of the "seemingly entrenched theological anti-Semitism" of the SSPX.
"Distorted indoctrination" and "ingrained theological anti-Semitism"
The representative of the American Jewish Comittee then insists that Nostra Aetate of John XXIII. was intended finally to "extinguish the distorted indoctrination" of the charges of "deicide", an accusation that "had already been declared false and absurd by the Council of Trent." The "need for this decision" by John XXIII. was beause he had "become aware through an encounter with Jules Isaac, a survivor of the Holocaust" where Isaac had convinced the pope from the fact that "this rhetoric circulating in Europe had created a suitable environment for the development of wild anti-Semitic stereotypes, which in turn fueled the hatred that made the Shoah possible."
Then the American Jewish Commitee comes to the point: If the SSPX can be canonically recognized "before" talks "about the validity" of Nostra Aetate found a "satisfactory solution", it "would create serious questions".
Palmieri-Billig extensively cites Chief Rabbi David Rosen, the international director of the American Jewish Comittee for interreligious relations with the words:
"I have every confidence in the declaration of Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, who explained that the adoption of Nostra Aetate as a binding document by the SSPX, is a necessary step to ensure that the members of the Society may be formally recognized by the Holy See; and I can not believe that Pope Francis could accept less than that. In addition, I hope that the Holy See, regarding Judaism and the Jewish people, insists in the addition to recognition of the teaching of the Magisterium, on the denial of anti-Semitism that was part of the culture of the SSPX. It was not just about Bishop 'Williamson and a couple other people: The website of the organization has been full of anti-Jewish rhetoric in the past. I want to hope that there is a formal recognition of the statement of Pope Francis in line with his predecessors, which states that it is impossible to be a true Christian if you have anti-Semitic opinions." [David Rosen gets to decide who's Christian.]
The Crux: SSPX or Dominus Iesus ?
Palmieri-Billig shows themselves further concerned about the differing levels of dogmatic binding, which is applied to the various conciliar documents, as Archbishop Curia Pozzo explained in his interview. Pozzo appealed to the will of the Council Fathers on this issue. On November 18, 1964, the secretary for Christian Unity on Nostra Aetate explained that his secretariat had no intention of adopting dogmatic declarations about non-Christian religions but only practical and pastoral norms, which is why Nostra Aetate has no dogmatic commitment. It is therefore, says Archbishop Curia Pozzo, not possible to ask someone, to recognize this document as "binding."
The American Jewish Comittee representatives were also offended at the finding of Archbishop Pozzo, that any interpretation of Nostra Aetate, must include the Declaration Dominus Iesus , on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church 2000, which is "without foundation and should therefore be rejected." The Secretary of Ecclesia Dei warned explicitly in this context against a false interpretation of the "Spirit of Assisi".
Palmieri-Billig represented the statements of Imam Yahya Pallavicini, vice-president of the Italian Islamic Religious Community (COREIS) to the contrary, who is considered to be the "internationally recognized representative of a temperate 'traditional Islam'." Pallavicini had in turn warned the Vatican:
"The international Islamic community follows closely the development of this convergence process of the SSPX for reintegration into the Catholic Church. It is about the sensitivity to find a coherence regarding the pastoral implications of the outcome of the Council and of the document Nostra Aetate. While Pope Francis and the Catholic Church, together with the spiritual authorities of many other religious denominations, celebrate the prophetic value of this Council that initiated the historical cycle of 50 intense years of inter-religious and ecumenical dialogue on providential way, the SSPX appears to downplay at least the this path and this orientation to maintain a traditionalist interpretation that actually denies the spiritual need of respect and fellowship with believers and other confessions believing in a God. In a moment of dramatic international crisis in which the manipulation of religion becomes a hostage of some fundamentalist groups, there seems to arise a claim of 'legitimate violence' against Muslims, Christians and Jews, concerns us and the anachronism and the lack of sensitivity of movements that the Society even wants to force the Church or to teach a different hierarchy of values, than the Council and obedience to the saints and the popes."
"Vilification and delegitimization of the 'Aggiornamento'- John XXIII's Will."
Although the AJC representative noted that Society, representing 70 countrieswith 750Mass locations in the "enormous Catholic world" has only a "relatively small influence" ... "but nothing that happens in this world without effect". Concessions to the SSPX "could easily" lead to a "return of the old prejudices" against other confessions and to "transform to the militant conviction of possessing the only true way to God".
