Author Topic: Cardinal Brandmuller says Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate Non-Binding (Read 922 times)

Augstine Baker · « **on:** May 22, 2012, 11:21:58 AM »

Cardinal Says Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate Are Non-Binding

Edit: this blurb is from Rorate Caeli, which recognizes what was said in earlier weeks by Cardinal Levada, who had said that the Holy Father was willing to concede points on Vatican II as far as the SSPX is concerned.

What this should do is take the wind out of the sails of those critics within the SSPX who are insisting that the Society will not have the opportunity to speak critically on Vatican II and it will also challenge those critics who frequently attack Catholics who are concerned about the binding nature of Vatican II and what doctrines are obliged for us to believe.

All one needs do now the next time one is criticized for questioning Vatican II is to cite Cardinals Levada, Brandmuller and Msgr Bux. All one needs to do when one says that Vatican II's doctrines won't be permitted to be criticized in the Church is to point to +Brandmuller. There he is, doing just that.

In an interview to Radio Vaticana, Abp. Marchetto answered several questions, including the following: Q. – Let us return to the hermeneutic of discontinuity, of rupture, and the hermeneutic of reform: which one prevails today within the Church?

Quote

A. – Unfortunately, I must say, the one of rupture prevails. I would rather add that it is acknowledged today that not only the extreme fringe - of what was the majority in the Council -, but also the Traditionalist movements say the same thing. For them also there was a rupture. Therefore, there is still much work to be done.

Catholic News Service recorded some interesting words by Card. Brandmüller, who was also present:

In the book, Cardinal Brandmuller said the SSPX and the Old Catholics who rejected the papal infallibility teaching of the First Vatican Council "have in common a rejection of the legitimate developments of the doctrine and life of the church." While the cardinal described the Old Catholics as having an "insignificant role" in global Christianity today, he said the vitality of the SSPX forces the church "to demonstrate that their protests are unjustified. One can only hope this will happen." Asked about the passage in the book, Cardinal Brandmuller told reporters, "We hope that the Holy Father's attempt to reunify the church succeeds." ...

"There is a huge difference between a great constitution," like the Vatican II constitutions on the church, the liturgy and divine revelation, "and simple declarations," like the Vatican II declarations on Christian education and the mass media. "Strangely enough, the two most controversial docuмents" for the SSPX -- those on religious freedom [Dignitatis humanae] and on relations with non-Christians [Nostra aetate] -- "do not have a binding doctrinal content, so one can dialogue about them," the cardinal said. "So I don't understand why our friends in the Society of St. Pius X concentrate almost exclusively on these two texts. And I'm sorry that they do so, because these are the two that are most easy to accept if we consider their canonical nature" as non-binding, he said.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/05/card-brandmuller-nostra-aetate-and.html

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2012/05/edit-this-blurb-is-from-rorate-caeli.html?spref=fb

TKGS · « **Reply #1 on:** May 22, 2012, 12:09:37 PM »

It's interesting that, after 50 years for forcing the heretical doctrines found in Vatican II docuмents down the throats of the faithful, incorporating the humanist philosophy into its Catechisms, preaching heresy from the rooftops, we are now supposed to accept one cardinal's reply in an interview that, "We were only kidding!"

The worst part is that he probably believes that what he said is true. These Conciliarists are most adept a Doublethink. What he says may be true, but only long enough to get his hands on the Society. Then, the first time the Vatican receives a complaint that some SSPX priest discredited one of these docuмents in a sermon heads will roll!

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #2 on:** May 22, 2012, 02:15:57 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

It's interesting that, after 50 years for forcing the heretical doctrines found in Vatican II docuмents down the throats of the faithful, incorporating the humanist philosophy into its Catechisms, preaching heresy from the rooftops, we are now supposed to accept one cardinal's reply in an interview that, "We were only kidding!"

The worst part is that he probably believes that what he said is true. These Conciliarists are most adept a Doublethink. What he says may be true, but only long enough to get his hands on the Society. Then, the first time the Vatican receives a complaint that some SSPX priest discredited one of these docuмents in a sermon heads will roll!

What do you mean "get his hands on the Society"?

What will change as a result of this reconciliation?

Do you have any other evidence either to accuse the Cardinal of being a Conciliarist or of acting in bad faith?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #3 on:** May 23, 2012, 11:31:53 AM »

One of the marks of tyranny is that what is presented as "truth" can change.

Everyone must believe whatever the tyrant proclaims from time to time, even if what is proclaimed contradicts with what was proclaimed previously.

Martin Luther was a typical example. He was not above self-contradiction. And when he was caught with his "hand in the cookie jar," he became furious, threw tantrums, and spewed out vitriolic "hate-speech" (by today's standards anyway) against those who would oppose him, even if they had thought he was their friend.

When Vatican II was in progress, the hackneyed refrain was continuously, Oh, don't worry about binding authority. This is not a dogmatic council. This is a PASTORAL council. Books have been written on all the times that message was shoveled out like piles of manure out of a barn.

Only, after the council was over, gradually did the "dogmatic" theme slowly grow. They first used the excuse of "in accord with the spirit of Vatican II," which gave a temporary window of opportunity to circuмvent traditionally-established norms of definition. Because there were no definitions in Vatican II. It was a NON-DEFINITVE COUNCIL. Nor are there any definitions since Vatican II that are binding on the faithful. We live in a non-definitive age.

This slowly creeping corruption is the work of evil, and therefore it was an unclean spirit, the unclean spirit of Vatican II at work all along.

Saint Paul called it the mystery of iniquity.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #4 on:** May 24, 2012, 02:46:12 AM »

Stealing other people's correspondence and denying legitimate authority and clamoring against "tyranny"?

You sound more like Jacobins than Catholics.