http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/09/tornellian-view-two-points-and-three.html

The Tornellian view: two points and three caveats

The Tornellians of Vatican Insider have some rumors on the "Lefebvrians". Two points stand out:


1. On the Doctrinal Preamble:
It is a short and mediated docuмent, which follows the “Professio fidei” published in 1989 by the former Holy Office and that states three different degrees of assent that the faithful must meet. In essence, a Catholic strives to believe “with firm faith” all that is “within the Word of God” and that the Church defines as “divinely revealed”. Secondly, a Catholic agrees to accept all dogmas stated as such to this day.




Finally, and this is the difficult point for Lefebvrians, a Catholic is required to comply “with religious submission of will and intellect” to the teachings that the Pope and College of Bishops “set when they exercise their authentic Magisterium”, even when they are not stated in a dogmatic fashion, that is final. This is the most significant role of the magisterium, to which, for example, the encyclicals belong.




And many Vatican II docuмents come from it and they should be read, as all the magisterium teachings – the Holy See explains – in the light of tradition and as a development, and not as a breaking point, from previous doctrine, according to hermeneutics proposed by Benedict XVI.




“Accepting the profession of faith contained in the preamble – a Vatican prelate explains to La Stampa – does not mean giving up the opportunity to discuss this or that affirmation of the conciliar texts, or to silence a debate on their interpretation.” But the different interpretations “cannot be used as a pretext to reject the magisterium.”


2. And a supposed deadline: "an invitation to accept [the Doctrinal Preamble] within a month or so."


Here are three Rorate caveats:


1. The time frame is probably less precise and more flexible.


2. The juridical framework (Tornielli insists on "Prelature") would probably be something specific - as we said yesterday, in a post titled with the most important words of Canon 297, the Supreme Legislator has it within his powers the possibility of doing many different and creative things, using existing names (if he wants to) or not. What all should bear in mind are Fellay's clear words: "its exact format cannot be seen but afterwards, and still remains the object of discussion".


3. The third caveat is, of course, this, which seems to come from the Tornellian Illustrated Dictionary of Strange Creatures:



Just like this, one word. Like the Elves or the Unicorns. "So, this is what the Lefebvrians look like!" The names change every week: "Lefebvrists", "Lefebvrites", "Lefebvrians"... Since the only possible reason for Tornielli to continue using this name is to be unnecessarily provocative, we will from now on use our own little name for this style of Vaticanist: the Tornellians.

So if BF rejects this preamble, what then?

Do you think Society/ Roman relations are pretty much done?

Will we launch into the "cold war" territory of the 80's and 90's?

Wait for the next pope?

Will the Society go back to being more hardline in their rhetoric?

The SSPX cannot realistically maintain their stance any longer without becoming sedevacantist. They cannot acknowledge these past 5 popes as legitimate and resis their magisterial teaching, it is simply NOT consistent. If they are real, their magisterium DESERVES the assent of faith.

If they want to refuse FINE. But do yourself a favor, at least GIVE YOURSELF a legitimate reason to do so: Become sedevacantist. Otherwise, the Society is going to become subject to double think and inconsistency.

Actually, sedevacantism would first have to be proven a fact. And since it boils down to opinion and personal interpretation, it cannot be viewed as a fact and therefore the Society can maintain their status as being non-sede. While I admit that the sede thesis could be true, I have no way of knowing either way.

BTW I posted a link to this on AQ at like 1pm, I guess because all I did was post a link noone checked it lol.

Quote from: Gregory I

The SSPX cannot realistically maintain their stance any longer without becoming sedevacantist. They cannot acknowledge these past 5 popes as legitimate and resis their magisterial teaching, it is simply NOT consistent. If they are real, their magisterium DESERVES the assent of faith.

If they want to refuse FINE. But do yourself a favor, at least GIVE YOURSELF a legitimate reason to do so: Become sedevacantist. Otherwise, the Society is going to become subject to double think and inconsistency.

