Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
New head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller
Topic Started: Wednesday, 19. September 2012, 01:07 (808 Views)
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Angus Toanimo
Sunday, 23. September 2012, 22:35
Mairtin
Sunday, 23. September 2012, 18:07
Angus Toanimo
Sunday, 23. September 2012, 11:11
... this appointment is surely baffling and only serves to reinforce the belief within some Trad circles that the Holy Father is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Thank you, Angus, for once again reminding us of the a la carte nature of those who like to proclaim theselves as Traditionalist but carefully pick which aspects of traditional practice they actually wish to adhere to.
People in glass houses, Mairtin, shouldn't throw stones. Didn't anyone teach you that?
Feel free to remind me when I set myself up as a bishop, claiming the authority to interpret Church doctrine. Or feel free to simply point out where I have instructed other people that they should accept my opinions over those of the Pope and his bishops.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Mairtin
Monday, 24. September 2012, 07:21
Angus Toanimo
Sunday, 23. September 2012, 22:35
Mairtin
Sunday, 23. September 2012, 18:07
Angus Toanimo
Sunday, 23. September 2012, 11:11
... this appointment is surely baffling and only serves to reinforce the belief within some Trad circles that the Holy Father is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Thank you, Angus, for once again reminding us of the a la carte nature of those who like to proclaim theselves as Traditionalist but carefully pick which aspects of traditional practice they actually wish to adhere to.
People in glass houses, Mairtin, shouldn't throw stones. Didn't anyone teach you that?
Feel free to remind me when I set myself up as a bishop, claiming the authority to interpret Church doctrine. Or feel free to simply point out where I have instructed other people that they should accept my opinions over those of the Pope and his bishops.
I'll invite you to kiss my ring since you are implying that I have set myself up as bishop, claiming the authority to authentically interpret Church doctrine.

That aside, do you not think that the SSPX bishops have not had the right formation, and probably a greater degree of education and training than most of their diocesan counterparts? They are valid bishops, with the same training etc, rite of consecration that bishops prior to the Council would have received - or are you now implying that all bishops prior to the Council could not authentically interpret Church doctrine. I'm willing to bet that they were better informed and had greater understanding of theology and Church doctrine than today's bishops. And a lot of today's bishops would have been excommunicated by the Popes that reigned prior to the Council. Would the SSPX bishops been excommunicated by the likes of Pope St Pius V, Leo XIII, Pope St Pius X or Pope Pius XII? No. Why? Because there would have been no difference between them and the SSPX bishops. What do you think would have happened to the likes of ++Mueller? It's a pretty safe bet he would have never headed any diocese, let alone hold any curial office. It is my opinion that the hierarchy prior to the Council would have definitely thought today's crop a bunch of heretics. Progressivism/modernism has been repeatedly condemned in times past. If it was a heresy then, it's a heresy now.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

Angus Toanimo
Monday, 24. September 2012, 08:06

That aside, do you not think that the SSPX bishops have not had the right formation, and probably a greater degree of education and training than most of their diocesan counterparts? They are valid bishops, with the same training etc, rite of consecration that bishops prior to the Council would have received
Valid but illicit and they did not have the same training and formation as other bishops before or after the Council but a very narrow formation within a very dubious theological validity. The SSPX is not in full communion and until it is then any claims that they have any legitimate authority within the Catholic Church are false.
Mairtin made no claims to personal authority he correctly identified the Authority of the Pope who will not be dictated to by Bishops from SSPX. It is time for them to make a choice, accept the authority of the current Pope; the directives of the Second Vatican Council and embrace its spirit of renewal, the authority of Pope Paul VI and his rulings, the authority of Pope John Paul 1 and his rulings and the Authority and rulings of JPII.
They should then be given instruction and successfully complete an examination in the 1983 Code of Canon Law prior to being granted any faculties, (as is required of all other priests and bishops). If they pass these simple tests then they may be considered fit to serve in the ordained priesthood of the Catholic Church, until then however valid their orders are, they are not fit and have no authority and are in no position to dictate terms.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Take the example of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Extremely close to the Popes he served under, prior to Vatican II. Excommunicated by a post-Concilar Pope. Would pre-conciliar popes excommunicated ++Lefebvre? Would they have refused him papal mandate to consecrate bishops for his society? Would his society have been suppressed as it was by the post-conciliar Paul VI? No. It's conjecture on my part but if the Council had not happened, ++Lefebvre would no doubt been elevated to the Cardinalate and may even been elected Pope.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Penfold
Monday, 24. September 2012, 08:31
Angus Toanimo
Monday, 24. September 2012, 08:06

