I knew that Hans Küng is a heretic, but I never knew that he was this funny.
Hans Küng has warned the Pope that he will ipso facto be a schismatic by allowing the SSPX back into the Church. Apparently the Big Tent Church the liberals love is all out of room.
Pope Benedict will be a schismatic because the SSPX has questions about Vatican II. Every other doctrine or dogma is up for discussion, but not Vatican II.
Both in the official and in the alternative activities in the Mannheim Katholikentag*, the prevailing sentiment was one of resentment and frustration over the delayed reforms in the Church. In fierce contrast with that, Pope Benedict XVI prepares, apparently for Pentecost, the final reconciliation with the Catholic Church of the traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X, with its bishops and priests. This should happen even if the SSPX keeps rejecting key conciliar documents, having to be incorporated into the Church with the use of skillful canonical tactics. Before the Pope does this, he must be duly warned, not least by the bishops, because of the following:
1. The pope would be including in the Church bishops and priests that are definitely invalidly ordained. According to the Apostolic Constitution of Pope Paul VI “Pontificalis Romani recognitio”, of July 18, 1968, the ordination of bishops and priests by Archbishop Lefebvre is not only illegal but also invalid. This view is shared among others by a relevant member of the “Doctrinal Commission”, Karl Josef Becker, SJ, now a cardinal.**
2. With such a scandalous decision, Pope Benedict would, in his overall regretted isolation, be even more separated from the People of God. The classical doctrine regarding schism should be a warning to him. According to it, a schism of the Church happens when there is separation from the Pope, but also when the latter separates himself from the body of the Church. “Even the Pope could become a schismatic, if he will not guard the unity and communion proper to the whole body of the Church.” (Francisco Suárez, major Spanish theologian of the 16th/17th centuries).
3. A schismatic pope loses his position according to that same teaching of the constitution of the Church. At least, he cannot expect obedience. Pope Benedict would be therefore encouraging the already widespread popular movement of “disobedience” against a hierarchy that is disobedient to the Gospel. He would bear sole responsibility for the grave rift and the strife created inside the Church. Instead of reconciling with the ultra-conservative, anti-democratic, and anti-Semitic SSPX, the Pope should rather care about the majority of reform-minded Catholics and reconcile with the churches of the Reformation and the entire ecumenical movement. Thus he would unite, and not divide.
So now he is claiming that the Church will have no Pope. It goes to show you that the crazies on the left end up in the same place as the crazies on the right.
May 25, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Mary, you should have written the CCC instead of Benedict/Ratzinger. Seriously. The fact that "Absolution and forgiveness does not remove temporal punishment which must be served by the murderer, unless the murderer can return and restore the life to his victim, otherwise the murderer says that the victim deserved to be put to death; committed a crime worthy of death. Justice and vindication of the innocent soul must accompany capital punishment. If the murderer were truly contrite, he would expire at the thought of his crime against God, humanity and his victim," has been lost by the USCCB, the Vatican and the vast majority of bishops in the Western world.
May 25, 2012 at 6:00 pm
Joseph: Pope Benedict XVI/Joseph Ratzinger did not write the CCC. Archbishop Christoph Shoenborn of Vienna did and the part on capital punisment, through the many missives from the faithful has been revised. I gave all my copies of the CCC away and will get back to you with the proper passage ASAP. Oh, I did sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as by the Holy Spirit. Thank you for your kind words. May God bless and keep you holy. and Remember me in prayer.
May 26, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Will do, Mary.
One question: How do you explain Chaput's reaction to Scalia?
