ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE DID NOT POINT OUT THE VISIBLE-DEAD ERROR TO CARDINAL OTTAVIANI NEITHER DID THEY MAKE IT KNOWN

Cardinal Ottaviani was the Secretary of the Holy Office in the Roman Curia from 1959 to 1966 according to Wikipedia, when that dicastery was reorganised as the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), of which he was Pro-Prefect until 1968.

When Cardinal Ottaviani ceased being the Prefect of the CDF Archbishop Lefebvre was in his fifties.He was an Archbishop at that time.

Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Archbishop Lefebvre participated in the debates and drafting of documents at Vatican Council II.

Archbishop Lefebvre was aware of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. Did he assume that the media's interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office was correct ?

Neither did he or Cardinal Ottaviani object. Neither did Cardinal Ottaviani lift the excommunication against Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated on 13 February 1953 for disobedience to Church authority i.e the bishop. He was reconciled to the Church in 1972, but was not required to retract or recant his interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

If the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus why did none of them object to the excommunication and the maintaining of the excommunication for some 19 years? The excommunication was for disobedience but the media was reporting that it was for heresy.

Being saved with the baptism of desire , invincible ignorance, a good conscience etc has nothing to do with the dogma since we do not know these cases. So they are not exceptions.

Did Cardinal Ottaviani and Archbishop Lefebvre not know this? Was there not an injustice being done in Boston to the former Jesuit priest?

Did Archbishop Lefebvre assume that the dead saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known to us in the present times and so are explicit exceptions to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

So like Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston, did they assume that Vatican Council II was a break with Tradition,  Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance and a good convcience) contradicted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

The SSPX was founded in 1970 and so they have continued to assume that Vatican Council II contradicts the traditional teaching on other religions. For the SSPX bishops and priests, the dead saved are visible and so are exceptions to the traditional understanding of the dogma on salvation.Lionel Andrades

If I spoke to an SSPX priest in Rome

Cardinal Christoph Schonborn says the Council is in accord with Tradition. At the same time he says there is a development of doctrine in Vatican Council II.

There as been no development of doctrine in Vatican Council II , on the subject of other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty.

I am sure if I spoke to an SSPX priest in Rome he would be critical of Cardinal Christoph Schonborn's statement on the 'development of doctrine' in Vatican Council II.

He would agree that we do not know anyone in the present times saved in invincible ignorance , a good conscience, seeds of the word, imperfect communion with the church etc.So there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.There is nothing written in Vatican Council II which changes the Catholic Church's teachings on other religions.So there cannot be a development of doctrine on the subject of other religions.

The Council does not state that other religions are valid paths to salvation.

Since it is possible for a non Catholic to be saved, it does not mean there is such a case in 2012 or during the last 100 years.Vatican Council II does not make this claim, otherwise it would be contradicting Ad Gentes 7 which states all need' faith and baptism' for salvation.It would also be contradicting Nostra Aetate 4 which states Catholics are 'the new people of God'; the Chosen People.

Nostra Aetate does not say that Jews and Muslims are saved in general in their religions, or that they do not have to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.

So Cardinal Schonborn cannot cite text in Vatican Council II which could suggest there has been 'a development of doctrine' on other religions and ecumenism.

If Ad Gentes 7 is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors then the Council is saying all non Catholics need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.This would mean non Catholics have a moral obligation to give up other religious beliefs and practices and then enter the Church with faith and baptism (AG 7).

This would mean that they are defacto legally free in a secular state with a secular Constitution to follow other religions (Dignitatis Humanae) but are morally obliged by the truth, to give up their religions which are false paths to salvation (AG 7,LG 14 etc).

Dignitatis Humane endorses the religious liberty of a Catholic to practise his religion freely and without coercion in a state with a secular Constitution.He also has the right to affirm it.Proclaining the one true faith is not coercion. It is a human right.

So there as been no development of doctrine in Vatican Council II , on the subject of other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty.

