Archbishop Muller has been comparing traditionalists with progressivists. Now, according to this book, we will be considered modernists. Basically any one that doesn't take the "1989 Profession of Faith" which is in the preamble of the agreement with the SSPX, will be considered a heretic. The only way the real Modernists (in Rome) can push their agenda is by playing with words and accusing traditionalists of their own crimes.

Like I said before, it is ironic that now that the SSPX is bending over to join Rome at all cost, Rome is calling the SSPX for the first time ever, heretics, and sede-vacantes (a term unknown to the world).

I think it is God sending clear signals to Bp. Fellay, to abandon his trajectory.

Marie, reading carefully over your link, I don't yet see how it pertains to what Mueller said.

Marie, reading carefully over your link, I don't yet see how it pertains to what Mueller said.

Lately, there has been a bold attempt to undermine traditionalists. First, they (the Romans) begun  to refer to the "reform of the reform" bishops as  "traditional" and the SSPX bishops as "ultra-traditional". Then, they compared us with progressivists and now this book will be used to label us heretics and modernists. So, when +Fellay goes to Rome, they will be the "traditionalists" with everyone that follows him. The rest, I think, will be excommunicated for heresy for not obeying the "authentic magisterium" blindly and not joining the "new Evangelization", acceptance of all the canonizations of the VII popes, etc.

Quote from: Marie Auxiliadora

Quote from: Telesphorus

Marie, reading carefully over your link, I don't yet see how it pertains to what Mueller said.

Lately, there has been a bold attempt to undermine traditionalists. First, they (the Romans) begun  to refer to the "reform of the reform" bishops as  "traditional" and the SSPX bishops as "ultra-traditional". Then, they compared us with progressivists and now this book will be used to label us heretics and modernists. So, when +Fellay goes to Rome, they will be the "traditionalists" with everyone that follows him. The rest, I think, will be excommunicated for heresy for not obeying the "authentic magisterium" blindly and not joining the "new Evangelization", acceptance of all the canonizations of the VII popes, etc.

Bishop Rudolf Graber is dead.

I do think you're right though.  The Fellayites will clamor for the excommunication of those who adhere to the position of Archbishop Lefebvre.

They already call it "practical sedevacantism" to hold to the position of demanding doctrinal agreement prior to a practical agreement.

Telesphorus,

I just saw this article on Messa in Latino (posted below,) I don't know the author and although it is a poor google translation, the author expresses what I was trying to say before.

I don't know who Rudolf Graber was but thhinge book on the link I previously posted is not on Rorate Caeli for nothing. I'm sure they are bringing attention to the book at this time for reason.


Monday, December 24, 2012
About Article Archbishop Müller - Conciliovaticanosecondo.it


The false accusation of heresy to those who criticize the new and ambiguous doctrines of pastoral Vatican II


