+
JMJ
Update: Dr. Lamont, in a Rorate article (link), pointed out that :
It is notable that the profession does not reject any text of the Second Vatican Council, but only states that the influence of the Council promoted deviations from the faith. Catholics may hold that the influence of an ecumenical council was noxious in some respects. It is only the authoritative teachings of a council that demand their assent; they do not have to approve of all the historical results that it led to. One may, for example, reasonably hold that the definitions of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the First Vatican Council led to an exaggerated and harmful conception of papal power, while accepting the definitions themselves.
Further what the SSPX actually wrote (link):
I acknowledge in particular that modern errors represent a dreadful threat to the whole of the Catholic order, and that their penetration into the life of the Church, under the influence of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar reforms, has provoked a crisis of exceptional gravity:- agnosticism attacks the knowledge of God;
- naturalism attacks the necessity of grace;
- subjectivism attacks the supernatural motive of faith;
- relativism attacks the immutability of dogma;
- situation ethics attacks the divine law;
- liberalism attacks the Social Kingship of Christ;
- false ecumenism attacks the uniqueness of the Church;
- collegiality and synodality attack the divine constitution of the Church in her hierarchy;
- liturgical anthropocentrism attacks the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
P^3
The key point is that the Lefebvrists reject the conclusions of the Second Vatican Council en masse, considering them non-binding, and therefore have decided to ordain bishops without papal mandate, in complete autonomy, to maintain a link with tradition. Those who ordain bishops have been legitimately ordained, as the line of apostolic succession has not been broken, and therefore the ordination is valid. But it is an illicit ordination. https://www.ncregister.com/news/gagliarducci-china-sspx-excommunication
So ... according to Andrea Gagliarducci the SSPX rejects V2 'en masse' and this is the key difference between the SSPX and Chinese ... because the Chinese don't directly challenge the Pope's authority.
In none of these cases, however, is there a direct challenge to the Pope’s authority
Well I think that's an obfuscation because it misses the real point altogether: Does the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association accept the Primacy of the Pope.
I believe that the answer is still 'NO' and that makes them schismatic.
Facts matters, unless you happen to want to believe that black is white and vice-versa.
For this reason, the Chinese government has established the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association as the only legitimate expression of Catholicism in that country. The Association does not recognize papal primacy, for the direction of religious life must not be allowed to come from outside the State. Such an approach is not uncommon with those who make a God of politics. The French, for example, tried the same thing during their revolution in 1789. It is the nature of religion to provide an independent reference point for the judgment of all things human, but if a regime can keep its churches confined to, and dependent upon, its own political culture, it can reduce independent religious thought to the vanishing point.https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/china-and-conclave/
Has anything substantively changed since the 2018 Rome / Chinese agreement???
Not really, the CPCA more or less accepts V2 and uses the Novus Ordo Missae.
Yes, Rome has capitulated to the Chinese who don't recognize the Primacy of the Pope - ergo remain in Schism, while the SSPX is 'schismatic' for consecrating bishops without mandate.
Really, it shows that it isn't about the Mass, it isn't about obedience ... it is about Doctrine, V2 and the Magisterium that followed.
P^3
Comments
Post a Comment