Author Topic: Archbishop J.A. DiNoia new VP of Ecclesia Dei Commission (Read 1141 times)

Neil Obstat · « **on:** July 03, 2012, 08:49:48 AM »

Archbishop DiNoia, Ecclesia Dei and the Society of St. Pius X

The native New Yorker, secretary for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, discusses his new role and the challenges he expects, as he becomes vice president of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.

Who's in charge of "regularizing" the SSPX? Here he is!

Source: ncregister.com

They have resurrected the Ecclesia Dei VP office after a 3 year absence, just for the SSPX! Isn't that special?

Interview includes the following:

Your new position is as vice president of Ecclesia Dei, but it’s not clear who you are replacing.

There was a vice president for a while, Msgr. Camille Perl. However, what they’ve done is fill a position which I believe has been empty for three years. I’m not sure when Msgr. Perl went into pensione.

...

Some traditionalists say secular humanism frequently wins over dogmatic assertions in the modern Church. To give an example: The Holy Father has said he wouldn’t have lifted the excommunication on Bishop [Richard] Williamson had he known about his anti-Semitism. But while anti-Semitism is heinous, traditionalists say that such views aren’t a dogmatic position. And yet Catholic politicians can freely speak against the dogma and remain in full communion with the Church. What do you say to such an argument?

That’s a trap. Edward Norman, in his very good book Secularization, says there’s no question that what he calls internal secularization, secular humanism, has definitely invaded parts of the Church. They [SSPX] are probably right about that, and I could give them a longer list of examples than they could probably make themselves.

However, to try and defend Williamson on this basis is disgusting and odious. Is a politician the same thing as a bishop? Give me a break. It’s garbage; it’s sophistry.

Do they want a blanket excommunication of everyone who’s pro-choice? And yet here is a person, a bishop, who openly proclaims a position which the Church is desperately trying to suppress in the Church itself, which is anti-Semitism.

...

Comments include this one, which "raised some eyebrows" :

Posted by Pio on Monday, Jul 2, 2012 9:09 AM (EST):

SSPX is not out of communion with the Church. It is Rome that is no longer Catholic. It is telling that in very first answer given by Apb. Noia to the very first question posed he includes the following; “...I have a framework out of which I can talk with them about their problems.”

It is not the SSPX (or traditionalists at large) who have a “problem”. It is Rome that has a problem with Catholicism. Rome hasn’t been Catholic since at least V-2 (and earlier still if one looks at what bishops around the world were already doing at the turn of the 20th century). That is where the “problem” lies. Unless and until Rome returns to Catholicism, the visible church is in eclipse.

Also in the first answer Abp Noia states: “But if you cease to believe that the Holy Spirit is preserving the Church from error, you cut your moorings.” The moorings were cut by the very Archbishops, bishops, and cardinals when the V-2 council happened. (Let us remember, V-2 was a pastorl council, NOT a dogmatic council. The rupture was caused by the ambiguity of parts of the council docuмents AND BY the actions of the bishops around the world who, either overtly or covertly, by commission or omission, DID NOT refuse the changes perpetrated by the “enlightened” modernists.

Therefore, the visible church is in eclipse. The actual church, the remnant, if you will, SURVIVES and SHALL survive. Our Lord promised us that it would and it shall survive. With due respect, Abp. Noia has it a bit backwards.

I suggest people purchase CDs from Triumph Communications of interviews done with Fr. Malachi Martin and Bishop Williamson to clarify much of the departure from Catholicism that Rome has undergone in the last 75 years.

Clint · « **Reply #1 on:** July 03, 2012, 08:57:45 AM »

These changes of DiNoia, and Mueller, have a direct bearing on the negotiations with the SSPX. These are game changers, a fresh new LOUD WARNING from God to Bishop Fellay and his followers.

God is warning Fellay again afresh, "By their deeds you shall know them".

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #2 on:** July 03, 2012, 09:16:42 AM »

I thought this looked familiar, but I couldn't find the other thread, somehow:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Archbishop-Di-Noia-interview

:confused1:

Anyway,

Yes, it is definitely a sign. Kind of like a blimp hanging in the sky with neon letters.

When Archbishop Lefebvre observed two signs, he knew it was time to consecrate
4 bishops. What were those signs? As Fr. Fox explains in his conference after the
Mass of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, in Canada, it was the first Assisi meeting
in 1986, and it was the answer he got to his "duty" letter that he had sent to the
Vatican and they took 2 years to respond.

