You quote Benedict as follows: "Consequently the
Church must react by employing her most
severe punishment – excommunication – with the
aim of calling those thus punished to repent and
to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations
, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. |||...In
order to make this clear once again: until the
DOCTRINAL questions are clarified, the Society
has no canonical status in the Church, and its
ministers – even though they have been freed
of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately
exercise any ministry in the Church."
Lionel:Yes. There is doctrinal disagreement between the SSPX and the Vatican.
1.The SSPX does not accept Vatican Council II.
2.The SSPX does not accept ecumenism, inter religious dialogue and religious liberty as does the Vatican.
3.The SSPX's position on extra ecclesiam nulla salus is ambivalent while the Vatican rejects the dogma.
So these are doctrinal differencs.
The quotation merely proves my case: Once
again Benedict pins "unity" on doctrinal
questions, not disciplinary ones. But there
are really no doctrinal questions preventing
regularization, as we now know from Pozzo/
Lionel: They have said that the SSPX must accept Vatican Council II and they mean a Vatican Council II which is a break with Tradition.
Therefore, doctrine not being an issue, the
only thing now necessary for SSPX's
"return to unity" is simply to give their
seminaries, churches and schools
formal canonical approval---a mere
technicality Francis could implement
with a stroke of his pen.
Lionel : Doctrine not being an issue?
Meanwhile, no one has any right to say
that the adherents of the Society are no
t in union with Rome when they are not
excommunicated and can receive the
Sacraments in any Catholic church
whatsoever, like any other Catholic
(including hundreds of millions
of pew-sitters who reject basic
teachings on faith and morals).
Lionel: They are in union with Rome which interprets Vatican Council II with an innovation and expects the SSPX to accept the non traditional conclusion? It is the SSPX and Ferrara who have to remove the confusion. Archbishop Lefebvre made a doctrinal mistake, I have pointed out many times.The SSPX needs to admit this. Instead they do not contradict me and nor do they admit that SSPX made a doctrinal error.
You cannot simply invent, just for the
Society, what you call a "third state"
that is neither schism nor full
membership in the Church in order
to make sense of Benedict's claim
that Catholics who are under no
sentence of excommunication
have not "returned" to unity.
Lionel:They are not in unity since they will not accept Vatican Council II ( Cushingite).Vatican Council II (Cushingite) is heretical.It is a rupture with the past.
It is absurd, moreover, that the "return
to unity" has been abandoned as to
Protestants whose decadent sects are
highways to Hell but maintained only
as to the Society, which is fully Catholic.
Lionel: The Society is not fully Catholic since it does not accept magisterial documents interpreted rationally.It assumes hypothetical cases are explicit in the present times and then concludes there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the ecumenism of return, the Syllabus of Errors etc. -Lionel Andrades