That would be a further step towards the "insulting and delegitimization of the burning desire of John XXIII. according to the 'aggiornamento' of the Catholic Church and to return to the pseudo-religious, anti-Semitic stereotypes that provoked immense suffering of many centuries and ultimately led to the diabolical persecutions and genocides of the 20th century. "
After the authors thundered against SSPX , using the Antisemitism club, they praised "the deeply meaningful silence" of Pope Francis in Auschwitz as "deafening".
Director of Vatican Insider, the papal house vaticanist Andrea Tornielli, explains why his articles and products published by his platform are of particular attention. This also applies to this article by the AJC representatives to the Holy See, where Tornielli allows Jews and Muslims to designate the conditions about which the Holy See should conduct a canonical recognition of the SSPX. Vice versa this means: Should these conditions not be met, it would open up "serious questions". It's a statement in the article of the American Jewish Comittee that someone could read as a threat. Anyway, Tornielli offered the American Jewish Comittee and the Islamic Religious Council the opportunity to be the warning sign for the Vatican. It's an "unusual procedure", because they revolve "around internal Church matters" which are also to be clarified within the Church. It's an "interference" from the outside which must be "considerations rejected in principle" ipso facto, so Messa in Latino .
It is also dubious indeed that the American Jewish Comittee and the Islamic Religious Council are pulling together, to warn the Catholic Church of a "return" to their traditional claim that it was entrusted by Jesus Christ as the "only way to salvation."
Lisa Palmieri-Billig and Yahya Pallavicini
Lisa Palmieri-Billig was born in Vienna. With her Jewish family, she emigrated in 1938 as a small child to New York. During the Second Vatican Council, she worked in the Roman branch of the World Jewish Congress (WJC). She was 25 years, Deputy Chairman of the European section of the World Conference of Religions for Peace, based in New York, founded in 1961 and is today Chairman of the Italian section of this organization. Since 2005, she is the Jewish Vatican expert AJC representative in Italy and the Holy See.
Yahya Pallavicini, born in 1965, is the Imam al-Wahid Mosque of Milan. His mother is Japanese, his father, Felice Pallavicini is from Milan, descendant of a branch of a famous Italian noble family [With strong Masonic connections, fighting against the Church in the 1860s], converted in 1951 at the age of 25 years in Lausanne to Islam. He prefers to speak of a "convergence" and "realignment". Since then, he calls himself Abd al-Wahid and has traveled 30 years in the Islamic world, where he was in Istanbul, Jerusalem and finally introduced in Singapore to Islamic Sufism. In 1980, he himself became a Sheikh (Master) and as such, head of the Sufi brotherhood, Ahamadiyyah Idrissiyyah Shadhiliyyah in Europe. Abd al-Wahid Pallavicini represents a syncretic religious view that all religions lead to "a god". In a chronological sequence have revealed this, the Hinduism, according to Pallavicini, the first link in this chain of revelation that leads to the three monotheistic "Abrahamic" religions, whose perfection is Islam.
In 1986 he took part in the very controversial Assisi Meeting for Peace as the Islam representative, which was organized by the Community Sant'Egidi with the participation of Pope John Paul II.. His son was counted among the 500 most influential Muslims in the world of 2009. In 1998 father and son negotiated as Islamic representatives for the recognition of the Islamic religious community by the Republic of Italy. In 2000 he created the organization called the Islamic Religious Community (COREIS). He is a member of the State Islamic Council of the Italian Ministry of Interior.
In 1986 he took part in the very controversial Assisi Meeting for Peace as the Islam representative, which was organized by the Community Sant'Egidi with the participation of Pope John Paul II.. His son was counted among the 500 most influential Muslims in the world of 2009. In 1998 father and son negotiated as Islamic representatives for the recognition of the Islamic religious community by the Republic of Italy. In 2000 he created the organization called the Islamic Religious Community (COREIS). He is a member of the State Islamic Council of the Italian Ministry of Interior.
Both are part of the elite interreligious establishment.
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: SSPX / ajc / coreis (screenshots)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches....
AMDG
Image: SSPX / ajc / coreis (screenshots)
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
Link to Katholisches....
AMDG
49 comments:
Yes, we must ask the heretics whether or not the SSPX is acceptable. We must seek the approval of the Muslims who rape our children and murder our citizens. Let's ask the Hebrews who said "crucify Him,crucify Him" how we should treat other Catholics. Disgusting.
Both are part of the elite interreligious establishment. The most worrisome/frightening part of the article.