The bottom line is that there is no known salvation outside the church mentioned in Vatican Council II. There is no implicit salvation which is explicitly visible to us. So the ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is still traditional.-Lionel Andrades

SSPX NEVER BROUGHT SCHONBORN'S ERROR TO THE ATTENTION OF CDF PREFECTS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/sspx-never-brought-schonborns-error-to.html#links

 

THERE IS NO DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT IN VATICAN COUNCIL II AS CARDINAL CHRISTOPH SCHONBURG ALLEGES : SINCE THE COUNCIL DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE TRADITIONAL TEACHING ON OTHER RELIGIONS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/there-is-no-doctrinal-development-in.html

SSPX NEVER BROUGHT SCHONBORN'S ERROR TO THE ATTENTION OF CDF PREFECTS

The SSPX is letting Cardinal Schonborn get away again.They should be out there pointing out his precise theological error and calling press conferences.

Archbishop Gerhard Muller the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican said that those who interpret the Council as a break with Tradition are heretical. He was referring to all camps, traditionalists and progressives.

Archbishop Christoph Schonborn when questioned by the media agreed with Archbishop Muller but also added that in Vatican Council II there was ' a doctrinal development' !!

For progressives a doctrinal development means accepting 'the theology of religions', the 'ecclesiology of communion' and the 'ecumenism of non return'. This is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and the Social Reign of Christ the King.

Disobedient Schonborn has no text in Vatican Council II to support his new theology.Since the Council does not mention anyone in particular saved outside the church i.e without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. References to invincible ignorance, a good conscience, seeds of the word etc are in-principle cases, accepted hypothetically and known only to God.So the Council does not cite any case which contradicts the traditional teaching on other religions.

A doctrine develops from the time it is discussed before a Council, until it is made a dogma.There is no development of a defined dogma.A new or nuanced understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus cannot say there is known salvation outside the church.Since the dogma does not say it and rationality tells us that we do not know any such case personally.At least Vatican Council II does not say this . Neither does the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.

So what is the theological basis for Cardinal Schonborn's development of doctrine ? From where comes this new revelation which is the basis for his doctrinal development?

The progressives have built their theological house on straw. Doctrine and dogmas have an inherent precision about them, something like mathematics and a way of asserting itself. Cardinal Schonborn has no rational theology to support himself and prop his falling theological structures.

No one from the SSPX calls attention theologically to this mistake of Cardinal Schonborn. Since they too assume like the progressives that the dead are visible.So for them too there are known exceptions to the traditional teaching on other religions. There is a development of doctrine  in Vatican Council II for the SSPX. Ironic?!

From the CDF Prefects Ottaviani to Muller, the traditionalists have never called attention to the Schonborn error, every time it surfaces.

The Austrian cardinal should be explained to, that the dead man walking on earth, is not a basis for the development of doctrine. Ad Gentes 7 makes the Council traditional with respect to other religions and ecumenism.To claim that the dead who are saved are visible to us is 'extreme irrationality' aside from contributing to an 'extreme interpretation' of the Council.

No text in the Council says non Catholic religions are the ordinary means of salvation or that their members do not have to convert for salvation. No text in the Council says implicit salvation is explicit. No text says those cases which we accept in principle are actually also defacto and explicitly known to us humans.-Lionel Andrades

THERE IS NO DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT IN VATICAN COUNCIL II AS CARDINAL CHRISTOPH SCHONBURG ALLEGES : SINCE THE COUNCIL DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE TRADITIONAL TEACHING ON OTHER RELIGIONS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/there-is-no-doctrinal-development-in.html#links

DID CARDINAL ALFREDO OTTAVIANI KNOW THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE WERE NOT RELEVANT TO THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS ?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/did-cardinal-alfredo-ottaviani-know.html

SSPX CORRECT YOUR DOCTRINAL ERROR AND APPEAL TO THE CDF TO DO THE SAME

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/sspx-correct-your-doctrinal-error-and.html

SSPX PRIESTS SPEAK THE TRUTH HONESTLY,COURAGEOUSLY...

