Monday, June 17, 2013

A FREE TRANSLATION FROM THE FRENCH ORIGINAL RELATING TO THE THEOLOGICAL TALKS BETWEEN ROME AND SSPX:

[Courier Tychicus - Schedule] The ravings of an agent of influence

SOURCE - September 13, 2009
Abbe Claude Barthe priest vagus "sedevacantist" until the election of Benedict XVI**, but still rallied from vagus, just published on the site " Disputationes theologicae "an interesting text on the doctrinal discussions between the SSPX and the Vatican.
This text is not devoid of interest for several reasons: the Abbe Barthe is one of the principal organizers of the GREC, and as a connoisseur of the mindset that pervades the leaders of the SSPX about a possible rally. The author presents the  leading theologians appointed by Rome to discuss with the SSPX (the names of those of the opposing party are always carefully guarded secrets). What's more, he reveals their specialties, their past work, and introduces us to the main lines of these doctrinal discussions.
We propose below a reduction article of Abbe Barthe as proposals which we added some comments, but reading the article itself remains necessary for a proper understanding.

Reducing the text of Father Barthe in proposals:
1 Father Manelli: There may be discontinuities in the council on specific points, it would have nothing scandalous because the stylus is "pastoral", it could have errors in it.

Comment: The problem of Vatican II is not a "discontinuity on specific issues", but the general problem of the relationship in to the world: Our Lord has repeatedly warned against the world, the spirit of the world, not live according to the world. No one can have two masters, etc.. Vatican II is a work of reconciliation with the world: "... messages of the Council placed confidence in the contemporary world: its values ​​were not only respected, but honored, its efforts, its aspirations purified and blessed. " (Closing of Vatican II by Paul VI on 12/07/1965). Vatican II has made ​​a revolution that Paul VI and summarized in the same speech: "The religion of God who became man has met the religion (because it is one) of the man who makes himself God. . " Talking so simple discontinuities on specific issues covered by the fraud.

Father Manelli 2: The Council has sought to be "pastoral";

Comment: The concept of pastoral council is unprecedented in the history of the Church. Determine a general category for a single act is a sham language. It is as if we defined a new species of animals in a sheep with 5 legs. This will justify the fifth paw belonging to this species, it is obviously having a single individual. Thus in the case of a pastoral Council . We do not find any other in 2000 years of Church history. But the ambiguities and errors of Vatican II by belonging to this species is justified. The individual "Vatican", like sheep with 5 legs, actually deserved no other name than a monster !
It is therefore not surprising that the present turn as belonging to two different species:
- Sometimes the species Ecumenical Council : this is the title that has been imposed in the most authoritative manner throughout the universal Church and it is for this reason that all post-conciliar popes are not are always referred to proceed to the most serious reforms (liturgy, sacraments, catechism, canon law ...), it is also for this reason that Benedict XVI is a must before any recognition of the SSPX passage;
- Sometimes the species Pastoral Council : when it came to vote heterodox texts of the Council Fathers, when it is now accepting incompatible teachings with the previous Magisterium, or simply ambiguous texts.
The only way out is to qualify the Catholic "Vatican II" monster , and condemn simply for that reason.

Three Abbot Barthe: A number of points of Vatican II are touchy not only of precision, but also possibly future corrections;

Comment: The Church has often stated points of doctrine, to proclaim as dogmas. But she never has "clarified" to refute what she had previously taught! As for correct points of doctrine concerning faith, there is not a single precedent in the history of the Church!
Bishop Nicolas Bux 4: There is no substantial doctrinal differences (...). In a spirit of understanding, it is necessary to tolerate and correct the marginal errors. Differences (...), through the action of the Holy Ghost, will be recovered  (...) and permanently exceed them.