May 28, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Joseph D'Hippolito: I did realize that same question. The USCCB rationale for trying to ban the death penalty is that ithe death penalty is not applied equally and one mistake is not permissible. The death penalty has been banned before as cruel and unusual punishment (the murderer can decapitate his victim but the state cannot put a hypodermic needle into the murderer. Makes sense.)Murderers were having a field day. Then the seven and eight year old little girls were being abducted, raped and murdered. Jesse Timmendaquas murdered Megan Kanka while the death penalty was banned and he is still solitary confinement in New Jersey. Capital punishment had to be returned. This happened about 1979- 1990+. Scalia is a high-profile Catholic Jurist. Caput may be holding him to a higher standard. The Bible also says: "You will not stand idly by while your neighbor's life is in jeopardy." John Paul II said the death penalty must be non-existent and "war no more" and this is understood as a fervent wish and desire. To ban the death penalty is possible only by banning homicide, which it is already illegal to kill another person. Caput may have been following John Paul II's prudential judgement, which by the way goes contrary to the Bible. Cain was still liable to be killed by anyone who saw him, as no one kept the Commandments, starting with Cain and his parents. Other than this, I know not why Chaput said what he said. Every living murderer puts evey other innocent of death person in DOUBLE JOEPARDY of life,while he lives, incarcerated or not. Thanks for asking.
One Hail Mary
May 29, 2012 at 3:25 am
Joseph D'Hippolito: There is one aspect of the death penalty that is horrifying and that is that in 1962 the Person of God was banned from the public square. Not since before our nation was founded on principles of supernatural grace, Wisdom, Divine Providence and perfect Justice, until now, is the Person of God, our Creator and endower of all unalienable civil rights in our Founding Principles, the Personification of perfect Justice been banned from our culture. No longer must a witness swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on the Word of God, the Bible. No longer is the judge able to tell the condemned murderer that God will have mercy on his immortal soul at sentencing. In other words, we are dependent upon a secular humanist with imperfect Justice without the Divine Will for man, because Jesus Christ is banned. This secular humanist can kill us at will for insulting or criticizing him.
May 29, 2012 at 2:45 pm
SSPX COULD MAKE THINGS EASIER FOR POPE BENEDICT XVI
The solution to the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) canonical status issue is easy and the SSPX can help Pope Benedict XVI.They can make his decision easy with a clear announcement on Catholic doctrine.
Bishop Bernard Fellay is quoted as saying that they do not reject the Council per se and could accept 95% of Vatican Council II.He would want the other five percent to be interpreted also according to Tradition.
So an announcement is called for:
The SSPX can state that they accept the Council as a historical reality-it happened. They would agree with the Council when it is interpreted according to Tradition. They also agree with Ad Gentes 7(AG 7), specially, which says all people, all non Catholics included, need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. This includes Jews, Muslims, Orthodox Christians and Protestants. AG 7 is not contradicted by Lumen Gentium 16 since we do not know anyone on earth saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience. So AG 7 does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Every one needs to convert into the Church and there are no known exceptions of the baptism of desire, seeds of the Word etc.We accept in principle the possibility of non Catholics being saved in invincible ignorance etc and in a manner known only to God. These cases are unknown to us.
Since the dogma and AG 7 affirm the need for all people to enter the Church, all political and social legislation must be centred on Jesus as he is understood by the Catholic Church, the one true Church (UR 3).AG 7 places a moral obligation on Catholics to affirm only the Catholic Church in inter-religious dialogue and ecumenism. In inter religious dialogue it must be remembered that the Church is the ordinary means of salvation (Redemptoris Missio 55).Catholics are the new people of God (NA 4), the Chosen People of God. They have the Jewish Messiah, the new and eternal Covenant and the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Once this is all clear and announced in public SSPX critics will observe that the SSPX is endorsing Vatican Council II (AG 7 etc). They are also affirming it in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In accord with Tradition, they are also affirming traditional ecclesiology and the traditional understanding of Judaism, other religions and ecumenism. So they cannot be faulted. They can cite references from the Council while the liberals cannot support their new ecclesiology with texts from the Council since LG 16 is not an exception to AG 7. There are no exceptions e.g. collegiality or Nostra Aetate do not reject AG 7.
Meanwhile the SSPX continues to reject the liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II which has no supporting text from the Council and assumes those saved in invincible ignorance etc are known to us on earth.
SSPX could in turn ask Cardinal Kurt Koch and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and the rest of the Vatican Curia, to affirm Vatican Council II (AG 7) in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions.
Cardinal Kurt Koch in his May 16 statement at the Angelicum University, reported by Catholic News Service and Rorate Caeli has indicated that Jews do not have to convert in the present time. This is proof that he does not accept Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades