Author Topic: No Canonical Agreement without a Doctrinal Resolution First (Read 11258 times)

hugeman · « **Reply #45 on:** March 03, 2014, 03:52:14 PM »

Very Interesting that, caught with their proverbial pants down, Rostand,LeRue, Schmidberger, Fellay and Co. are claiming that "there is no change" in the Society's position. "We always wanted a practical agreement to be reconciled back into Rome--and we would discuss the doctrinal issues from the inside"
(paraphrased).

Well, Looky, see, hear:

The Angelus, "A Journal of Roman Catholic Tradition", Vol XV, Number 4, April, 1992, Published at Kansas City, Missouri, by Father Peter Scott, U.S. District Superior.

In the article entitled : "No Collaboration with Rome", Father Franz Schmidberger, (the then) Superior General of the SSPX states:"I met with Cardinal Oddi on October 7th at Rome (this would be 10/7/1991),... He was determined that we (SSPX and Oddi) think again of finding a solution so as to bring about a normalization of relationships between the society and Roman authorities….We then discussed the difficulties.. I said to him.. I will write you a letter… and that's what I did…I wrote to him on January 6,(1992),…I CLEARY exposed our thoughts..FOR US, BEFORE GOD,
THE RETURN OF ROME AND THE BISHOPS TO TRADITION IS THE ONLY SOLUTION. ..Any other solution would be defective, would falsify our position, and would reduce our testimony to nothing.

Further, Schmidberger testifies, "this letter is the maintaining of the status quo…the first objective would be to resolve problems on the doctrinal level"

On the next page of the same issue, the editor printed the letter to Cardinal Oddi, dated "Rickenbach, January 6, 1991."

In this letter, Schmidberger wrote Oddi:

"After reflection at our General Council and consultation with confreres,allow me to openly and frankly expose our thoughts to Your Eminence…

"..they (the members of the SSPX) are bound by the declarations of the popes and dogmatic councils, and in particular by (Schmidberger then lists six very specific tomes to which he swears they are bound):

"…Quanta Cura, of Pius IX;…The Syllabus of the same pope;…the encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis;…the encyclical Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI;…the encyclical Quas Primas of the same pope;….the definition of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by the Council of Trent…"

Schmidberger even went so far as to, in a short sentence for each teaching, demonstrate how Vatican II popes and the counciliar church have violated these dogmas ( ex: Quanta Cura contradicted by Dignitatis Humanea; how Ratzinger called 'Gaudium et Spes' a "counter syllabus"; how Paul VI abolished the anti-modernist oath of Pascendi; and other examples.

Schmidberger continues : "To attempt ( any open and fruitful)cooperation with (you Romans) would be to risk SACRIFICING THE TESTIMONY WHICH WE OWE TO THE TRUTH to a diplomacy which hides the opposition between the Church or all time and the conciliar church…"

" (when) the Roman and episcopal authorities…again..confess the principles contained in the acts of the Magisterium mentioned above, AND CONDEMN THE ERRORS condemned by these docuмents, … THEN…the … rupture will cease by itself…"

There you have it-- The official position of the Society of Saint Pius X, communicated to the highest levels in Rome, as of 1991. A position which was ALWAYS the position of the Archbishop's. A position which was well preached and maintained, until whittled down and away by Schmidberger, Fellay, Lorans, Krah, Pflugger , GREC, and their branding company, into "a practical agreement before a doctrinal agreement is necessary to bring about justice for our people."
Notice also that Schmidberger, in 1991, was well aware that there were two churches, of which Archbishop often spoke: a Catholic Church and a (roman) conciliar church.sos save-our-sspx.comwww..com

Ecclesia Militans · « **Reply #46 on:** March 04, 2014, 06:40:17 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans
Quote from: J.Paul
Quote
No Canonical Agreement without a Doctrinal Resolution First

It would seem that this is not a Catholic principle as such, but rather a proposed mode of action which is based upon a number of other Catholic principles.

And if the Rome with whom they treat is one which holds the required faith of the previous Magisterium, then they would be negotiating with with Catholic Church.
But if the Rome with whom they are bartering holds the conciliar doctrine in contravention of the prior Magisterium, then they would be haggling with the Conciliar sect, not the True Church.

So this proposed mode of acting is in fact based upon whether or not they are dealing with the Conciliar, or the Catholic Church.

