An interesting article from Gabriel @ IA.

From Father Roberts' blog Imperium Christi (1st July 2012) at http://kingshipofchrist.blogspot.co.uk/

He is commenting on the interviews of Archbishop Di Noia (Vice-President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission) with CNS and the National Catholic Register in June. He shows how the presence of a "regularize" SSPX in the Conciliar Church would actually legitimize the docuмents of Vatican II and permanently institutionalize the Revolution. (Di Noia's statements are in italic. My highlighting.)

The texts [of the Council] must not be read as they are in themselves, but a something growing; this strange claim undermines his [Di Noia's] whole argument that the problem lies outside the text, not inside it.

Di Noia: I’ve tried to find an analogy for this. Let’s say the American Constitution can be read in at least two ways: Historians read it, and they are interested in historical context: in the framers, intentions of the framers, the backgrounds of framers and all of that historical work about the Constitution. So, you have a Constitution you can study historically and shed a great deal of light on the meaning of it.

However, when the Supreme Court uses the Constitution, when it’s read as an institutional living docuмent upon which institutions of a country are based, it’s a different reading. So what the framers thought, including not only experts upon whom they’re dependent — they are parallel to the bishops, and the experts are parallel to the periti [theologians who serve participants at an ecuмenical council].

Those docuмents have an independence from all of them. I often say that what Council Fathers intended doesn’t matter because it’s how you apply it today that matters. It’s a living docuмent.

Now in the text above, Di Noia makes a comparison between the texts of the Second Vatican Council and the American Constitution.  One would think that the archbishop would stress that the intent of the fathers are key to understanding the docuмents, since the Holy Ghost used them to created these docuмents. But like a true modernist, the past interpretation, even of the fathers of the Council, are ultimately useless. The docuмent is a "living docuмent" in which the intentions of the fathers are useless. In this we see the modernist who has taken the past docuмents and re-interpreted them so as to empty them of the original meaning. No longer must they be understood in the "same sense and meaning" which was the orthodox understanding of Church teachings. Now these docuмents are fluid. Their meaning changes with the times. He shows himself to be a true modernist, despite his "friendliness" to Tradition.

The final point to be considered is a sobering one. The Society of Saint Pius X is necessary to the Church- to bring a certain increase of theological and liturgical richness- but most of all to validate the false and modernist understanding of the Council's continuity with Tradition.

Di Noia: If they are accepted by the Church and restored to full communion, they will be a sort of living witness to the continuity. They can be perfectly happy being in the Catholic Church, so they would be a living testimony to show that the continuity before and after the Council is real.

The very purpose of the approval of the Society is to demonstrate that there is no contradiction between the Council and the past. It becomes a living witness to the fact that there has never been any contradiction between the new teachings- religious liberty, ecuмenism, collegiality- and Catholic dogma. Welcome to Newchurch, where the only dogma is and will always be the Council, as understood in a fluid manner, and of which the Society will be the proof that all is well. Welcome to the ecclesiastical world of 1984.

[/b]

Sounds like Archbishop Di Noa wants to turn the SSPX into some kind of caged parrot that bypassers can look upon and a carnival hawker can say "And here, ladies and gentlemen, in this cage with all its colors so vibrant is the proof needed to show that "Blessed Benedict XVI - soon to be canonized" was correct in saying that the interpretation of continuity means exactly what it means.  There is no rupture in the Church."  

If the new church thinks regularizing the SSPX is a way to make the case for continuity, then why the demands to submit to V-II?  

Why does new church need to validate anything?  They just need to continue the posture that V-II was the New Pentecost and that everything is okay and only cranky old people are clamoring for the Tridentine Mass.  Besides, the New Church already has the FSSP and the ICKSP to be "caged parrots".

By caged parrots, I mean non-self contained units.  Neither the FSSP nor the ICKSP has a traditonal Bishop.  They don't even have a new post-1969 bishop.  And even on the ICKSP website they proclaim their excitement in remaining small but artistically powerful - they don't use those words, but that's pretty much what they mean.

Other than to destroy the Traditional Catholic Faith, I can't think of a valid reason to regularize the SSPX.  If the SSPX were regularized, they would remain traditional until the remaining Traditionalist Bishops passed away from old age and the new bishops would be post-1969ers.  The four were consecrated in 1988.  That means even the youngest of the remaining three is in this late 50's.  If this didn't come to pass, eventually a pope would insist that they use the Paul VI formula.  

Archbishop di Noa's comments highlighted in black are strange indeed.  Or perhaps they are intended as some for m of PsyOps.

For the NewChurch, the FSSP and the ICKSP being "caged parrots" isn't enough.  They want the "crown Jєωel" -the Faith and Legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre to die off...

Quote

...
One would think that the archbishop would stress that the intent of the fathers are key to understanding the docuмents, since the Holy Ghost used them to [create] these docuмents.
...

I say it's a fundamental error to even say that "the Holy Ghost used the fathers"
to make these docuмents happen.  The Holy Ghost does not propagate error
and ambiguity at a Council.  The Holy Ghost was only conspicuous by His ABSENCE
at Vatican II!


The driving force of Vat.II was an unclean spirit, not the Holy Ghost..

-- the unclean spirit of Vatican II.

Very interesting! I'm just curious who Fr. Marshal Roberts is and what is his background? Is he independent, SSPX, sede, etc? His blog looks good.

Is this the same Fr. Marshall Roberts formerly of the SSJ? A quick search on Google will reveal something.

From all accounts, I believe that was a slander.

For the one(s) who like to hit the “dislike” buttons all the time, I encourage you to enter a post of your dislike and be a part of the discussion.  To hide behind a click of a mouse is, well, mousey.

By the title -"Regularize" the SSPX..., AB. Di Noia...legitimizes Vat. II, this is about a serious issue: in disclosing an interesting interview of a top prelate of the (conciliar) Church showing his true cards; even for the accordists to SEE and wake up to the ongoing “false realities” of this SSPX/ROME agreement; regardless of who the author of the article is and of “other” things he may write about.

In other words, if God so chooses to get His providence out by an angel or a donkey, the message will get out regardless of what you think of Gabriel @ IA or Fr. Roberts commentary (whom I do not know).

There are many here, in adding their postings, who are understanding this game and getting the impact of why all of these maneuvers are coming from Neo-Rome.

Any honest discussion from the other side of “dislikers” would be welcome?  If you do not think that the Faith is in deep trouble and is being suppressed from those who are in leader/stewardship positions (…), then go visit the whole article and the interview of Archbishop Di Noia –God’s providence of a modernist “donkey”, to see the Pharisaic corruption, also Neo-Rome’s Assisi program.  As well as, the books and works of Archbishop Lefebvre –God’s providence of a traditional “Angel”, to understand the fight.