This is outrages! The Muslims and Jews have no business in Internal Church matters. The SSPX is 100% Catholic, I don't believe they need any type of official Church approval, they are Catholic! Why again has the name of Pope John Xlll been tainted. He never called for Nostra Aetate. That was the work of the Modernist Council Fathers who hijacked the Council. Pope John XXlll together with Cardinal Ottaviani drew up 9 schemas that were to make up the Council. The Modernists canceled 8 of the original schemas. Pope John XXlll.s schema on "Religious Tolerance" was booted out of the Council and instead the Modernists invented Ecumenism. The Muslim Religion and today's Jewish Religion have no say whatsoever on Christ's Holy Roman Catholic Church. Those who have decided they do should be made to sign a Doctrinal Preamble. Bunch of heretics!!!
I would find it more than a little doubtful that Muslims in general have ever even heard of the SSPX, let alone engage in any specific hostility towards it. They have other fish to fry.
But looking into the background of the Imam mentioned in the article I would hazard a guess that he is essentially the "house Muslim" of the Jewish interests who are really behind much of the antagonism against the SSPX because they fear, rightly, that any return to Catholic tradition will mean a deeper understanding of the role played by the Jewish extremists in the troubles besetting the Church. The following article (from the Jewish press) about this Imam illustrates what I mean:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/195414
I also seem to recall this Imam was involved in a recent debate about the Shroud of Turin, but I have no specific information about that. In any case I would not take his words too much at face value.
Tancred, please consider having the following question as a poll. Have you ever prayed to Pope John Paul II?
Interesting that Archbishop Pozzo also wants SSPX to recognize the validity of Novus Ordo episcopal consecrations. They want to terminate the true line of Roman Catholic Apostolic Succession!
SSPX has already accepted that. They had a "study" done several years ago by the traditional O.P. group affiliated with them which proved the validity of the Novus Ordo ordinations. HORROR of horrors, of course, but these steps were all put into place to allow the current SSPX leaders to waltz their way into NewChurch.
The "New Church" is actually the Church which has its beginning in Pentecost. The one you are talking about has been on a race to the bottom ever since it was founded by the excommunicated Marcel Lefebvre.
Unless the SSPX unconditionally accepts the entire Magisterium of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council it will never be reconciled to the Catholic Church.
VII is dead. SSPX has overflowing seminaries, explosive growth, as they remain truthful to the Faith of the Fathers. The Church of VII, continues to die with its false hippie "peace and love to all" message, faithless and dying clergy, and lacking liturgy.
VII is dead. SSPX has overflowing seminaries, explosive growth, as they remain truthful to the Faith of the Fathers. The Church of VII, continues to die with its false hippie "peace and love to all" message, faithless and dying clergy, and lacking liturgy.
Anyone with maturity and humility can easily see that the SSPX was chosen by God to preserve the link with Tradition. Everything else is just a lot of hot air.
Anyone with maturity and humility can easily see that the SSPX was chosen by God to preserve the link with Tradition. Everything else is just a lot of hot air.
Correct. And eyes to see and ears to hear. And full of caca too.
Faithful Catholics, Independent Priests, entire religious Orders support and defend the SSPX. So also renowned priests like Fr. Nicholas Gruner, RIP.
Here is the link for the Crusade called for by His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay. http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/bishop-fellay-announces-new-rosary-crusade-16860
Donnacha, a ray of hope:"We cannot, of course, accept this new sabotaged rite of ordination which poses doubts about the validity of many ordinations according to the new rite. ...Now my dear faithful that prayer, this rite of transmitting the power to forgive sin, was simply deleted from the new rite of ordination. There is no trace of it. So this new rite of ordination is not Catholic. And so we will of course continue faithfully transmitting the real and valid priesthood--made valid by the traditional rite of ordination." +Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, June 29, 2016, Econe (https://damselofthefaith.wordpress.com/2016/07/02/econe-ordination-sermon-of-bishop-tissier-de-mallerias-2016/)
John XXIII was the Pope. He had the power to prevent the Council not being hijacked. Anyways he chose not to use this power and allowed things to go in for the worst. And the Church now is paying the consequences 50 years later with the most modernist Pope we ever had.
Gérard K.
Like every Catholic faithful, the SSPX is free to disregard the Vatican II council since it was a pastoral council which didn't issue any dogma.
For my part I accept this council insofar it doesn't contradict previous teachings issued ex cathedra by previous popes, previous councils or previous magisterial statements.
