Catholic News Agency is reporting a statement made by the Vatican Secretariat of State and published by L'Osservatore Romano. For background, see this previous post.
“The lifting of the excommunication has freed the four bishops from a very grave canonical penalty, but it has not changed the juridical situation of the Society of St. Pius X, which currently does not enjoy any canonical recognition in the Catholic Church. In addition, the four bishops, while they are no longer excommunicated, do not have a canonical role in the Church and do not licitly exercise a ministry in her,” the statement says.
In order for the SSPX to be recognized, the statement goes on to say, “full recognition of Vatican Council II, the Magisteriums of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI himself is an indispensable condition.”
While I would dearly love to see these souls returned to union with the Church, I don't see it happening any time soon. Of course, I'm wrong often.
3 comments:
When things like demoniacs really being "mental ilnesses" that Jesus cured, and such, are tolerated within the community of "full recognition of Vatican Council II, the Magisteriums of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI" [and now "Pope Francis"], such recognition cannot count as being indispensable for full unity with the Church. I consider that Council and that "line of Popes" fraudulent.
So you believe that the Chair of Peter has been vacant since Pius XII, and that the Second Vatican Council was illegitimate? It seems to me that you would have to extend that doubt to every Pope and every council, many of which were much more dicey than the ones you're rejecting.
BTW, thanks for making my blog part of your Holy Week. The blog has lain fallow for the last year. I'll try to aswer some of you previous comments when I get the time.
So you believe that the Chair of Peter has been vacant since Pius XII,
Not quite so, since I provisionally have accepted Pope Michael and am also corresponding with the one "Peter Romanus" who is also known as one of the "two witnesses". I find, so far, Pope Michael's case more convincing.
and that the Second Vatican Council was illegitimate?
That, yes.
New blog on the kid : Schools in Church Doctrine (Pope Pius XI vs "Vatican II")
Post a Comment