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/sspx-priests-speak-truth.html

DOCTRINAL ERROR OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE AND SSPX BISHOPS POSTED A NEW ON U.S WEBSITE

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/doctrinal-error-of-archbishop-lefebvre.html

THERE IS NO DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT IN VATICAN COUNCIL II AS CARDINAL CHRISTOPH SCHONBURG ALLEGES : SINCE THE COUNCIL DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE TRADITIONAL TEACHING ON OTHER RELIGIONS

Vatican Council II no where says that non Catholic religions are paths to salvation or that those saved in other religions are known to us and so are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So there is no 'doctrinal development' in Vatican Council II as Cardinal Christoph Schonburg puts it.

 

If the Council did state that there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus then there could be a 'theology of religions' or an 'ecclesiology of communion' and 'a doctrinal development'.

Cardinal Schonburg assumes that those saved in other religions, which we accept in principle as possibilities, are known to us.Then he assumes that these cases, known only to God, are exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The ordinary means of salvation according to Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. So non Catholics have an obligation to enter the Church for salvation.

Dignitatis Humane refers to the rights of non Catholics in a society with a secular Constituion.It also states that non Catholics have an obligation to enter the Church and the Catholic has the right to proclaim the Faith.

So there is no new doctrine being taught in Vatican Council II.

-Lionel Andrades

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Council: Cardinal Christoph Schönborn Rejects Extreme Interpretations

Edit: the kinds of hermeneutics and developments that would allow you to give a funeral to a Communist pornographer?

Vienna (kath.net/KAP) Cardinal Christoph Schönborn has turned against extreme positions in the estimation of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). In an interview with "Kathpress" and the media of the Archdiocese of Vienna the Cardinal has rejected all previous interpretations, where in the Council radically breaks with Tradition.

This determination is directed at those are only more fixed on novelties and reject Tradition, while the others demand a return to Tradition and reject the reforms of the Council.

Pope Benedict XVI. has warned against both versions and proposed a "hermeneutic of continuity". It is an organic development, says Schönborn. The Council has not been a break, actually it has been a "true doctrinal development" in the Catholic Church, for instance in relation to religious freedom, the Episcopal office or relations to non-Christian religions.

That in the wake of a Council that there are tensions and discussions about its correct interpretation, is nothing new in any case, says Schönborn. So it took about 300 years for example till the Church could prevail the doctrine of the Council of Nicea (325). From the earliest Councils till the Second Vatican Council, there have always been divisions or tendencies in the wake of Episcopal gatherings.

It is a very urgent task, says the Cardinal, that at least the central texts of the Vatican Council would have been reread, where for many it would probably be the first reading.

Admittedly there are still urgent tasks, which Pope Benedict XVI. also portends with the three volumes of his Jesus books. "It is completely decided on the question of the discipleship of Christ," stressed the Cardinal also with a view on the "Year of Faith".

A Christendom, "in which a vague love of God is somewhere on the horizon of lit and not the concrete visible living form of Jesus Christ with his invitation to follow" will sooner or later lose its ability to attract. A vague general religiosity is not able, "to gather people and imprint a society."

From kath.net...

(Eponymous Flower)

The issue is still doctrine

The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society (of St Pius X) does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church" (Pope Benedict XVI, Letter of 10 March 2009 to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre).(Wikipedia)

The issue is still doctrine.

The Vatican and the SSPX are using the false premise of the dead man walking and this is influencing their theology.It is changing Catholic doctrine and it affects their interpretation of Vatican Council II.

The SSPX cannot provide any text; any reference from Vatican Council II which contradicts the Church's traditional teaching on other religions. I have been saying this for a few years and no one in the SSPX has posted any material on line which  proves me wrong.

It is because of the dead man walking error that the SSPX assumes that Vatican Council II contradicts the Church's teaching on other religions.-Lionel Andrades

ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE FALSE PREMISE ?

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre says:

"Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.” (The Angelus, “A Talk Heard Round the World,” April, 2006, p. 5.)

Lionel: These cases are known only to God so they are irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. So why mention these 'exceptions'? Is he implying that a person who follows his conscience and is saved (LG 16) is  known to us and so is an exception to the dogma?

2

SSPX founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, "Against the Heresies",p.216

“Evidently,certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism,etc.),  but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions,who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire.