Every Pope since John XXIII has taught that Vatican II contains and teaches the Magisterium of every General Council preceding it.
To say that Vatican II is just a pastoral council is dissemblance at worst, invincible ignorance at best.
It was a doctrinal teaching Council and that's why people like you are so angry with it. The only recourse Trads have is either to walk away like the Lefebvre cohorts or to rationalize themselves silly with this 'only a pastoral council nonsense.'
Vatican II contains more heresies than i care to recount.
Why do you think the enemies of Christ love it?
You all are forgetting something very simple.
Jorge Bergoglio is the boss of the Novus Ordo.If he wants to include Jews and Muslims in any decision,he doesn't have to explain himself to anyone.
The SSPX,if they do indeed formalize a union with the Novus Ordo,must submit to him.
I'm not playing devil's advocate. This is why we sedevacantist's will not submit to Rome until we have a Catholic Pope.
Deo Gratias
Gerard K, Vatican Council ll is not the Council Pope John XXlll called for. His Council was hijacked. He along with Cardinal Ottaviani drew up 9 schemas that was to make the whole of the Council. Look up those 9 schemas of Pope John XXlll, 5 have been translated into English. Read the schemas and weep. Why should the SSPX have to accept the Council as a super dogmatic Council when not even the modernists do. The modernists only speak Vatican ll, they don't follow any of it, they have rejected the whole Council and invented their own Council called "the spirit of Vatican ll". BTW Pope John XXlll only lived to see one session of the Council which he did not sign the final document. After that session he called his closest Cardinal collaborators together to think of a way to gracefully end the Council as he saw trouble ahead. His last recorded words were "End the Council! End the Council!"
Jacques Dumon, Pope John XXlll did have the power to prevent the Council from being hijacked. And he did use that power, he tried to end the Council. He lived to see only the first session which he for some reason did not sign its final Document. Of the 9 schemas written up by Pope John XXlll and Cardinal Ottaviani, 5 have been translated into English.
ON THE SOURCES OF REVELATION (DE FONTIBUS REVELATIONIS)
DEFENDING INTACT THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH
ON THE CHRISTIAN MORAL ORDER
ON CHASTITY, MARRIAGE, THE FAMILY AND VIRGINITY
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
These are the five schemas translated into English thus far, they are working on the other 4. I understand that 2 of the other schemas are titled ON THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY & REMOVING THE ERRORS THAT HAVE CREPT INTO THE CHURCH. John XXlll's Council was prepared to be a great Council in line with Trent and VCouncil l. I found something that shows that Pope John XXlll did not like changes. He was elected in late 1958. At his first Holy Week in 1959 he used the old Holy Week Liturgy and bypassed the new one introduced in 1955 whom Bugnini was the author. Pope John XXlll also booted Bugnini out. But Pope Paul Vl regrettably brought him back. There are two Pope John XXlll, the one falsely presented by the modernist heretics and the true one being discovered by Traditionalists.
To that great and saintly pope? Yes!
It is either ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope are infallible in matters of faith or morals, as the Church teaches, or not.
*
For example in NOSTRA AETATE the Council states that the identity of the God the [Muslims] worship is the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth. The true identity of the one true God, the Creator of heaven and earth is a matter of faith, recited in the Creed. This has caused a lot of argument among Christians i.e., as to whether Muslims worship the one true God. It is either the ecumenical Council Vatican II under Bl. Paul VI got the identity of God right or not. I believe what the Church teaches and that is under the headship of a pope, an ecumenical council cannot err in matters of faith or morals, and I agree with the statement that Muslims adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth.
In my daily prayers I seek the intercession of St. John Paul ll. Many reject his canonization not realizing that it was he who from the beginning of his pontificate spared no effort to restore the Old Latin Mass to its rightful place. In more than 25 years he constantly condemned the errors of Modernism. That is the reason he called for the "Reform of the Reforms. It was a task to restore all things in Christ. There were 279 scientifically inexplicable miracles attributed to his Intercession. After his Beatification then came 100's more miracles. The Congregation for Saints approved his canonization. Bergoglio performed the canonization in the joyful presence of Pope Benedict XVl. It was not Bergoglio who approved his Sainthood, it was God himself with the proof of many miracles.
I disagree and think V2 is an Anti Council.
No I have not and will not Steve.
I do not recognize any public idolater as a "Saint".
