SSPX to receive an apostolic administration?

explicitly condemned religious liberty as fale and even INSANE, explicitly condemned the Ecumenical movement as APOSTASY, etc. etc. Yet these previously papally-condemned things were EMBRACED at Vatican II and by the post-conciliar magisterium. So, while I won’t and don’t endorse the Schism of the SSPX, I can see why they don’t trust the “conciliar” church, as they call it.

Now that’s not quite correct. False ecumenism was condemned. Please cite the docs and passages you are talking about for further discussion.

MORTALIUM ANIMOS condemned the Ecumenical movement,period. It gave no leeway for a “good” form of ecumenism. The ecumenical movement in Pius XI’s time is the exact same ecumenical movement we have today, led by the World Council of Churches, the successor to the first ecumenical organization. Has the ecumenical movement borne any good spiritual fruit, now that the Catholic church has been involved in it for over 40 years? I say a resounding NO. The member denominations of the WCC have gone from liberal in 1965 to downright depraved today, even supporting abortion, sodomy, you name it, which they WEREN’T doing in 1965. Catholic participation in the Ecumenical movement hasn’t helped these protestant churches one bit, they have only gotten worse — much, much worse.

Jaypeeto4

Some examples - from my notes:

Can a Pope Act Or Go Contrary To Existing Doctrine? Against Tradition? Reverse Decisions Of His Predecessors? Or His Own Decrees?

In the first four centuries, there is no conclusive evidence that Christians ever placed a figure on the cross. Greek representations of Jesus suffering on the cross were condemned by Rome as blasphemy. When the Greeks, though not before the 10th century, painted Christ on the cross, with anatomical correctness, as dying or already dead, the innovation gave great scandal to the Latins. From the 6th century onward crucifixes in the strict sense were in use.

Son of a priest, Marinus I {109th P.}* was 12 years old when *he entered the church. When he succeeded John, he was the first bishop of another see to be elected pope IN VIOLATION of the ancient canons (notably canon 15 of Nicaea) prohibiting the translations of bishops from one see to another - a prohibition to which Nicholas I had appealed when refusing to appoint Bishop Formosus of Porto, later to be pope [and to be disgracefully degraded by two deranged successors], to the archbishopric of Bulgaria.

When the Byzantine emperor Leo VI, lacking a male heir, married for a fourth time (906) and found himself banned by Patriarch Nicholas I Mysticus, he had recourse to Sergius III {120th P.} in Rome and the great oriental patriarchs. The envoys whom Sergius sent to Constantinople, disregarding the greater strictness of eastern canon law and its antipathy to tetragamy, gave a verdict approving Leo’s 4th marriage, with the result that Nicholas was deposed and exiled and the eastern church entered on a period of confusion and controversy.

Paschal II {158th P.} agreed to waive the canons and let the sons of priests be ordained, otherwise there would have been no candidates for the ministry.

Celestine II {163rd P.} (26 Sep. 1143 - 08 Mar 1144) was a pupil and life-long admirer of the philosopher and theologian Peter Abelard (in 1140, Innocent II {162nd P.} had confirmed the condemnation passed on Abelard and his teaching by the council of Sens, June, 1140.) He lifted the interdict which Innocent II had laid in 1141 on all places sheltering Louis VII of France. He refused to ratify the treaty of Migniano (July 1139) under which Innocent had been forced to recognise Roger II’s sovereignty over southern Italy as well as Sicily.

Anastasius IV {166th P.} (12 July 1153 - 3 Dec. 1154) closed the dispute which had raged through four pontificates over the appointment of William Fitzherbert (St. William of York), DEPOSED by Bl. Eugenius III {165th P.} as Archbishop of York, by reinstating him and sending him the pallium.

Lucius III {169th P.} On the matter of clergy schismatically ordained during Alexander III’s reign, Lucius was at first disposed to grant Frederick I Barbarossa’s request for their restoration, but then he ruled that this could only be decided by a general council. This appears to mean that he believed that a General Council WAS superior to a pope.

Martin IV {187th P.} (22 Feb. 1281 - 28 Mar. 1285) The most French of the 13th cent. popes, he completely reversed his predecessor’s policies.

.

Martin V {204th P.} (11 Nov. 1417 - 20 Feb. 1431)
Confirmed the Decrees of the Council of Constance (1414-1418.) The Decree Frequens, provided thatthere would be a Council within 5, then 7, and then 10 year intervals thereafter;

Confirmed the decrees of the Council of Constance and promised to summon a fresh council every four years.

The most important of the decrees passed at Constance, without a single dissentient, declared that “every lawfully convoked Ecumenical Council representing the Church derives its authority immediately from Christ, and every one, the Pope included, is subject to it in matters of faith, in the healing of schism, and the reformation of the Church.”