It is uniquely by this means that they are able to be saved.”

Lionel: So what if they are saved in their religion ? We do not personally know who they are. Is he implying that we do know these cases and so they are exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

Now on the U.S website of the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) there is an article by Fr.Francois Laisney in which he criticizes the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney, and he also implies, that these cases saved are known to us and so are exceptions to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The SSPX bishops have also made the same error and so they imply that seeds of the word, imperfect communion with the church, invincible ignorance, a good conscience etc mentioned in Vatican Council II are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Church's traditional teaching on other religions.

So the fault is not with the Council but with the false premise used by the SSPX religious and this influences their theology.

-Lionel Andrades

____________________________________

According to Archbishop Gerhard Muller Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was a heretic for interpreting Vatican Council II as a rupture with the past

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/according-to-archbishop-gerhard-muller.html#links

ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE WAS A MODERNIST FOR INTERPRETING VATICAN CONCIL II WITH THE EXPLICIT,VISIBLE TO US BAPTISM OF DESIRE

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-was.html#links

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not know the reason why Vatican Council II was modernist. It was there before him but he could not see it.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-did-not-know.html#links

NO SSPX RESPONSE TO TWO QUESTIONS ON RORATE CAELI

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/no-sspx-response-to-two-questions-on.html#links

CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER AND ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SSPX PROBLEM BY IDENTIFYING THE WRONG PREMISE

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/cardinal-joseph-ratzinger-and.html#links

BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS NOT AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA SO IF FR.LEONAED FEENEY SAID ‘THIS OR THAT’, AS THEY SAY, IT IS IRRELEVANT

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/baptism-of-desire-is-not-exception-to.html#links

Vatican Council II agrees with Fr.Leonard Feeney on extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Nothing in Vatican Council II contradicts the literal interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/vatican-council-ii-agrees-with.html#links

CONFERENCE NEEDED

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/conference-needed.html#links

Bishop Fellay, Fr.Schmidberger,FSSP,Joseph Fenton seem unaware the baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to the dogma

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/bishop-fellay-frschmidbergerfsspjoseph.html

Is the Catholic Church ecclesiocentric SSPX? It cannot be ecclesiocentric if those saved with the baptism of desire are explicitly known and not just accepted in principle.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/is-catholic-church-ecclesiocentric-sspx.html#links

POPE BENEDICT AND BISHOP GERHARD MULLER WORKED CLOSELY AT THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/pope-benedict-and-bishop-gerhard-muller.html#links

ITC documents 'Christianity and the World Religions' and 'The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized ' need to be retracted or corrected: Richard Cushing flaw runs through

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/itc-documents-christianity-and-world.html#links

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Bishop Charles Morerod O.P Oath of Fidelity: to dissent

Profession of Faith allows for dissent on ecclesiology and baptism

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/cardinal-luiz-ladaria-bishop-charles.html#links

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=327783

SSPX PRIESTS SPEAK THE TRUTH HONESTLY,COURAGEOUSLY...

SSPX priests speak out fearlessly that a false premise is being used which influences the false theology of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX).Since Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops assumed that those who are dead and saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known to us in the present times, they also assumed there is known salvation outside the church.So they actually believed that a defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which says all need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation, has known exceptions.

They extended this error to Vatican Council II and assumed once again that the dead are visible.So for the SSPX bishops and priests,being saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) etc, are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is also the theological position of the progressives whom the SSPX are supporting in ignorance.They are promoting dissent and heresy in the Catholic Church.

Instead of correcting this error, the U.S website of the SSPX has begun an attack on Bishop Richard Williamson and the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, also traditionalists.

Honesty in the Faith demands that the SSPX priests call attention to this error of the visible dead, the false premise, being used to reject Vatican Council II.

The SSPX leadership can cite no text in Vatican Council II; no reference, which contradicts the traditional teaching on other religions, unless they use the irrational premise of the dead man walking who is saved.

You cannot support a lie, with 'obedience'.

-Lionel Andrades

Its hard for traditionalists to say they are wrong

It's hard also for non traditionalist priests.