For the sake of your own salvation, it is what the Church teaches that matters, whether that is agreeable to you or not.
@Angelo Pacheco Well said and argued. Read recently that not only was there a second miracle through his intercession for the canonization of this great and saintly pope, there were plenty to spare.
Exactly I agree with you.The Catholic Church teaches Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.Muslims are heretical pagans and I reject all who reject Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church.V2 is an anti council. We can debate till we're blue in the face it won't change anything.Ecumenism is satanism and Idolatry.
Throughout my life I have had the good fortune of hearing the sermons of many good and faithful priests. According to them we with the Muslims and the Jews do not worship the same God. We all aim for the same God but the God of the Muslims and the Jews is a false God. The reason! The Muslims reject the mystery of the Trinity and they reject Christ as true God and True Man. The Muslims have lowered Our Lord Jesus Christ to a mere prophet lesser than Mohammed. The Jews reject the mystery of the Trinity, they reject Jesus Christ as True God and True Man. They have it written that Our Lady was a loose girl who came out pregnant and claimed to have conceived by the Holy Ghost and that Jesus never knew his biological Father. So in truth we do not worship the same God. Another important matter is that by virtue of our Baptism our prayers are supernatural. That of the Muslims and the Jew do not have a supernatural effect, their prayers are only human prayers. This is the perennial teaching of the Church
"... the militant conviction of possessing the only true way to God."
But it *is* the only true way to God. That's always been the self-understanding of the Church.
Thewarourtime, the Vatican itself just said that many VII documents, particularly Nostra Aetate, are not only non-dogmatic but are not even binding, and that Catholics are free to reject them. See Archbishop Pozzo's recent interview. Thus, Muslims in fact do not truly worship the One God.
Nice try bud.
Vatican 2 is an anti council but you're wrong.Every 'Pope' since JP2 has advocated "fulfilling and living the council in the life of the Church".That is a fact and I wish I was wrong.If you accept the Novus ordo you must accept the Council.
How absurdly ironic our present time, consider, that the Keys of the Papacy were given by Christ to St Peter only after St Peter declares to Christ, "Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God." Now the present leading members of the Islamic group insists it is a blasphemy worthy of death to say what St Peter declared and then also the "Jewish or Semitic" also declared that Christ must die because of the supposed blasphemy of declaring Himself, Jesus Christ, (since He Himself made the declaration) to be the Son of God, He must die for His blasphemy.
The two groups by their doctrinal agressive denial of Christ the Son of the Living God they offend God. Which makes it so ironic in that the present time accords them such incredible influence. They publish and are given influence to decide who can be called true followers and desciple of Jesus Christ the only Son of God. How darkly ironic are these times.
Anonymous, At a Tridentine Mass the Monsignor who who says only the Tridentine Mass and was once the official Theologian of the Diocese pointed out some theological aspects on the Novus Ordo. He said as does the SSPX that the Novus Ordo is valid, not desirable but valid. He explained that the New Order of Mass has all the necessary essentials which make it a valid Mass. This the SSPX also teaches. So no matter what atrocities a priest conducts at Mass, if he says the words of Consecration correctly then that is the essential for a Mass to be valid. A Traditional priest once admonished me severely because of a statement I made against another priests Mass, his words were, "Do not pretend to know what you do not know!!! That priest went to the Seminary, you did not!!!". That priest I spoke against was Ordained in 1958, so he was well trained as a priest.
I do not belong to the SSPX and my spiritual director (ordained traditional rite by traditional rite Bishop) would disagree with priest ordained in 1958.Until we have a Catholic Pope,these disagreements will persist.
Secondly,not every priest in SSPX recognize the validity of the Novus Ordo.
Third,V2 literally contradicts sacred tradition and sacred tradition plus calls for a "New World Order"
No surprise that the enemies of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Church oppose the return to the Truth.
How could you disagree with the priest Ordained in 1958. I did not go into details of what I spoke against. If some who belong to the SSPX do not accept the Novus Ordo as valid, means nothing. His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay and the other two Bishops accept its validity. They believe it to be deficient and so does Pope Benedict XVl and many Cardinals and Bishops. Cardinal Burke is working on restoring the prayers at the foot of the Altar and also making the ancient Offertory optional in the Novus Ordo. There is much work to be done and its underway, despite Bergoglio!
If true then that is an interesting tidbit, PaxTecum. I was not aware of that about John XXIII.
The Catholic Church is not deficient. Its either right or wrong,true or false.