That aside, do you not think that the SSPX bishops have not had the right formation, and probably a greater degree of education and training than most of their diocesan counterparts? They are valid bishops, with the same training etc, rite of consecration that bishops prior to the Council would have received
Valid but illicit and they did not have the same training and formation as other bishops before or after the Council but a very narrow formation within a very dubious theological validity.
If that's the case, why was Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith reported to say he'd be open to the SSPX running his seminary, should they be regularised.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Penfold, as admirable as your intentions are, you missed the point. Mairtin, in his post, implied I have set myself up as bishop. When Mairtin (as he often does) takes a stab at Traditionalists, he is normally referring to laity. Since SSPX clergy weren't mentioned, the dig was at me and other Trad laity.

Fancy that...me a bishop. Thanks, but no thanks.

Edited to clear something up:

The bishops of the SSPX possess no jurisdiction nor claim any. They were consecrated as basically sacramental machines. They exercise no jurisdiction. To do so would constitute an act of schism.
Edited by Angus Toanimo, Monday, 24. September 2012, 09:02.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
draig
Member Avatar

Angus Toanimo
Monday, 24. September 2012, 08:41
Take the example of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Extremely close to the Popes he served under, prior to Vatican II. Excommunicated by a post-Concilar Pope. Would pre-conciliar popes excommunicated ++Lefebvre? Would they have refused him papal mandate to consecrate bishops for his society? Would his society have been suppressed as it was by the post-conciliar Paul VI? No. It's conjecture on my part but if the Council had not happened, ++Lefebvre would no doubt been elevated to the Cardinalate and may even been elected Pope.
Sure. If the Watch Officer on the Titanic had not ordered the ship to turn aside she would have hit the iceberg bow-on and so would not have sunk.

Also, if there had been no jews in Europe then maybe Adolf Hitler would have not decended into racial hatred as an excuse for genocide, so would be highly regarded as a politician and just maybe would have been made the first president of the EEC!

Unfortunately we do not live in a parallel universe and have to deal with THIS reality.

There was another person who was very close to the religious leader of his time and yet decended in to error even whilst that leader was still alive. His name was Peter and he became a great leader - but only after he repented of his error.
Gripe. Moan. Snipe. Ignore any inconvenient truth. Don't provide specific data. Don't, whatever you do, provide links to hard evidence. The Traditional Way To Maintain A Discussion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
To be fair, Draig, I did say it was only conjecture on my part... ;)

Was the SS Titanic actually the Titanic?

There have always been Jews in Europe and they, throughout history, have been treated awfully by many countries and kicked out of most of them. Had there been no Jews in Europe, Hitler would have still targeted Gyspies and other ethic groups, and homosexuals.
Edited by Angus Toanimo, Monday, 24. September 2012, 09:11.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

Angus Toanimo
Monday, 24. September 2012, 08:50
Penfold
Monday, 24. September 2012, 08:31
Angus Toanimo
Monday, 24. September 2012, 08:06

That aside, do you not think that the SSPX bishops have not had the right formation, and probably a greater degree of education and training than most of their diocesan counterparts? They are valid bishops, with the same training etc, rite of consecration that bishops prior to the Council would have received
Valid but illicit and they did not have the same training and formation as other bishops before or after the Council but a very narrow formation within a very dubious theological validity.
If that's the case, why was Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith reported to say he'd be open to the SSPX running his seminary, should they be regularised.
Pay heed to the key phrase;

Quote:
 
should they be regularised.


As part of being regularised they would have to agree a syllabus and accreditation for examinations by a recognised university, with the Congregation for Catholic Education (for Seminaries and Educational Institutions) and all members of the faculty would also have to be approved by the congregation and required to swear the oath of fidelity.
Quote:
 

II. OATH OF FIDELITY ON ASSUMING AN OFFICE TO BE EXERCISED IN THE NAME OF THE CHURCH

(Formula to be used by the Christian faithful mentioned in Canon 833, nn. 5-8)

I, N., in assuming the office of __________, promise that in my words and in my actions I shall always preserve communion with the Catholic Church.