Paul Pasqualucci

Criticising the new and ambiguous doctrines of pastoral Vatican II mean behave as Protestants, as heretics? No, of course not. Yet it is established and has returned to repeat it, even in authoritative sites. It is now famous article recently appeared on 'Osservatore Romano of 29 November 2012, p. 5, signed by HE Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith, about the "hermeneutic of reform in continuity" invoked - as we know - by Pope Benedict XVI as the only legitimate interpretation of the Council: "This interpretation is the only possible according to the principles of Catholic theology, ie considering the indissoluble whole of Sacred Scripture, the full and complete Tradition and the Magisterium, whose highest expression is the Council chaired by the Successor of St. Peter as the visible head of the Church. Outside of this unique orthodox interpretation unfortunately exists a heretical interpretation, namely the hermeneutic of rupture, both on the side progressive, and on that traditionalist. Both are united by the refusal of the Council; progressives in wanting to leave behind, as it was just a season to leave to arrive at another Church; traditionalists in volervi not arrive, as it was the winter of Catholica. "
I do not know whether it is right to equate the two opposing interpretations critical of the Council. The "traditionalists" I want to heal the ambiguities and expel its mistakes by implication also the question of the validity of the Council. Would be pleased to see a council revised and corrected by the Pope on the basis of the doctrine of the Church always. The "progressives" do not pose the problem of the validity of some of the Council, nor the ambiguities and errors to be eliminated because it contradicts the doctrine of all time, for them there, as they conceive all Christianity in historical-evolutionary. For them, the Council is not to reform nor to invalidate. Instead criticize the compromises in the mens progressive impostasi Council had to submit, hoping that in the practical implementation of such compromises are finally falling at all, to bring out in its completeness the "Church of the Spirit" blown into shares of the conciliar docuмents ammodernanti and the Church of visionary supporters of the New Pentecost, the Church of a New Advent, without hierarchies and totally ecuмenical-community, open to all instances of Modernity, also on the ethical and morals. Church of Satan, it should be remembered, for Catholics remained faithful to the Church's perennial.
The comments of Bishop Müller has responded extremely well prof. Roberto de Mattei on this website, December 5, 2012. For my part, I would just like to add something. First, remember that the heretics generally opposed to Church teaching their own version of Christianity. And that they are doing today "progressives" (or neomodernisti). Those who are now forced dall'amarissima and the ongoing crisis in the Church to criticize the Vatican in the name of tradition, they have no plan to get their own version of Christianity, to propose an alternative current teaching of the Hierarchy, who instead oppose where there is agreement, the Tradition of the Church's teaching that is consolidated for almost twenty centuries of unchanging teaching. Secondly, the Council taught new things openly and in docuмents that are not dogmatic but pastoral. This definitely makes it proper for the examination of the conformity of these news with the traditional doctrine of the Church on the part of the believer that he feels the ability. We see this last point.
1. The first time in the history of the Church, an ecuмenical council aims to teach the "novelty". Art. 1 of the Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom DH, is the famous statement that, "This Vatican Council rimedita sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church, from which it draws new things that are in harmony with the things that [haec Vatican Synodus sacram Ecclesiae traditionem doctrinamque scrutatur, former quibus nova always cuм veteribus congruentia profert] "(DH 1). The Council declares, therefore, to teach "new elements" or "new things" (nova) taken from "peer" or "meditate" Tradition and Scripture. Says not to repeat the same doctrine and tradition in a new way (nine), as was once said, when it came to extrinsic progress of dogma or of a study and a better understanding of some truth of faith, which nevertheless remained absolutely unchanged with respect to its concept. The replacement of nine with nova could naturally give rise to many apprehensions, so that the text explicitly pointed out that it was the intention of the Council "to draw new things" in harmony with the old ones, with the Deposit of Faith. But even the idea of "what is new" from the "sacred tradition and doctrine of the Church", was not in itself completely revolutionary?
It is significant that in my opinion this admission of the existence of a novelty in the teaching of the Council be done in the "introduction" of a text widely innovative as the one on "religious freedom", the concept of which, according to its critics, it seems borrowed almost entirely from the secular principle of the same in the past always vigorously rejected by the Magisterium. As amply demonstrated Monsignor Gherardini and other scholars, none of the "new" proposed by the Council is given the seal of the dogmatic definition. And the news does not find them for sure in those passages in which we re-conciliar dogmas prior or refer infallibility of the ordinary magisterium of the Church. As noted on several occasions the competent scholars, the "congruentia" of the "new things" proposals with the "old" is not yet proven by the Council made ​​reference to the dogmas of the past or to the teachings of the infallible ordinary magisterium or statements of principle loyalty to the dogma. This "congruentia" must be provided promptly, in each case, comparing the new to the old that it is specifically to replace. To give some examples: comparing them with the new definition of the Church of Christ, one of the famous "subsists in" Lumen Gentium 8, with the old, as it appeared, most recently, in the scheme of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church sent to the shredder by Progressives and the new principle of liturgical creativity with what the pre-conciliar Magisterium had always thought, the new definition of inerrancy biblical with the old and the new with the old definition of collegiality that is, with all the previous teaching of the Church on the subject, and so on.
2.'s Faithful is entitled to investigate the "congruentia" of the "new" professed by an Ecuмenical Council, Pastoral only. Given this fundamental point, namely that the Council teaches consciously "new things", we must ask the simple believer is authorized or no, to compare all these "new" with the traditional teaching of the Church, commented on and explained by orthodox theologians, to see if the news are all "in constant harmony with it"? If you answer no, then it requires that the faithful believe the word of the existence of this "harmony" to believe the word without question, as if we were in the presence of a dogmatic Council, infallible truths of faith and costumes on the same way of Trent or Vatican I. But to deny the faithful the right to compare the new ministry and the new doctrine of non-dogmatic Vatican II teaching perenn and the Church, this is a patent contradiction, because it implies give the Vatican a dogmatic expressly forbidden by the Council itself, in the well-known Notificationes affixed at the bottom of the two constitutions "dogmatic" on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium on the Church in the latter together with an important note explicativa praevia. Just as an appendix to these two constitutions, titled dogmatic, had to put a Notificatio the theological note of the teachings of the Council, which is to understand how they are not at all dogmatic. In fact, "given the pastoral purpose of the present Council," they do not define any dogma nor condemn any error!
As a simple believer, I have no right - just as an example - to verify the doctrine of the Incarnation in the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 22 with that has always been taught by the Church? When I am faced with a sentence like this: "For by his Incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every man", my first impression is that of a text that says something strange, never heard it before and at the same time ambiguous. ambiguous because it is unclear why the Incarnation should be concluded "in man" and what it actually means "to some extent" (the famous quodammodo). I find then that in 'Article 432 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the first Encyclical of Pope John Paul II (Redemptor hominis 13) the terms "in a certain way" has been removed. What should I conclude, then? The Pope and the CCC gives us the authentic interpretation of the phrase in question. Therefore, the meaning of the sentence is just to say that the Incarnation is not limited to incarnate Christ in Hebrew Jesus of Nazareth, individual historically existed, but has actually had "every man."
It is clear, however, that with or without the quodammodo, the pastoral Vatican II, a Council that would, in theory, to restrict itself to the truths of faith in a manner best suited to the modern mentality, modific to the concept of the Incarnation of Our Lord to include "any man"! This, then, one of the great and extraordinary news. Being negative for the dogma, there is no need to be a theologian to understand. We must ask ourselves: how could the Word, consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, join the sinful nature of each of us? And the dogma of the Immaculate Conception would still make sense? And that of original sin? And as a "man" would incarnate Son of God? Only in men and women of his generation? And the others? The whole plant of GS 22 does not imply the idea that this "incarnation in man" has ontological meaning, constituting a real impression of the divine eternal nature of each of us? The implication, without saying so openly, thus contributing to the ambiguity of speech which throws into confusion the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation, making it uncertain and deifying man.
If, proceeding always with the method, the simple believer GS 22.2 compares with the teaching front of the Church, what is it? Maybe some ideas that advance? As explained Orthodox theologians, located only a few words from the Fathers of the Church, from the mainly symbolic significance which could create misunderstanding, if interpreted incorrectly. In reality, the thought of the Fathers there is no room for such a concept, it is generally understood to refer to as the Incarnation in its relation to man. The man remains a sinner to be saved and the possibility of salvation, is provided right from the Incarnation of the Only in Jesus of Nazareth, in this one individual, whose earthly mission was to "call sinners, not the just "(Mark 2: 17), so that they could save their souls through the Church which He had founded.
However, lies the famous words of GS 22.2 in the context of the whole article, careful analysis shows that it reaches a culmination of all reasoning announcing the '"highest mission of man," to which Christ has "returned the likeness of God, disfigured by original sin ", thus" revealing man to himself "and raising the human nature in general to a" sublime dignity, "in every man. Apart from the fact, as pointed out by the late German theologian prof. Johannes Dormann, that original sin has made ​​us lose the "likeness of God" (Trent), this whole concept (which reflects the notoriously peculiar personal theology of Henri de Lubac SI) shows an anthropocentrism completely unknown to the Fathers of the Church. In "Letter theological" by S. Leo the Great, adopted unanimously by the Council of Chalcedon, who, in AD 451, as we know, perfectly defined the two natures of Christ, there is no trace of the idea of incarnation "in every man." And that such an idea would represent a doctrinal deviation is shown by the fact that it has been attacked by S. John Damascene (d. 749), whose criticism was revived and theological depth centuries later by S. Thomas.
3. Denying "congruentia" doctrinal an ambiguous text of the council, does not involve any sin of heresy. In this analysis of GS 22, briefly exposed, I have perhaps led by a Protestant, a heretic? I done reveal "the obstinate denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith [ie as dogma] or obstinate doubt of it," as the canonical definition of heresy (CIC 1983, c. 751: CIC 1917, c. 1325 § 2)? None of this, as everyone can see. Analyzing due diligence "novelty" contained in GS 22.2 I have concluded, text in hand, that it does not appear at all in harmony with the traditional teaching of the Church. The texts speak for themselves. If we prove that my interpretation is wrong, I would not object. I therefore remain disciplined in waiting for a rebuttal, timely and docuмented according to the rules of rational discourse, rejecting any a priori condemnation inflicted on the assumption of a non-existent dogmatic character of Vatican II or of a preconceived harmony with the Magisterium of all time. And if this rebuttal does not come, then I would conclude that the apologists of Vatican II did not have real arguments against this fact and hiding behind the smokescreen of accusations of heresy at all inconsistent.
And because we wanted to bring up the subject on the dell'eresida, I wonder: who is really a heretic or rather suspected of heresy? Who dared to write and those who accept the "Ipse enim, Filius Dei, incarnatione his cuм omni homine [quodammodo] if Univit" or those who dare to argue, text in hand, that this new concept of Incarnation does not appear at all in accordance with the dogma of 'Incarnation as taught by the Catholic Church over the centuries? It should not be considered a heretic who denies or doubts the dogma that the Blessed Virgin has always remained a virgin even after the miraculous birth of the Child Jesus (DS 256/503, 993/1880)? It is true that in the past Bishop Müller has expressed doubts about the validity of this dogma, never publicly retract? And if you criticize the non-dogmatic Vatican II is heretical, Benedict XVI then become guilty of heresy because he had dared to criticize recently (from a point of view, definitely not "progressive") Gaudium et Spes and the conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate, the first because it would give us a notion of modernity is far from satisfactory, the second to have completely ignored the forms "sick and deranged religion" found in non-Christian religions!

Source:
Links to this post
Email This BlogThis! Share on Twitter Share on Facebook