EXCHANGE WITH SSPX FOLLOWER, Part 14 Bro. Ednard Kim la Rosa's Reply

The Unity of the Church

Ednard Kim said...

[While the Rome-Society of St Pius X discussions are, by accounts from both sides, running into a doctrinal brick wall, together with a rumour from Rome spell danger for traditionalist Catholics.]

The True Traditionals are those who are in Communion with the Pope and the bishops in communion with him. The act of fight tradition- be it the Tridentine mass or the ancient form of the discipline of the Church- apart from the Successor of Peter is a form of withdrawal of submission to the Roman Pontiff which is called “Schism” and not “Traditional Catholics”. De Galaretta and other SSPX bishops found themselves not hitting from a huge wall but found themselves a crushed with the Rock where Jesus Built his Church.

[That danger is a political deal which would simply go round the side of the doctrinal blockage. Politics threaten to circumvent doctrine.]

What does secular law has to come up with internal matters of the Church? The Holy See has independence from state laws. Have you red the Lateran treaty?

[a few months ago a large proportion of Catholics attending SSPX Mass centres are hoping and waiting for some agreement to come out of the discussions. If - repeat, if -- this is true, it is very serious. ]

The population of those who support SSPX is far from the population of Catholics who accepts the Teaching Authority of Vatican II and the Pope. Have you seen the funeral mass of John Paul II which used the Novus Ordo? Have you heard the demand of hastening up the process for his sainthood? Have you seen Benedict XVI’s Inauguration Mass who used also the Novus Ordo? There are more people who attend the legitimate Novus Ordo than those illegitimate tridentine mass of SSPX. So many that even the parish church who uses novus ordo cannot contain the congregation. There are many congregation who uses the Pauline Missal- the Dominicans, the Discalced Carmelites – who have their own variant of the Roman Missal prior to the 1970 liturgical reforms uses Novus Ordo and the SSPX supporters does not even reach their population. And is the SSPX priest are the only one who can celebrate the mass according to the 1962 edition? Excuse me, just so you know father Abe had celebrated the mass not only in 1970 edition but also in the 1962 edition. The Society of Saint Peter (who separated from the Popeless SSPX) celebrates also the the 1962 mass andenjoys “Pontifical right” unlike SSPX who has “NO CANONICAL STATUS”. The Ecclessia Dei here in Sikatuna, Philippines also celebrate the tridentine Mass but is in full communion with the Pope and recognizes the teachings of Vatican II. Also here in Davao, our cathedral is planning to build a traditional altar that would cater both the Tridentine and Novus Ordo. When a visiting SSPX priest arrive here in our city, only few of the faithful attended the mass and the chapel was still had vacant pews due to its low attendance. Ask a lay faithful here what is SSPX and they will never have an idea who are the SSPX. IT ONLY MEANS WE DO NOT NEED THE SSPX TO ENJOY THE TRIDENTINE MASS. In fact bishops do not openly embrace SSPX because they know its canonical irregularities. So They do not receive local support from the diocese where they are now especially here in Davao.

[Such Catholics may get full marks for wishing not to be cut off from what appears to be Rome, but they get low marks for not grasping that as long as the discussions remain doctrinal, there is no way in which the neo-modernist teaching of Vatican II can be reconciled with the Catholic doctrine of the true Church.]

Let me repeat to you what Pastor Aeternus told us about papal infallibility:

"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)

By accusing the council of Heresy, you are negating what the fathers of Vatican I has taught. Vatican II never taught any modernistic Ideas. Its just you are having illusion so just to justify your reason to reject Vatican

[Such Catholics may venerate and love Archbishop Lefebvre .]

When Lefebvre died he neither refused to say sorry or admit his sins nor showed any remorse for ordaining bishops without papal mandate. He died excommunicated and disobedient and that is not a good model for us. That is the sin of disobedience. When he died, ordinary Catholics, even until now, never heard of him. He was not even in the headlines and very few attended his funeral. But when the great Pope John Paul II died, saint Peter's Square was not even enough contain the crowd with their cries of "Santo Subito".

[They had best wake up if they are not in one way or another to fall into the arms of the neo-modernist Romans.especially to BASTARDS like you hehehe...]