A few years back Fr.Anthony Cekada wrote online that the supporters of Fr.Leonard Feeney were in mortal sin for denying the baptism of desire.When he understood that there is no explicit baptism of desire and so it was irrelevant if Fr.Leonard Feeney rejected the baptism of desire, he removed that internet link.

I asked him if he could kindly issue a clarification saying that he was wrong and also apologize to the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney. He said he would not do it.

There was a traditionalist forum in which Fr.Cekada was a participant and was looked upto for comments. I 'unloaded' some of my blog posts on the forum and mentioned that Fr.Cekada was in heresy for still assuming that there are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.For him these cases are explicit in Vatican Council II and so the Council is a break with the dogma and Tradition.

I was banned on the forum. The administrators probably did not understand what I was saying and if Fr.Cekada did, he was not going to explain it in public.

Similarly it is hard for Fr.Peter Scott and Fr.Francois Laisney to admit that they are wrong or to answer questions online which will indicate that they and the SSPX are in heresy.These blog posts are read in Australia and the USA. SSPX priests understand what I have been saying.

Even after being informed Fr.Cekada would allow Catholics to remain in error and would not issue a clarification.The SSPX is now rejecting Vatican Council II because of the dead man walking error and the priests Scott and Laisney are still churning out the old nonsense on Vatican Council II.

The General Chapter Statement of the SSPX (July 19,2012) indicates that Bishop Bernard Fellay knows that there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Can he apply this to Vatican Council II? Can he say that there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Can he admit that the Council does not contradict the traditional teaching on other religions?


Could the priests of the SSPX admit that they made a doctrinal error ? They were wrong in assuming that the dead who are  saved, are visible on earth and that they used this premise to influence their theology. The result was that they interpreted Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and so the Council emerged modernist.

Can they announce that we do not not know any case of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, seeds of the word, imperfect communion with the church etc and so there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II  to the traditonal understanding on  other religions ?-Lionel Andrades

SSPX IS HERETICAL ON OTHER RELIGIONS

The Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) website cannot cite a single reference from Vatican Council II which contradicts the traditional understanding of other religions- yet the priests Fr.Peter Scott, Fr.Francois Laisney and others are rejecting Vatican Council II.

The SSPX has informed the Vatican publicly that their differences over Vatican Council II are based on three subjects, other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty.

It has been a few years now and I have been saying that the SSPX has made a doctrinal error.There is no one at the SSPX U.S website , or elsewhere, who have showed me how could I be wrong.No one has posted any text.

Instead of answering the two questions I ask of them, they go into an attacking mode, against the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney, also traditionalists.I am not using the apologetics of the traditionalists.

I have been saying that the baptism of desire has nothing to do with the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So implicit salvation in Vatican Council II, which is known only to God, cannot contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So how can Vatican Council II contradict the Church's teaching on other religions?

Ad Gentes7 supports the Church's teaching on other religions when it states all need faith and baptism for salvation.Protestants, Jews, and Muslims do not have Catholic Faith!

They cannot be saved unless they convert into the Church, before death,according to Vatican Council II.

Vatican Council II is traditional and not heretical or a rupture with the past.It's the SSPX which is heretical on this point.-Lionel Andrades

THE SSPX CANNOT CITE ANY TEXT IN VATICAN COUNCIL II WHICH CONTRADICTS THE TRADITIONAL TEACHING ON OTHER RELIGIONS- THEY HAVE TO USE THE DEAD MAN WALKING THEORY
SSPX CAN PR0VIDE NO REFERENCE IN VATICAN COUNCIL II WHICH CONTRADICTS THE TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/the-sspx-cannot-cite-any-text-in.html


SSPX SELLS HERETICAL BOOK BASED ON THE IRRATIONALITY OF THE DEAD MAN WALKING THEORY
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/sspx-sells-heretical-book-based-on.html


SSPX CORRECT YOUR DOCTRINAL ERROR AND APPEAL TO THE CDF TO DO THE SAME
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/sspx-correct-your-doctrinal-error-and.html


VATICAN COUNCIL II AFFIRMS THE SOCIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST THE KING
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/vatican-council-ii-affirms-social.html

Fr.John Courtney Murray blew it. He didn't complete the job.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/frjohn-courtney-murray-blew-it-he-didnt.html

According to Archbishop Gerhard Muller Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was a heretic for interpreting Vatican Council II as a rupture with the past
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/according-to-archbishop-gerhard-muller.html

SSPX U.S website unable to defend SSPX on crucial point
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/sspx-us-website-unable-to-defend-sspx.html

THE SSPX CANNOT CITE ANY TEXT IN VATICAN COUNCIL II WHICH CONTRADICTS THE TRADITIONAL TEACHING ON OTHER RELIGIONS- THEY HAVE TO USE THE DEAD MAN WALKING THEORY

SSPX CAN PR0VIDE NO REFERENCE IN VATICAN COUNCIL II WHICH CONTRADICTS THE TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION

On the U.S website of the SSPX a comparision is made between Tradition and Vatican Council II. The SSPX are unable to show in this comparision where does Vatican Council II contradict the Catholic Church' traditional teaching on other religions or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The SSPX websites states:

Contrary magisterial teaching

Finally, some incoherence is readily perceived if one peruses the Council texts and compares them with Church Tradition. Is it impertinent to wonder whether we can speak of continuity in the magisterium when one accepts the following propositions side by side?

Tradition                                                  
The Church of Jesus Christ is only the Catholic Church

Vatican II

and is not only the Catholic Church.

Tradition  
The truth in religious matters is the Catholic faith alone

Vatican II

and is not the Catholic faith alone.

Tradition   
The dissident churches are not proper churches,

Vatican II

and the dissident churches are, although in a way distinct from the Catholic, true churches.

Tradition  Souls can be sanctified within the dissident communities despite of them,

Vatican II

and souls can be sanctified in them and thanks to them.

Tradition

Man has in principle no right to religious freedom to propagate error in countries (although this could be tolerated),

Vatican II

and Man has in principle a right to religious freedom and to non-Catholic propaganda.

Tradition

Human nature is not the foundation of any right to religious freedom and

Vatican II

human nature is the foundation of the right to religious freedom.

Tradition

Outside the Church there is no salvation,

Vatican II

and outside Vatican II there is no traditionalist salvation. (1)

-Lionel Andrades

1
http://www.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/is_the_sspx_heretical_4_12-19-2012.htm    

SSPX CLAIMS TRADITION TAUGHT THAT OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION BUT VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT TEACH THIS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/sspx-claims-tradition-taught-that.html#links

SSPX SELLS HERETICAL BOOK BASED ON THE IRRATIONALITY OF THE DEAD MAN WALKING THEORY

Here is the blurb of a book being sold by the SSPX.

Sr. Sunshine says, "All nice people go to heaven."

Fr. Overreact says, "Only water-baptized Catholics go to heaven."

Both are dead wrong!

Lionel:

Only water baptized Catholics go to Heaven -yes! Unless the SSPX knows some case in 2012 which is an exception? Can Fr.Laisney name any exception in 2012 ? No he cannot but he assumes like the SSPX bishops that there are dead man walking on earth who are saved. He assumes that these cases can be explicit.

Question 321, Baltimore Catechism: "How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism?"

Answer: "Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire." Period. Amen... for most of us.

Lionel:

Yes we accept in principle that they can be saved with the baptism of desire and blood- period! The Baltimore Catechism does not say that we know these cases in the present times and neither does it state that these cases must be considered exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The SSPX implies that the dead man walking saved with the baptism of desire is an exception and explicit for us. They extend this fault to their interpretation of Vatican Council II.

For instance they cannot provide any reference in Vatican Council II which contradicts the traditional teaching on other religions unless they are using the dead man walking theory.

But some, who even call themselves traditional Catholics, cannot accept this simple teaching of our catechism. They cannot accept baptism of desire because they confuse the grace of baptism (which is necessary for salvation) with the character of baptism (which is not necessary for salvation). Because of this confusion, they deny the simple truth that all that is really necessary for salvation is to die in the state of grace.