Comment: The inconsistencies raised by Archbishop Lefebvre can not be described as marginal as they are all on points of doctrine. Not the Catholic Church has allowed an error to "exceed", that is to say forget it with time. All the Magisterium is instead punctuated by reminders of doctrines and convictions of errors, let alone in the most critical periods (Arian heresy, Protestant, Modernist ...). The Church can not in any way "correct" its doctrinal errors as it enjoys the support of the Holy Spirit who preserves.
6 Bishop Nicolas Bux: Archbishop Lefebvre signed all decrees of Vatican II;

Comment: Archbishop Lefebvre did not sign all decrees of Vatican II. It is true that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais wrote the opposite in his biography of Archbishop Lefebvre. It is, however, realized his mistake, but his publisher (Clovis) has never published erratum to our knowledge;
7 Mgr Pozzo they will pose the normativity assertions of Vatican II which are problematic (note theological), some having value only within context, others having no other obligation of belief;

Comment: All these theological distinctions will never allow the Church to teach some error on the grounds that this teaching does not involve an obligation of faith;
8 Father Morerod OP: A reception of Vatican II based on the previous magisterium may have a place in the Church;

Comment: "its'" place in the Church, and not all over the place! Here is the great achievement of Benedict XVI: the concept of "tolerated Truth!" What was the prerogative of the tolerance of eror, is now generously granted to state the truth!
9 Father Morerod OP could not admit the confession of some points of Vatican II, with some requirement to comply with the official teaching of Vatican II;

Comment: The "tolerated truth" then means to follow a false magisterium. It is delusional! The problem is that, according to Abbe Barthe, this delirium meets "a very interesting convergence" with the SSPX theologian Gregory Célier! Imagine for a moment the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre in such a debate so ...
10 Father Karl Josef Becker SJ: According to the very voluntarist reading P.Becker, the subsistit in would be to strengthen it ;

Comment: One thing can therefore mean everything and its opposite as the interlocutor. This should facilitate the discussions!
11 Father Morerod OP: Mutual misunderstanding may come from different philosophical assumptions.

Comment: The nature of the problems would not be theological. There would therefore be no question of faith. It is huge but our learned theologians have managed to swallow the Father Morerod, who is in contact with the Celier (ie Father Barthe who tells us: "In a public meeting held in part of Grec, on the premises of Saint-Philippe-du-Roule, Paris, 26 February 2008, where he struggled with the Abbe Gregoire Célier ... " ) has already had him blow this kind of sophistry. Which Celier had to rush to repeat in turn Bishop Fellay. Thus the latter dared to say during the ordination sermon of June 29 to Écône: " In fact, the problem is not theological, but philosophical.  The Pope, marked by modern philosophy insists on the subject, we, the heirs of the scholastic philosophy, emphasize the object. But if it is, we are talking about the same thing! ".
12 Father Morerod OP: The "hierarchy of truths" is basically nothing more than a method of elementary catechesis (...), an educational way to bring the Catholic faith to those who have strayed.
Comment: ... But if it remains irreducible incompatibility between the texts of Vatican II and the traditional doctrine, then it is sufficient to take them out of context, to forget how they have been understood and presented as a method catechesis !

13 Abbe Barthe: The texts of Vatican II have led to deviant interpretations because they were not clear enough;
Comment: Abbe Barthe now strikes us another compelling argument: the texts of Vatican II were not clear enough! So we can not condemn them. These texts were actually not clear, but the Abbe Barthe forgets to say it was on purpose that they were not clear: to be accepted by the Council Fathers! Not only our eminent theologian forgets that their ambiguity itself-sufficient only to condemn them, but claims instead that it is this ambiguity that has the shelter of a sentence! And the truth in all this?
14 Abbe Barthe: There are two ways to address contentious issues: either condemn them denying their infallibility, but this approach is purely negative (no solution in sight), or reinterpreting, but this approach is artificial and a posteriori;