Bastard is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as "an illegitimate child". Remember well that the ordinations of bishops by Lefebvre to de Gallaretta, Williamson, Fellay and de Mallerais in the absence of Papal Mandate were valid but "ILLICIT". The sacraments they dispense are "valid but ILLICIT" because they are suspended "ad divinis" and no canonical status with the Church. Illicit means "not permitted : unlawful" according to Merriam-Webster dictionary. BASING ON THESE DEFINITION IT IS YOUR BISHOPS WHO FITS THE TERM "BASTARDS" BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGALLY CONSECRATED AS BISHOPS AND THE SACRAMENTS THEY DISPENSE ARE UNLAWFUL, ILLEGAL AND NOT PERMITTED.

OH AND BY THE WAY, ACCORDING TO THE TALKS OF MICHAEL DAVIES, (A SUPPORTER OF BISHOP LEFEBVRE), MODERNIST- DURING THE REIGNS OF LEO XIII AND ST. PIUS X (LIKE THE EXCOMMUNICATED PRIEST ALFRED FIRMIN LOISY )- WROTE THEIR ARTICLES AND IDEAS WITH PSEUDONAMES TO HIDE THEIR NAMES SO THAT THEY WON'T BE CAUGHT. IN YOUR STYLE YOU ARE IMITATING THE STRATEGY OF THE MODERNIST LIKE ALFRED LOISY BY NOT STATING YOUR NAME. IT IS YOU WHO IS NEO MODERNIST BECAUSE YOU ARE IMITATING THEIR STYLE... HA, HA, HA. THOSE PEOPLE LOYAL AND HUMBLY SUBJECTS TO THE BISHOP OF ROME WILL NEVER BE ASTRAYED OF HERESY UNLIKE YOU WHO THINKS TO BE SO TRADITIONAL BUT IN FACT POSSESSED BY THE SAME DEMON FOR REJECTING THE AUTHORITY OF THE VICAR OF CHRIST

[Agreement in front of doctrine means politics before religion, unity before truth, man before God. God before man means truth before unity, religion before politics and doctrine being more important than any non-doctrinal agreement.]

You seem to forget the TRUTH in the fundamental basis of Ecclesial authority. Was it not "By Divine Institution" that Jesus willed that his Church will be shepherded by Peter and his successors? Was it not in Peter that the power of the keys- to bind and to loose, to open or to close, to allow and to forbid by Christ? Well that is what we do, we obey him because we believe in the promise of Christ to the Apostles: "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). Was it not also that Jesus willed the unity of every Christians? It is the responsibility of the pope to safeguard not ONLY THE PURITY OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH, BUT ALSO UNITY! You on the other hand failed to see fruits of ecumenical relations. Have you read Benedict XVI's "Anglicanorum Caetoribus"? Soon, those Anglicans who wish to join on Rome will come home while maintaining their patrimony. John Paul II and Benedict XVI met and exchange words of love with our separated brethren through ecumenical Dialogues. Ecumenical efforts is based on our Jesus mandate to "love our enemies" and his desire of Unity. SSPX on the other hand are like the Jews of Jesus' Times. As the Jews who sees themselves superior above the gentiles and Samaritans because they are the only one worshiping the True God, SSPX by rejecting ecumenism refuse to enter dialogue to our separated Christian brethren despite they worship the same God we love to.

[Only dreamers could not foresee the Rome-SSPX discussions running into a doctrinal brick wall. Only politicians can wish for any non-doctrinal agreement to come out of them.]

They found themselves banging their heads to the Foundation Rock of the Church. SSPX bishops knew that very well that is why Fellay asked the excommunication be lifted and that means they cannot deny the fact of the burdening sanction that the Church imposed on them.

[Alas, to all appearances Benedict XVI sincerely believes in the Newchurch of Vatican II which is to unite in its bosom all men absolutely, regardless of whether they believe or not in the one true doctrine of the Faith. ]

Haha.... have you read the document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of faith regarding our separated brethren which the Pope Approves? It is stated that the True Church is the Catholic Church and that the oriental Churches are churches also but defective because they do not accept the AUTHORITY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME (LIKE WHAT LEFEBVRE DID), but it also states that "Christian denomination born out of the 16th century have no apostolic succession hence they are not true churches."