As an aside if the entity that is in question holds the true Faith and is thus defined as the Catholic Church, then the Society and the resistance would not be agreeing or negotiating, they would be submitting.

Let's face it, doctrinal resolution means the conciliarists rejoining and converting to Catholicism. Nothing more, nothing less.

Conciliar or Catholic is a fundamental predicate to your proposed action.

Read the article I linked to and then point out the errors.

I read your article. My comment is by way of clarification of your premise not determining errors.

I agree that "“no canonical agreement prior to a doctrinal resolution” is not the best way to word the proposition partly because it makes it sound like the two parties are trying to negotiate a compromise. This would be clearly unacceptable from a Catholic Faith point of view. A more accurate proposition would be something like "a canonical recognition cannot be had if it is not based on the Catholic Faith". This can be defended from a theological, historical, and legal point of view.

Using this more accurate proposition, the Conciliar vs. Catholic Church dichotomy does not need to be a fundamental predicate. The neo-SSPX seeking canonical recognition without the Catholic Faith being the basis of that recognition is simply not Catholic.

peterp · « **Reply #47 on:** March 04, 2014, 06:58:55 AM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Quote
No Canonical Agreement without a Doctrinal Resolution First

It would seem that this is not a Catholic principle as such, but rather a proposed mode of action which is based upon a number of other Catholic principles.

You mean a prudent action as Fr. Themann et al have said?

peterp · « **Reply #48 on:** March 04, 2014, 07:03:01 AM »

Quote from: Ecclesia Militans

Quote from: peterp
I already answered this. The Church is one, formed through unity of faith and of communion. There are to ways of separating oneself from her (i) by renouncing the faith - heresy, (ii) refusing her authority - schism.

The article address the authority of the Faith over the authority of the Pope. Read the article and please point out a specific proposition that you have a problem with.

All I see in that is it gives credence to those who say the laity shouldn't read papal encyclicals and the like.

1. There are four marks of the Church.
2. Reject just one mark and you reject the Church itself; you destroy one of its essential attributes.
3. The first mark is that of the Church being One (Unity).
4. The One Church enjoys a threefold unity*: unity of faith, unity of communion, and unity of rule. Each is both external and visible.
5. Unity of faith includes profession (credal unity) - since a purely internal assent of the mind to truth does not satisfy the requirements of a visible society as is the Church. Hence unity of faith is not an "internal principle".
6 Unity of the faith is maintained due to subjection to the Magisterium of the Church. The Magisterium, then, is the external principle of unity of the faith and not the external principle of unity of communion.
7. Rejecting any part of this threefold unity is to reject the One mark.
8. The faith cannot direct one to reject a mark of the Church (profession of faith).
9. The Resistance reject the unity of rule a prioi refusing, in principle, to submit to the authority of Rome.
10. The Resistance, therefore, reject the One mark of the Church, and consequently the Church itself.

"Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff [unity of rule], and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy [unity of communion]." (Summa, II-II, Q.39, Art. I)

*while unity of rule and unity of communion are not identical, unity of communion cannot exist apart from unity of rule. This is why some theologians suggest a threefold division of the Church's unity (faith, communion, and rule) and others a twofold division (either faith and communion or faith and rule).

peterp · « **Reply #49 on:** March 04, 2014, 07:14:46 AM »

Quote from: Luker

Quote from: peterp

It is not so much as coming to an agreement but rather the reason for rejecting one. The society accepts a priori the principle of submiting to the authority of Rome; the fact that it finds itself at the moment unable to do so is secondary. The resistance, however, rejects a priori the authority of Rome.

peterp, for the record I am not a Resistance member, I assist at a regular SSPX chapel. However I think this assertion of yours is unfair. The Resistance as a whole do NOT reject a priori the authority of Rome. They do believe that in the current situation any agreement is impossible (no agreement on doctrinal principles), but I have never heard them go 'officially' sedevacantist, that is to say, reject out right the current hiearchy in Rome. If you believe this about the Resistance, it is simply untrue, despite your quotes (which are probably taken out of context).

Luke

Sorry, I should have been clearer in the last sentence. The Resistance reject, in principle, to submit to the authority of Rome - although having said that there some who do reject the authority by essentially saying the the Church has defected.

You can read the context of the quotes yourself. They are repies to Fr. Theman, Fr. Gleize, and Bp. Williamson's "definition".