Author Topic: Cardinal Mueller and the SSPX (Read 620 times)

fast777 · « **on:** February 06, 2014, 01:37:04 PM »

Pardon me if this has been discussed at length before but there is a ongoing thread on the SSPX over at Catholic Answers and the Moderator posted this:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=857733&page=2
MODERATOR NOTICE

We are a Catholic apostolate in good standing with the Holy See. We expect our Catholic posters to stand by and with the Holy See when speaking on matters on which the Holy See has spoken. Please refer to the statement by Cardinal Elect Mueller for the current and correct status of the SSPX. No one has the authority to contradict the Prefect for the Sacred Congregation of the Faith except the Holy Father. Please remember that other than the Holy Father the current prefect is the highest ranking authority on these matters.

Cardinal Elect Mueller's last known statement on SSPX

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cdf-head-discusses-the-sspx-liberation-theology-and-divorced-remarried-cath/#ixzz2pQucivra

__________________

Can anybody summarise the general reaction to Cardinal Muellers statement on the SSPX by the SSPX

and the resistance if not too involved.

Pardon me,but I'm not very current on all this.

fast777 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 06, 2014, 02:14:05 PM »

Here is the statement by CMmueller:

Society of St. Pius X
The interview continued with a brief discussion of the Society of St. Pius X, which was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1970 to form priests, as a response to what he described as errors that had crept into the Church following the Second Vatican Council. Its relations with the Holy See became strained in 1988, when Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops without the permission of Pope John Paul II.
The illicit episcopal ordinations resulted in the five being excommunicated, though, in 2009, Benedict XVI, acting through Cardinal Giovanni Re, remitted the automatic excommunication from the four surviving bishops. After that time, doctrinal discussions between the society and Rome were conducted, until the discussions effectively broke down in 2012.

Asked about the position of the Society of St. Pius X, Archbishop Müller said that while “the canonical excommunication” was revoked, “the sacramental one remains, de facto, for the schism: because they have removed themselves from communion with the Church.”
“Having said that, we do not close the door, ever, and invite them to reconcile. But they also must change their approach, accepting the conditions of the Catholic Church and the Supreme Pontiff as the definitive criterion of belonging [to it].”

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cdf-head-discusses-the-sspx-liberation-theology-and-divorced-remarried-cath/#ixzz2sZhWOpxV

fast777 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 06, 2014, 02:42:36 PM »

I would guess this is old(nothing new).

Sorry no need for comment. Thanks

Mama ChaCha · « **Reply #3 on:** February 06, 2014, 02:48:02 PM »

this is what I think is going on:
From the perspective of ++Lefebvre, and anyone else who wasn't down with becoming a protestant while keeping the catholic label, Vatican 2 is totally ignorable.
It was, in fact, a pastoral council, whatever that's supposed to mean, and had absolutely nothing binding in it. As much as I've read of it, there is no magisterial statement making the NO incuмbent upon anyone, ever. If it is in there, someone should dig it up so they can argue about it to canon lawyers because they all agree that vatican 2 isn't binding because it wasn't an ecuмenical council, but a pastoral one.

As to Muller's comment, I have no idea wth no canonical status but not excommunicated means practically. They're not excommunicated, but their sacraments are ilicit, but the NO sacraments of "this is the body of Christ; this is the blood of Christ" is somehow valid and licit? Historically, the SSPX is right so far. If they compromise. Then they join the Vatican 2 heresies and are outside of the church, like the Novus Ordites. (Sorry, but from a canonical perspective and a historical perspective, the new church is a heretical sect that accepts all heresies as truth.) Besides, if you keep doing what you've always done, how can you be accused of changing? But that's the way it's been twisted.

I have searched high and low, and have never once encountered any official magisterial docuмent stating that the TLM is not still the official, normal, regular use form of the mass.
Pope Paul VI saying he likes something isn't the same as going through the magisterum and being approved and promulgated properly.
From what I've read, there is absolutely not one single letter in a word in a sentence in a paragraph of any Vatican 2 docuмent that is binding and incuмbent upon all catholics, save what is quoted and then twisted.
In fact, looking back at other councils, the for-real ecuмenical councils, Vatican 2 is totally out of format with previous counsels and teachings. So it is totally baffling why and how any traditional Catholic ever is supposed to be outside of the church. I think this whole thing is a ploy to force SSPX to submit to the new church in order to obtain that most wanted communion with Rome. However, since Rome has willfully put herself outside of the church and called everyone else heretics, there's little or no chance of communion because Rome is still a heretical sect.
It's like arianism all over again...eventually, all this will be set to rights. But for now, it's a giant pain in the patootie.

fast777 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 06, 2014, 04:17:36 PM »

Quote from: Mama ChaCha

this is what I think is going on:
From the perspective of ++Lefebvre, and anyone else who wasn't down with becoming a protestant while keeping the catholic label, Vatican 2 is totally ignorable.
It was, in fact, a pastoral council, whatever that's supposed to mean, and had absolutely nothing binding in it. As much as I've read of it, there is no magisterial statement making the NO incuмbent upon anyone, ever. If it is in there, someone should dig it up so they can argue about it to canon lawyers because they all agree that vatican 2 isn't binding because it wasn't an ecuмenical council, but a pastoral one.

As to Muller's comment, I have no idea wth no canonical status but not excommunicated means practically. They're not excommunicated, but their sacraments are ilicit, but the NO sacraments of "this is the body of Christ; this is the blood of Christ" is somehow valid and licit? Historically, the SSPX is right so far. If they compromise. Then they join the Vatican 2 heresies and are outside of the church, like the Novus Ordites. (Sorry, but from a canonical perspective and a historical perspective, the new church is a heretical sect that accepts all heresies as truth.) Besides, if you keep doing what you've always done, how can you be accused of changing? But that's the way it's been twisted.

I have searched high and low, and have never once encountered any official magisterial docuмent stating that the TLM is not still the official, normal, regular use form of the mass.
Pope Paul VI saying he likes something isn't the same as going through the magisterum and being approved and promulgated properly.
From what I've read, there is absolutely not one single letter in a word in a sentence in a paragraph of any Vatican 2 docuмent that is binding and incuмbent upon all catholics, save what is quoted and then twisted.
In fact, looking back at other councils, the for-real ecuмenical councils, Vatican 2 is totally out of format with previous counsels and teachings. So it is totally baffling why and how any traditional Catholic ever is supposed to be outside of the church. I think this whole thing is a ploy to force SSPX to submit to the new church in order to obtain that most wanted communion with Rome. However, since Rome has willfully put herself outside of the church and called everyone else heretics, there's little or no chance of communion because Rome is still a heretical sect.
It's like arianism all over again...eventually, all this will be set to rights. But for now, it's a giant pain in the patootie.

Thanks.....I'll just add this and this

"As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. " Summoram Pontificuм Benedict XVI

and

"In conclusion, we wish to give the force of law to all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal." Vatican II Council

I couldn't find the Latin translation for "we wish". I doubt this expression has ever been used in a Catholic Council docuмent.

Imagine if God gave Moses his Ten Wishes.

Rome @ the time new that Quo Primum was a legal and binding docuмent and still does. The Church could have just as easily said "we decree and order all that we have set forth concerning the new Roman Missal to be given the force of law."
But they did not....thus Benedict XVI told the truth. To cover his you know what,he also said the Mass of 1962 and the New Mass where of the same right. But only the few recognize that is ambigous or a lie. if Quo Primum was never repealed as he states.

Thanks for the excellent answer.

fast777 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 06, 2014, 04:35:44 PM »

Sorry I prove again that I am fallible....new SB knew and right SB rite.