(http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html)

You may also want to read what he as cardinal and Lefebvre signed for a protocol agreement:

THE PROTOCOL AGREEMENT OF THE VATICAN AND ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on May 5, 1988

I, Marcel Lefebvre, archbishop-bishop emeritus of Tulle, along with the members of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, which I founded:

1. We promise always to be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, its supreme pastor, the vicar of Christ, successor of blessed Peter in his primacy and head of the body of bishops.

2. We declare that we will accept the doctrine contained in No. 25 of the Second Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution, "Lumen Gentium" on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence owed it.

3. Regarding certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning subsequent reforms of the liturgy and law which appear difficult to reconcile with tradition, we commit ourselves to a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics.

4. We declare moreover that we will recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does and according to the rites in the typical editions of the missal and rituals of the sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.

5. Last, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, particularly those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, except for the special discipline conceded to the fraternity by particular law.

See? Even as cardinal he safeguard the unity of the church and Lefebvre was mandated to accept Vatican II! So in this document Benedict XVI as the visible head of the "True Church of Christ" renewed by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (and not some New CHURCH) both values the True Doctrine of Faith and at the same time values unity! He is not religiously indifferent as you think

Ednard Kim said...

{Therefore he sincerely wishes to gather in the SSPX as well - and he does not normally have too much longer to live ! ]

Who are you to set the life limit of the pope? Our pope Benedict XVI may be advance in age but take a look at how long Leo XIII reigned despite he was elected as pope with advance age.

[So the blockage of doctrinal discussions should not unduly worry him. He must be looking to cut a political deal with the SSPX, in order to unite it with the rest of the Newchurch. It follows that he must ask of the SSPX neither too much, or it would refuse the deal, nor too little, because then the rest of the Newchurch would rise up in protest.]

IF the SSPX does not wish to respond to the call of the pope's call to accept the authority of the pope well its up to them. But Outside of the Vicar of Christ, there the gates of hell exist.

[The rumour from Rome is precisely that he is thinking of a "Motu Proprio" which would accept the SSPX "back into the Church" once and for all, yet require from the SSPX no explicit acceptance of Vatican II or the New Mass, but only, for instance, the acceptance of John-Paul II's 1992 "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which is substantially modernist but in a quiet way. Thus the SSPX would not appear to its followers to be accepting the Council or the New Mass, yet it would be softly, softly, beginning to go along with the substance of neo-modernism.]

On the contrary, pope Benedict XVI has affirmed the Teaching Authority of Vatican II and he calls the SSPX to accepts the decrees of Vatican II:

"Precisely in fulfilment of this service to unity, which qualifies my ministry as Successor to Peter in a specific way, I decided several days ago to grant the remission of the excommunication to which the four Bishops, ordained in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre without a Papal mandate, were subject. I fulfilled this act of paternal compassion because these Bishops repeatedly manifested their active suffering for the situation in which they had found themselves.

I HOPE THAT HIS GESTURE OF MINE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY AN EARNEST COMMITMENT ON THEIR BEHALF TO COMPLETE THE NECESSARY FURTHER STEPS TO ACHEIVE FULL COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH, THIS WITNESSING TRUE FIDELITY TO, AND TRUE RECOGNITION OF THE MAGETERIUM AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE AND THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090128_en.html

You are really having your own illusions. The Pope has affirmed the teaching authority of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. In fact he made Lefebvre agree to accept Vatican II but that promise-breaker broke it. Thus, for SSPX to be receive full communion, they are obligated to RECOGNIZE THE MAGESTERIUM, THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE AND OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL INCLUDING THE CATHECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH PROMULGATED UNDER THE POPE JOHN PAUL II

[Kyrie eleison.]

BEGGING FOR LORD'S MERCY BUT ATTACKING HIS VICAR? STOP YOUR HYPOCRISY. BY ATTACKING JOHN PAUL II AND BENEDICT XVI YOU ATTACKED THE ONE WHO SENT THEM.

October 4, 2010 5:30 PM