Having closed the Council on Apr. 22, 1418, in a constitution of May 10, which was not published, he forbade any appeal from the pope to a future council.

But, he obeyed the decree Frequens (Oct. 5, 1417) of Constance requiring councils to be held at regular intervals, he summoned one to meet at Pavia in 5 years.

6 popes later: Sixtus IV {210th P.} in 1478 annulled the decrees of the council of Constance (1414 -17.)

Despite the Decree of the Council of Constance regarding frequent councils, the period between Trent and Vatican I was more than three hundred years and that between Vatican I and Vatican II was ninety-seven years. These are extraordinary periods without the exercise of general episcopal authority.

Alexander VI {212th P.} On Sept. 20, 1493 he signed two Bulls, both sworn to by the trustiest witnesses at his court. The first proving conclusively Cesare Borgia to be the son of Vanozza and her husband; the second, published in secret, acknowledging him as HIS son by Vanozza.

Sixtus V {225th P.} (24 Apr. 1585 - 27 Aug 1590) In Apr. 1588 set about re-writing the Vulgate. With his Bull Aeternus Ille (May 2, 1590) he issued via the) Vatican press a version which was so full of blunders that it had to be withdrawn after his death. “By the fullness of Apostolic power,…this edition…is to be received and held true, lawful, authentic and unquestioned.” It was left to Gregory XIV {227th P.} to limit the damage - a bible issued with the plenitude of papal power, complete with the trimmings of excommunication on the whole church - and it was riddled with errors!

**Urban VIII **{233rd P.} intervened at Galileo’s trial at the Inquisition to say that his friend was to be tortured if he did not conform. By all the normal criteria, the immobility of the earth was CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. It was upheld by every pope, bishop, theologian for centuries. Nor was it implicit. When the teaching was tested, when Copernicus and Galileo cast doubt upon it, the reigning pope and popes for centuries afterwards explicitly condemned it with the plenitude of their power. And they were WRONG!

“In November 1979…a most significant ceremony was held on the occasion of a most significant event: after three and a half centuries, Galileo Galilei had been rehabilitated by the Vatican and Pope John Paul II had made the public proclamation.”

The Bull of Clement XI {241st P.}, *Ex Illa Die, *put an effective end to the Chinese Mission - at the behest of the Dominicans (virtual enemies of the Jesuits.) Pius XII (258th P.} 1939: The Sacred Congregation of Propaganda reversed Clement XI’s decision on the Chinese rites.

St Pius X {255th P.} permitted bishops (June 11, 1905) to relax at their discretion his predecessors’ ban (the Non expedit) on the participation of Catholics in elections. Benedict XV {256th P.} gave his blessing to the Popular Party founded by Dom Luigi Sturzo in Jan. 1919, thereby effectively abolishing the Non expedit.

Pius XI {257th P.) 1930: In* Casti connubi* (on Christian Marriage - its excellence - the Pauline privilege) contrary to tradition, says that sex can begood and holy in itself! Further, “almost everything in (section 54) is against Christian tradition. Augustine and Gregory (the Great) expressly contradict everything in it. They did not distinguish between primary and secondary ends of marriage. Marriage was for procreation; that was not the primary end but the one end that could justify sexual intercourse. Any other purpose added to procreation was sin.”

[quote=Jaypeeto4]MORTALIUM ANIMOS condemned the Ecumenical movement,period. It gave no leeway for a “good” form of ecumenism. The ecumenical movement in Pius XI’s time is the exact same ecumenical movement we have today, led by the World Council of Churches, the successor to the first ecumenical organization. Has the ecumenical movement borne any good spiritual fruit, now that the Catholic church has been involved in it for over 40 years? I say a resounding NO. The member denominations of the WCC have gone from liberal in 1965 to downright depraved today, even supporting abortion, sodomy, you name it, which they WEREN’T doing in 1965. Catholic participation in the Ecumenical movement hasn’t helped these protestant churches one bit, they have only gotten worse — much, much worse.

Jaypeeto4
[/quote]

So, no quote?

MORTALIUM ANIMOS condemned the Ecumenical movement,period.

No, it condemned countenance in false Christianity, specifically the context of pan-Christian movements which promoted indifference.

The “Ecumenical” Council of Florence was an ecumenical movement. It was a gathering of Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, to include even the Oriental Orthodox who rejected the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon.

To conclude that the “ecumenical movement” was condemned by the Church is absurd. Those who reject ecumenism have to explain why they don’t also reject the Acta sacri oecumenici concilii Florentini.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.