If he were alive today, the appointments of Muller, a heretic, and DiNoia, an
obviously extreme Modernist to the mothballed post of VP for Ecclesia Dei,
would be to him clear signs that the Vatican is getting all set to eat the SSPX alive.

There is no change or re-conversion going on. It's "damn the torpedoes, full speed
ahead" for the self-destructive liberals occupying the seat of authority in Rome.

(See Frog and the Scorpion speech by Fr. Fox, after Nativity Mass, Canada)

But you have to admit, they're consistent:

Muller thinks like a Lutheran regarding the Eucharist,

DiNoia thinks he knows some Lutherans who are "SAINTS."

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #3 on:** July 03, 2012, 09:43:03 AM »

DiNoia says he knows some Lutherans who are saints..............

{elevator music}

I just realized, DiNoia might be thinking he knows some Lutherans who play
football in the NFL, on the New Orleans Saints team!

That would make a lot of sense. That would explain a lot.

You think it's funny, but that's how Modernists excuse themselves from a lie.
They have a double mind. They think one thing and say something that sounds like
another thing, but in their mind they keep a secret so what they say sounds like
a different topic all together.

But with Muller, I'm sorry, I can't imagine any way of skirting his heresy.
He's simply a heretic. I don't know any way around that. He's a heretic who is
weasel-wording his heresy, trying to make it sound acceptable, I guess, but it
doesn't sound like anything but heresy to one who is accustomed to hearing
sound, traditional language. That's what happens to you when you immerse
yourself in Modernist rhetoric: you become one of them. You build up a tolerance
for their heretical ideas, by becoming slow cooked in their corrupted language.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #4 on:** July 03, 2012, 09:55:22 AM »

From the Interview:

"The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints."

It's just before the +Williamson section that I quoted.

Clint · « **Reply #5 on:** July 03, 2012, 11:45:26 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

From the Interview:

"The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.".

Actual grace exists out in the world in everything, a mass murderer can receive actual grace while sitting on the toilet, therefore, it is also available in other religions, so-what?

Now, sanctifying grace is a different story, for outside of the Church there is no sanctifying grace. Of course this "bishop" is using language to confuse, rather than to communicate, therefore, he just uses the word "grace".
He's a sophist, and knows exactly what he's doing, he's teaching that outside of the Church there is sanctifying grace, and he knows no one will take him up on this "fine" point.

re: I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints

Here he can mean that he's met Lutherans that were nice people, that lived a more Christian life than most Catholics. Again, this "bishop" is using language to confuse, rather than to communicate, therefore, he does not specify what he means by "saint". He's a sophist, and knows exactly what he's doing, he's teaching that outside of the Church there is salvation, and he knows no one will take him up on this "fine" point.

By their deeds you shall know them. 50 years and Rome has not defined what Vatican II meant to say. Likewise, this "Bishop" will never define what he means by grace and saint. It's easier to catch greased lightning, than it is to grab a progressivist to give a definite answer. Besides, no one will ask them, all the bishops are just like him.

Elizabeth · « **Reply #6 on:** July 03, 2012, 11:57:09 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

From the Interview:

"The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints."

It's just before the +Williamson section that I quoted.

Aw Bless, it sounds just like Benedict Groeschell. :stare:

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #7 on:** July 03, 2012, 12:34:10 PM »

In my opinion, this spells the death knell of any SSPX reconciliation. In this interview Di Noia's answers seem simplistic and seems to show that he fails to grasp the issues at stake. I would bet that Traditionalists in the pews have a better understanding of the issues at stake here and the history.

Is Di Noia the best the Pope can do? Why not make Cardinal Ranjith head of the CDF or VP of Ecclesia Dei? Instead the Pope appoints Levada head of the CDF (a man who forbade the TLM in his diocese), then Muller (who aparently denies the Virgin Birth and the Eucharist(!)), and now Di Noia, who, from this interview, seems as if he would need to be educated from scratch as to the entire Traditionalist argument from square one. His answers sound like those of a poster on Catholic Answers forum. Actually, the professional propagandists there have their arguments down better. The inmates are truly running the asylum.

Muller should be made to answer for his previous comments. But he never will. At least in the US politicians have to answer for their statements. Apparently Catholic Cardinals can make statements apparently contradicting the Faith and it is a "sin" to question them on it. Only the Society's current "freedom" allows them to even publicly call Muller's statements to public attention. If they were reconciled, would they not be forced to be quiet about Muller and take up any concerns "privately" (which means their complaints will be filed in the nearest garbage can)?