Comment: What solution is there then? Shut up? Patience, the great abbot Barthe will soon find the solution ...
15 Abbe Barthe: the current situation is unprecedented. It is unclear to the internal doctrinal Church. Their challenge is thrown out of the Church. It looks like an adolescent crisis where the best and the worst rub before reaching maturity;
Comment: Speaking of adolescent crisis after 2000 years of the Church does not interfere with the Abbe Barthe! For his leadership, specify them as the maturity of the church was completely undermine the death of the last apostle, Revelation is closed from that day. Since it is always the same doctrine as the Church teaches, which earned him his note of apostolicity. The Catechism of Trent explains that the Church is apostolic because it adheres to the same doctrine of the apostles. Any "church" in which move away would not be the Catholic Church.
Abbe Barthe 16: It is impossible to argue scratch ecumenism fromthe teaching of the Church. It will make ecumenism a teaching of the Church as such;
Comment: The word ecumenism can be understood in two senses: the traditional view that the lost sheep in the various false religions must return to the one Church of Christ. The Church does not have to make a new teaching, it already exists. In its modernist sense, all religions must agree because they are all more or less perfectly, the means of salvation. It is absolutely impossible that the Church includes a heresy in her teaching.
17 Abbe Barthe: The texts challenged the Council can be understood as questions;

Comment: Here, finally, the cream of the article: a new concept barthesque after 2000 years of adolescence Church: the Church teaches in "questions"! That's what we needed to finally understand the teaching of Vatican II, which avoids both condemning the errors and to reinterpret the traditional way!
From a smart person as the Abbe Barthe, this delusion is disturbing because it augurs that theologians disconnected from the fight of faith are capable of inventing to justify the unjustifiable under these doctrinal discussions !

Abbe Barthe 18: As if the "questioning" of No. 3 of Unitatis redintegratio showed two kinds of shortcomings, one for the past saying too little, and the other for the present, however, said that too.
Comment: Abbe Barthe reveals the methodology to conclude a Thomist passed modernism thesis-antithesis-synthesis ! To justify a heresy, it confronts an alleged deficiency of a psychological nature, and the score was announced "around 1 ball in the center!" Find the error!

Conclusion
- Reformulation of "ambiguities" of Vatican II can never justify the scandals caused by the conciliar popes including Benedict XVI. All traditionalist interpretations of Vatican II in no way reflect the facts that we see in the conciliar Church at all levels, or official actions of its leaders. - The Truth (and one that is: Our Lord) is completely absent from this brain posturing: several possible interpretations of the same text, need not condemn a heterodox interpretation specify truths while watching a "requirement respect "for the erroneous official magisterium, imagine a meaning diametrically opposed to the commonly accepted text, but without condemning it ...
- It is perfectly useless to blacken the pages on the question of ecumenism if it is not clear ask specific questions such as: Jews can be saved without acknowledging our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man? If not, support this assertion he will become a clear and strong condemnation of the Holy See?
- Benedict XVI is willing to condemn the scandals of his post-conciliar predecessors (Assisi, kissing the Koran ...) and his own actions taken until recently (visit mosques, synagogues ...), and of course not to renew ?
- Last but not least, we are still waiting for real prior to these discussions from the SSPX. This she will finally have the courage to examine the following two questions:
  • The Church after the Council, with its new episcopal and priestly rituals, the New Mass, the new Canon Law, its new sacraments ("all doubt" as claimed by Archbishop Lefebvre in his sermon of coronations), the new Missal, the new rosary, its new exorcism ... Is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?
  • Conciliar sacraments are they valid with absolute certainty, or doubtful (positively or negatively), or certainly invalid?
These two questions depend all the others not the answer for them, but the relevance of the place, and the attitude to take vis-à-vis the conciliar Church.
If there was a Rosary Crusade launch (without accounting: a rosary prayed can be worth hundred poorly known), it would have been that for the conversion of the modernists who occupy Rome! But for this cause, THE CAUSE OF CAUSES, the SSPX does not need the help of heaven, Our Lady and the saints, it has its great theologians abbots Celier, La Roque, and other mysterious anonymous.
at

No comments:

Post a Comment