Error and truth cannot coexist especially in regards to the Magisterium.
Either accept V2 as is and defend it entirely or reject it because it clashes & goes against the beliefs and previous teachings of the Church.One cannot have it both ways.
Not all of Vatican ll is false. An SSPX priest told us at a meeting that Vatican ll has many good things but they are hidden with the ambiguous language it was written in. Not even the SSPX rejects the whole of Vatican ll, only those parts that seem to be a break from the Catholic Church's teaching Tradition. Cardinal Burke made it clear, "We have the Truth" and that Truth cannot be compromised. There are those who have separated themselves from the teaching Tradition of the Church. By Canon Law they incur excommunication Latae Sententiae. The Church is fine and well, it is men who are not.
thewarourtime.com, I agree with you that we must accept all the Teachings of the Church. But times have changed and there are those who are changing the Teachings of the Church. Those we must resist in order to keep the Teachings of Christ and His Church pure and intact. The Magisterial Teachings of the 2000 year history of the Church cannot be changed just because someone is not comfortable with it. As a Cardinal said recently, "We cannot deny that there are many anti-Christ's in the Church today". So today we must labor to find out what the Church truly teaches and what it does not teach.
@Anonymous: Cf. my comments at 1P5 starting here: http://www.onepeterfive.com/abp-pozzo-on-sspx-disputed-vatican-ii-documents-are-non-doctrinal/#comment-2833365543
This for those opposed to the Second Vatican Council yet excited that SSPX has been offered a Personal Prelature:
Personal prelatures are ecclesiastical jurisdictions provided for by the Second Vatican Council - Cf. About Opus Dei > Frequently asked questions > Why did the Church make Opus Dei a personal prelature? [http://www.opusdei.org/en-us/article/why-did-the-church-make-opus-dei-a-personal-prelature/] and also the Apostolic constitution Ut sit by Pope St. John Paul II erecting Opus Dei as a personal Prelature.
Anonymous, On the Internet search for, "the 9 schemas of Pope John XXlll for the Second Vatican Council", you will be able to read the schemas and will be surprised at the type of clear Catholic writing it was written in. Also in the Diary of Pope John XXlll there is an entry from the mid 50's where as Cardinal Roncalli he goes to a certain Country and is outraged that priests were saying Mass facing the people. Pope John immediately spoke to their superior and had that "Severe Liturgical Abuse" (as he put it) stopped. When Teilhard de Chardin began spreading heresy, Pope John XXlll as Cardinal Roncalli took the matter immediately to Pope Pius Xll who quickly condemned Teilhard. So many examples of Pope John XXlll, I believe it was on this site that I read that we Traditionalists must reclaim Pope John XXlll as our own.
thewarourtime, I am very happy that the SSPX has been offered a Personal Prelature and I don't reject the whole of the Council. I am concerned that we had a Council where many Council Fathers were Modernist heretics. This is what Bl. Ann Catherine Emmerich saw in a vision which many believe she saw Vatican ll.
The vision: Bl. Emmerich saw a huge procession of Bishops processing into a very large Church, it seemed to her that they were all the Bishops of the world. Of the majority of those Bishops, out came figures that were ugly, God had her understand that those images presented those Bishops faith and intentions. She saw few Bishops from whom came out beautiful images and God gave her to understand it was the images of their pure faith and intentions.
When in the history of the Church has this ever taken place? V2 started as a huge procession of Bishops entering St. Peter's Basilica, the worlds largest Church. Before the Council even ended, over 300 Bishops gathered at the Basilica of St. Domitilla at night and signed documents in agreement with each other, of the destruction they would strike Christ's Church with as soon as the Council ended.
@PaxTecum57: Thank you! God bless you and yours, and his work at your hands. While I am pleased that SSPX is in talks to regularize their canonical status, I have an uneasy feeling of the moves under Pope Francis' pontificate that to me may result in more confusion for the faithful, and that is not a good thing.
thewarourtime.com, I certainly understand your misgivings of Pope Francis, he himself has earned the misgivings from Catholics. But with the SSPX I am confident. Confident because they are all about God and they will not compromise anything that is of God. The SSPX has complete confidence in the Creator and His Divine Providence. If Pope Francis is setting a trap for the Society, it is already set to be doomed. The Society trusts in Christ and that is the most powerful weapon God has given us. God will never betray anyone who has complete trust in him. God Bless You Abundantly! May Our Lady's Immaculate Heart always protect you and yours!
Post a Comment