With great care and fidelity I shall carry out the duties incumbent on me toward the Church, both universal and particular, in which, according to the provisions of the law, I have been called to exercise my service.

In fulfilling the charge entrusted to me in the name of the Church, I shall hold fast to the deposit of faith in its entirety; I shall faithfully hand it on and explain it, and I shall avoid any teachings contrary to it.

I shall follow and foster the common discipline of the entire Church and I shall maintain the observance of all ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law.

With Christian obedience I shall follow what the Bishops, as authentic doctors and teachers of the faith, declare, or what they, as those who govern the Church, establish.

I shall also faithfully assist the diocesan Bishops, so that the apostolic activity, exercised in the name and by mandate of the Church, may be carried out in communion with the Church.

So help me God, and God's Holy Gospels on which I place my hand.

(Variations in the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the formulary, for use by those members of the Christian faithful indicated in can. 833, n. 8).

I shall foster the common discipline of the entire Church and I shall insist on the observance of all ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law.

With Christian obedience I shall follow what the Bishops, as authentic doctors and teachers of the faith, declare, or what they, as those who govern the Church, establish. I shall also — with due regard for the character and purpose of my institute — faithfully assist the diocesan Bishops, so that the apostolic activity, exercised in the name and by mandate of the Church, may be carried out in communion with the Church.

NOTE: Canon 833, Nos. 5-8 obliges the following to make the profession of faith: vicars general, episcopal vicars and judicial vicars; "at the beginning of their term of office, pastors, the rector of a seminary and the professors of theology and philosophy in seminaries; those to be promoted to the diaconate"; "the rectors of an ecclesiastical or Catholic university at the beginning of the rector's term of office"; and, "at the beginning of their term of office, teachers in any universities whatsoever who teach disciplines which deal with faith or morals"; and "superiors in clerical religious institutes and societies of apostolic life in accord with the norm of the constitutions."

Taken from:
L'Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
15 July 1998, page 3


I have highlighted a few bits which have caused a few problems for the SSPX both now and in the past. Angus, the SSPX have to accept that they are in error and that it is they and not the Pope who have to make adjustments to their way of doing things if they are to be received back into full communion with the church. I say again the key phrase you need to watch is
Quote:
 
should they be regularised.
for regulisation will require compliance with the 1983 Code of Canon Law.
Edited by Penfold, Monday, 24. September 2012, 09:56.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
draig
Member Avatar

Angus Toanimo
Monday, 24. September 2012, 09:10
To be fair, Draig, I did say it was only conjecture on my part... ;)

Was the SS Titanic actually the Titanic?

There have always been Jews in Europe and they, throughout history, have been treated awfully by many countries and kicked out of most of them. Had there been no Jews in Europe, Hitler would have still targeted Gyspies and other ethic groups, and homosexuals.
Actually she was the RMS Titanic, having been granted a charter to carry Royal Mail.

I also suspect that jews were rather scarce in Europe at the time of Jakcob, but I take your point - minority leaders quite oftern seek to subvert the majority and gain power by using spurious arguments.
Gripe. Moan. Snipe. Ignore any inconvenient truth. Don't provide specific data. Don't, whatever you do, provide links to hard evidence. The Traditional Way To Maintain A Discussion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Angus Toanimo
Monday, 24. September 2012, 08:56
Mairtin, in his post, implied I have set myself up as bishop. When Mairtin (as he often does) takes a stab at Traditionalists, he is normally referring to laity. Since SSPX clergy weren't mentioned, the dig was at me and other Trad laity.
I get the impression Mairtin was referring to the SSPX bishops, not to Angus.

In case that is what he meant, I will clarify that the SSPX bishops did not set themselves up as bishops, they were validly consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, despite him having been ordered by the Pope not to do that. Therefore they were consecrated as bishops, validly but illicitly, in direct disobedience to the Holy Father.

Mairtin
Monday, 24. September 2012, 07:21
Feel free to remind me when I set myself up as a bishop, claiming the authority to interpret Church doctrine.