Actually, sedevacantism would first have to be proven a fact. And since it boils down to opinion and personal interpretation, it cannot be viewed as a fact and therefore the Society can maintain their status as being non-sede. While I admit that the sede thesis could be true, I have no way of knowing either way.

You can't recognize heresies that have been formally condemned by the apostolic see? It seems pretty easy to me... :stare:

ok. fair enough.  

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Gregory I

The SSPX cannot realistically maintain their stance any longer without becoming sedevacantist. They cannot acknowledge these past 5 popes as legitimate and resis their magisterial teaching, it is simply NOT consistent. If they are real, their magisterium DESERVES the assent of faith.

If they want to refuse FINE. But do yourself a favor, at least GIVE YOURSELF a legitimate reason to do so: Become sedevacantist. Otherwise, the Society is going to become subject to double think and inconsistency.

Actually, sedevacantism would first have to be proven a fact. And since it boils down to opinion and personal interpretation, it cannot be viewed as a fact and therefore the Society can maintain their status as being non-sede. While I admit that the sede thesis could be true, I have no way of knowing either way.

There is a way.

If the last five popes, or whatever list one proposes, taught objective and unrepentant heresy, they are not popes.  

I don't believe they did, and so were popes.  I don't have a problem.

The sedevacantists believe they did, and so were not popes.  They don't have a problem either.

The SSPX believes they did, but were popes.  They have a big problem.  

There are two ways to resolve this problem.  The road of the FSSP, or the road taken by the Sedevacantists.  The road taken by the SSPX leads nowhere.

The Vatican II Popes did teach heresy. Heresy in Vatican II docuмents:

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Benedict also taught heresy as a Cardinal:

From Joseph Ratzingers book The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood pgs 87-88
"...there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today. One could say the same for the relationship to the seperated Churches of the east. It is obvious that the old category of "heresy" is no longer of any value. Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith fulfilling a positive function the conclusion is inescapable then... Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true place as yet to be determined."

Neo-Cath's and Sede's share Popalatry, they share many of the same ideas, they are false idea's though that cannot be traced for all time. Popalatry is the opposite heresy of Gallicanism, where one thinks they never have to obey the Pope the other thinks they ALWAYS have to obey the Pope even when he contradicts the Ordinary Magisterium(Which is always right).

Let's see, Pope John XXII taught Heresy and was a real Pope, Liberius acted against the faith then repented some 20 or so years later, was a real Pope through the whole the time, Honorius was declared a Heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople and was a Pope, The Borgia Pope turned the Papal Palace into a brothel, his evil son and those who supported his policies were hunted down by the Church after his death, they dug up Caesar Borgia's body to dump it off church property and he was still a Pope.

The People who opposed these people were not schismatic, they were called heroes, Saints, and Doctors of the Church.

I should write a whole post out this weekend about all the Saints who defied Pope's for what was write, then we'll see if Sigismund the Neo-Cath(Neo-Trad?) or the Sede's will call those Saints and Doctors of the Church Catholic or not?

P.S. I have noticed in some of these threads recently that some people don't know the different magisterium definitions.

Ordinary Magisterium is what is and has always been believed originating from Christ and the Apostles which has not been defined. It has not been defined because there was never controversy over it, it is Heresy to contradict what has and has always been believed, when the Church holds Council's(Excepting V2) the Bishops et al study what has always been believed from the first days of the church.

Once they know what has been believed the Pope defines it as such and it becomes a part of the Extraordinary Magisterium whereby an Anathema is attached.

Authentic Magisterium, is anything the Pope says. It authentically comes from the Pope, it dosn't mean it becomes part of the Ordinary Magisterium or Extraordinary Magisterium(Unless what he says meets those conditions) it simply means that the Highest Authority on Earth has said it, if what he said does not Contradict either of the 2 Infallible Magisteriums named above then you must obey it.

Of course this is Ordinary Law, and Canon Law allows for one to disobey for a couple other reasons, IE: What he says to do creates a danger to the faith or someone else's etc.

Hope that helps.