The Lord Jesus saved St. Peter on the water. The Lord will not allow Peter to be swallowed by the storms and the waves.-
[Bishop de Galarreta's arguments in favour of the doctrinal discussions currently taking place between Rome and the Society of St Pius X. ]
So that formerly EXCOMMUNICATED Bishop de Galaretta is having dialogue with the Rome. Why? Because he knows they have NO CANONICAL STATUS with the Catholic Church despite the fact that pope Benedict XVI removed the excommunication. It is in Rome of the past, the Same Rome of today and the Rome of future that the we look to safeguard the purity of our faith not to Bishop Galaretta who is clearly NO CANONICAL STATUS in the Church.
[this was once argued that there is little hope of any agreement coming out of the discussions, on the grounds that you cannot mix oil and water. If you shake furiously a bottle containing both, the oil and water will mingle for as long as the shaking goes on, but as soon as it stops, the oil and water separate again. It is in their nature. Being lighter, oil is bound to float on top of water.]
That oil is the corrupted teachings of SSPX whch came from Lefebvre who interpreted the tradition apart from the Legitimate Successor of Peter while the water is the Chair of Peter where it is guaranteed that it cannot fall into Heresy (cf Pastor Aeternus). Unless they continue to reject or have some reservation with the Teaching Authority of Vatican II it is impossible for them to enter into FULL COMMUNION with the Catholic Church for an ecumenical council like that of the Second Vatican for “the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 891).
-
[It is likewise in the nature of the true Church's divine doctrine and neo-modernism's humanistic doctrine to be able to mingle but not mix. The "letter" or documents of Vatican II made them mingle, but not even Vatican II's masterpieces of mingling, e.g. "Dignitatis Humanae" on religious liberty, could get the two to mix.]
Diginitates Humanae does not teach RELIGOUS LIBERALISM (a philosophy that a religion is good than the other one) but man’s right to RELGIOUS FREEDOM. In fact the same declaration affirms that “this (the Catholic Church) one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, to which the Lord Jesus committed the duty of spreading it abroad among all men” ( Dignitates Humanae, paragraph 1) . So you claim on “RELIGOUS LIBERTY” is inaccurate. What do you want to do? Force our separated brethren to enter the Catholic Church and burn them at stake if they do not want to? The fathers of the Council affirm that “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.” (Dignitates Humanae, paragraph 2)Why did the council declare this so? Because man has always free will even God himself does not force men to love him and that freewill is inviolable. Jesus himself did not even force the people that his flesh is true food and his blood true drink (cf John 6:55) and allowed the people to leave him and “returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him” (John 6:66). If they enter the Catholic Church because of coercive power then their entrance is not true.
If you are so angry with “Dignitates Humanae” you have Lefebvre to thank for that. You see that disobedient bishop rejects that document and claims he did not signed it. But the thing is, HE SIGNED ITS APPROVAL SHEET. On the contrary he claims what he sign is “THE ATTENDANCE SHEET”. Poor Lefebvre, he could not even distinguish what is the difference between “APPROVAL SHEET’ and “ATTENDANCE SHEET”. Whatever he claims, the fact remains HE SIGNED THE APRROVAL SHEET and therefore when the counting for those who approved it, HIS SIGNATURE WAS INCLUDED IN THE COUNT and this is confirmed by the Archive custodian of the Vatican . If you want proof see the previous post of this blog where you can see Lefebvre and Castromayer’s signature
-
[The aftermath of Vatican II, in accordance with its "spirit", demonstrated this. That "spirit of the Council" is still tearing the Church apart. Benedict XVI's "hermeneutic of continuity" is a recipe for continuing to shake furiously, or should we say resolutely, but the religion of God and the religion of man will still not mix. They still fly apart.]
So it is clear that you DO NOT ACCEPT THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME! HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE HIM OF “SHAKING THE RELIGION OF GOD AND RELIGION OF MAN”? Excuse me, it is Benedict XVI as successor of Peter and those bishops in communion with has the supreme right to teach and interpret the Sacred Tradition, the writings of the Sacred Scriptures and the teaching declaration of the Church. Not Lefebvre and definitely not Bishop de Galaretta or the other three disobedient bishops who were ordained with him. Benedict XVI is not shaking the religion of man and religion of God because he is the visible head of the Church which Christ Built. We look to him as the protector of the purity of our Apostolic faith and not Lefebvre, Castromayer, de Galaretta, Williamson or Fellay because they are NOT IN COMMUNION WITH HIM.
-
[Then why did some quote Bishop de Galarreta favouring the discussions ? For two reasons. Firstly, as to the discussions' main effect, in none of his arguments - read them carefully - did he expect or hope that oil and water can be made to mix. On the contrary, when he said that he looked forward to the discussions being terminated in the spring of next year, he surely implied that the shaking of the bottle should not go on indefinitely, especially if that were to foster in anybody the illusion that oil and water can eventually be made to mix.]
If Bishop de Galaretta hopes that in spring the talks with SSPX and Rome would be discontinued fine. If the SSPX does not want to accept Vatican II so be it. Rome is still Rome without them and that Diocese where Peter shed his blood shall not be overcome with the minions of hell. SSPX on the other hand by stepping out from the Church by rejecting her magisterial authority in Vatican II will be easily swept away by the errors of heresy just like the Old Catholic Church in Utretch who rejected papal infallibility in Vatican I. As long as the SSPX lacks to the trust of Christ to Peter they will lost the orthodoxy of the faith.
-
[ Secondly, all of his arguments mentioned side-effects of the discussions, whereby the contacts which they bring about between Rome and the SSPX act as anti-freeze, both in the radiator of Romans wishing to freeze off the SSPX, and in the radiator of SSPX wishing to freeze off Rome.]
If Lefebvre had only honour his promises with the Holy See then there is no need for such argument but he broke it so I won’t be surprise if these 4 bishops will do the same if they ever reach an agreement with Rome. We look to the Pope of Rome as our protector of our tradition not to the SSPX
[others has the honour of agreeing with his colleague that Rome-SSPX contacts are good for the Universal Church, so long as there is no question of the SSPX failing in its Providential mission of helping to guard from today's Rome the Deposit of the Faith for when tomorrow's Rome will come back to its Catholic senses. "Heaven and earth shall pass away", says Our Lord, "but my words shall not pass away" (Lk.XXI,33).]
The Pope wants them back because he values the unity. But the thing it is they who are out of Rome. Are you saying that the Rome of today has fallen to heresy? Excuse me, the Rome of yesterday, today and tomorrow will be the SAME. And Rome shall never fall into heresy “because this See of St. Peter ALWAYS REMAINS UNBLEMISHED BY ANY ERROR, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren”. (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus) This promise of our Lord has “Never passed away” even up to the present time. SSPX needs the Bishop of Rome to obtain the purity of the faith, not the other way around.
[Kyrie eleison. ]
Will you stop that “Kyrie eleison” because it only shows how cynical and hypocrite you are. begging for God’s mercy but you are attacking the Representative of his Son. DO you know what Jesus said to his disciples when they are being rejected? "He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." (Luke 10:16) That applies to the Successor of Peter and the Successor of the Apostles who are in communion with him but not to the SSPX bishops.
No comments:
Post a Comment