That won't work, Mairtin. To be a real bishop you will need to persuade a bishop to ordain you to priesthood then consecrate you as a bishop. Don't you dare! Your wife and children won't like it!
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Angus Toanimo
Monday, 24. September 2012, 08:06
I'll invite you to kiss my ring since you are implying that I have set myself up as bishop, claiming the authority to authentically interpret Church doctrine.
I did no such thing and the childishness of your response simply shows the emptiness of your arguments.

Quote:
 
Would the SSPX bishops been excommunicated by the likes of Pope St Pius V, Leo XIII, Pope St Pius X or Pope Pius XII? No. Why?

On the contrary, there is no doubt in my mind that they would have been treated far more harshly than they have been for their blatant disobedience - under some earlier Popes, they could have faced a very hot end on top of a pile of wood.

Can you seriously imagine Pope Pius X tolerating the sort of open defiance that the SSPX demonstrate?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Angus Toanimo
Monday, 24. September 2012, 08:56
Mairtin, in his post, implied I have set myself up as bishop.
I did no such thing.

Quote:
 
... the dig was at me and other Trad laity..

The only "dig" I was having at you and (some) other Trads is the way in which you disparage recent popes. On this forum, you have regularly referred to Pope John Paul II in terms that I doubt would be tolerated from any other poster. Yourself and another regular poster here run another forum where the current Pope has been described in terms that are nothing short of disgusting for a forum claiming to be Catholic .

Quote:
 
The bishops of the SSPX possess no jurisdiction nor claim any

They claim the authority to advise their followers not to participate in the Ordinary form of Mass specified by the Church and celebrated by the Pope himself, even where that means them failing to discharge their Sunday obligation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mairtin
Member Avatar

Rose of York
Monday, 24. September 2012, 18:06
That won't work, Mairtin. To be a real bishop you will need to persuade a bishop to ordain you to priesthood then consecrate you as a bishop.
You never know, Rose ... Sinead O'Connor was ordained by Michael Cox who makes similar claims as the SSPX that his consecration was illicit but valid :stirthepot:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16380
Quote:
 
The new prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) has said that traditionalist Catholics advance a “heretical interpretation” of Vatican II if they claim that the Council made radical changes in Church teaching.



http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/concilio-20155/
Quote:
 
The custodian of faith on the “heretical interpretations” of the Council
According to Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, traditionalists show a lack of orthodoxy when they point to the Second Vatican Council as the winter of the Catholic Church
Gianni Valente
Rome

Those who consider the Second Vatican Council, or Vatican II, to be a break from Church Tradition, offer a “heretical interpretation” of this great ecclesiastical event. And this doctrinal error is not made only by modernist innovators: it is also committed by neo-traditionalists who believe that Vatican II supposedly turned its back on the “traditional Church”. The suggestion that the traditionalist position may have “heretical” elements was made yesterday evening by Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, current Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. His remarks came during the presentation of volume VII of the German edition of Joseph Ratzinger’s “Opera Omnia”, a systematic collection of all the works which the theologian-turned-Pope dedicated to the Council and the documents that came out of it. The presentation took place in a very evocative place: the Teutonic College of Santa Maria dell'Anima which was expert-theologian Joseph Ratzinger’s logistical base during the Council sessions.



During his presentation, the head of the doctrinal dicastery, clearly stated that the only orthodox interpretation of the Second Vatican Council is that which sees it as an opportunity for reform and renewal, in continuity with the one subject-Church which the Lord has given us. Müller sees this as the only hermeneutics that respects “the indissoluble unity between the Holy Scriptures, the complete and integral Tradition and the Magisterium, which finds its highest expression in the Council, presided over by St. Peter’s Successor, as visible head of the Church.”



Archbishop Müller contrasted this “singular orthodox interpretation” with a “heretical interpretation” which he identified with “the hermeneutics of a split, both on the progressivist front and the traditionalist front.” According to Müller, what they both share in common is a rejection of the Council: “progressivists want to leave it behind them, as if it were just a phase that should be abandoned in order to move towards a different Church; traditionalists do not want to move towards such a Church, as if it represented the winter of the Catholica.”



In his speech, the former bishop of Regensburg described the contribution of Joseph Ratzinger, first as a theologian during the actual Council meetings (as a theological advisor to Cardinal Joseph Frings also) and then during the long and turbulent reception phase of the conciliar teachings. “It was a time of great expectation. Something big had to happen,” Benedict XVI wrote in the preface to the German volume presented by Müller.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply