We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation.
Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II.
We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition.
We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death.
I can’t speak much of the future, mine is behind me, but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions.
I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue.
No more.
I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level:
Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you?
Do you agree with:
Quanta Cura of Pius IX? [AND his Syllabus of Errors! <--- very important]
Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII?
Pascendi Dominici Gregis of Pius X?
Quas Primas of Pius XI?
Humani Generis of Pius XII?
Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings?
Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath, Sacrorum Antistitum?
Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk!
As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible.
It is useless.
I have a difficulty with the last part of this. What is the thing that ABL had
in mind when he says "the correction of the Council?" It seems to me that
is asking for a hornet's nest to be nice, while you "fix it," or for a ravenous
wolf to "control itself" while you give it a bath.
Does anyone have writings of ABL that go into any detail on what he was
thinking when he wrote this?
I'm asking if ABL provided anything specific, or at least less ambiguous than
this
"accept the correction of the Council" mentioned here. IOW I'd like to
know the answer to the question this thread asks:
"How Will We Know Rome Has Converted?" And I don't think that's too much
to ask, at all. It's getting to the point that the answer is extremely important.
When a person commits sin, or goes astray in any way, he must be corrected.
Correction in this sense doesn't necessarily imply "fixing". It just means pointing out that someone is going off the path -- like "fraternal correction".
I suppose that's where the confusion comes in -- when you correct your brother, you hope to "fix him up".
But the essence of Fraternal Correction is standing up to a brother and telling him the error of his ways. Yes, you hope he amends his ways.
But the amendment of his ways might involve a complete 180-degree turnaround. Not just tweaking his course a bit -- which is suggested by the common meaning of "fix".
Okay, so those who have adhered to this wayward council have committed
sin: I don't have any problem with that. I'm sure rowsofvoices9 would
have a problem with it, but she isn't here right now, or if she is, she's not
speaking up ..................... yet.....................
What have we then? We have a Holy Father who,
not only has long ago
acknowledged that Vat.II is a "counter-Syllabus" in the context that can only
mean contrary to the Syllabus of Errors of Blessed Pope Pius IX, and any
proposition regarding faith and/or morals
once condemned by the Pope
carries the power of papal infallibility, and it is condemned in eternity, in the
Truth of God, nor has he ever abjured this longstanding acknowledgement,
but also has most recently, as Pope, presided over the acceptance of
Anglicans back "into the Church" without any abjuration of their long-held
errors,
and has shown a conspicuous penchant for asserting the authority
and value of the Traditional Church WHILE AT THE SAME TIME embracing
wholeheartedly the modern post-Conciliar errors of false ecuмenism, false
collegiality and false religious liberty, the same blasphemous trinity of errors
announced in the contumelious and despicable French Revolution of 1789,
most astoundingly and blatantly presented for our general consumption (as
if a good mother would present a cake laced with poison to her children to
eat) under his
obsequious "hermeneutic of continuity." IOW: the rest
of ABL's demand for meeting "conditons" would seem to have been
met,
inasmuch as the Pope DOES "accept the correction of the Council, in
consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, [his] predecessors."
Meanwhile, we are running around in circles like so many mice, muttering
that Rome has not converted, even while in the subjective reality of some
(whom, I'm sorry I don't know for sure, but I would propose rowsofvoices9
as a possible example of this), Rome HAS converted, because the Pope
acknowledges the value of the traditional doctrines of the Church:
TA-DAAAA! (pulls a rabbit out of the hat!).
At the risk of being blunt, B16 may seem to have passed this ABL test
already, so why is there any resistance movement at all?
Are we now ready for what comes next under this
cloud of unknowing? IOW we can sit back and proclaim that a 180-degree turn is required, but
B16's defenders can just as easily sit back and proclaim that it has already
occurred: SO THERE! (As if to say, "What are you going to do about it?")
P.S. Happy Mayan End of the World As We Know It........... :reporter:
Topic: How Will We Know Rome Has Converted? - Fr. Hewko (Read 1010 times)