Lionel:

Those who die in a state of grace and do not allegely receive the baptism of water, are known only to God.How can the SSPX presume that we know these cases and if we do not know these cases why mention it? How does it contradict the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney if these cases are not visible on earth ? The baptism of desire has nothing to do with his interpretation.Zero cases of something are not exceptions says the apologist John Martigioni.

This is serious. And you need to know how to address these errors, how to defend the orthodox Faith, how to defend yourself and your family, and how to help those sitting in the darkness of error. This book examines these simple truths of our catechism. Quoting heavily the Church's Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the writings of the Saints, Fr. Laisney explains the Church's teaching on Baptism of Desire. A defense of Catholicism, not of false ecumenism. Father's new edition is twice the size of his original work and is enriched and made more convincing by copious quotations from the writings of the Saints.

Lionel:

 No where in the writings of the ' Church's Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Saints' is it said that the baptism of desire is visible and so an exception to anything. One has to wrongly assume it and the SSPX does so.

The SSPX book implies  that implicit salvation is explicit.Then they conclude that Vatican Council II contradicts Tradition, the dogma on salvation, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism and the traditional teaching on other religions.

-Lionel Andrades

http://angeluspress.org/Is-Feeneyism-Catholic?keyword=laisney
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/various_churches_fr_laisney_12-21-2012.htm

SSPX CORRECT YOUR DOCTRINAL ERROR AND APPEAL TO THE CDF TO DO THE SAME
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/sspx-correct-your-doctrinal-error-and.html#links

DOCTRINAL ERROR OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE AND SSPX BISHOPS POSTED A NEW ON U.S WEBSITE

SSPX repeats heresy of rejecting Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with allegedly visible cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

The SSPX U.S website has reposted an article by Fr.Francois Laisney which indicates that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) is still struck with  the dead man walking on earth virus. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops have also assumed that the baptism of desire is relevant to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

This means the SSPX still interprets the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 as a break with Tradition. So they would also be interpreted Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance etc) as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.Then they blame Vatican Council II !

Without the premise of the dead man walking saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, the interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II changes.

So much of analysis and verbiage and yet Fr. Laisney and Fr.Peter Scott on this website will not answer two simple questions.

Fr.Francois Laisney and the SSPX are making the same error of the progressives. The assume the dead saved can be seen and then presume that these cases are exceptions or relevant to the literal interpretaion of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

The SSPX General Chapter has stated that there are no exceptions- Fr.Laisney says there are exceptions to the dogma!

Whether the baptism of desire results in justification or salvation is irrelevant to the dogma since we do not know and cannot know any of these cases.

-Lionel Andrades

http://sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm  

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/various_churches_fr_laisney_12-21-2012.htm



Tuesday, December 25, 2012
SSPX CORRECT YOUR DOCTRINAL ERROR AND APPEAL TO THE CDF TO DO THE SAME
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/sspx-correct-your-doctrinal-error-and.html#links

SSPX CORRECT YOUR DOCTRINAL ERROR AND APPEAL TO THE CDF TO DO THE SAME

The Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) needs to call attention to three points. They need to show the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF):

1.CDF Secretary's heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II.(1)


2.Catholic Universities interpretation of the Council as a break with the past.(2)

3.Progressives communities denying Vatican Council II with irrational non traditonal interpretations.Also the secular media repeats error.(3)

The SSPX needs to point out to their General Chapter Meeting statement which says 'we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation'(4)

Meanwhile they should stop selling the book of Fr.Francois Laisney which has the same irrational error as the CDF Secretary's book Documenti and those of the progressive  religious communities and organisations.(5)

Also the SSPX webpages which suggest that there are three known baptisms( water, blood and desire) instead of just one known, that of, water, need to be removed(6)

The SSPX leadership needs the courage and honesty to answer the following two questions in public.They could ask the CDF to do the same, before any reconciliation is possible.

1) Do we personally know the dead saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc ?

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?  (7)

Without answering these two qustions any doctirnal reconcilaition or talks is a waste of time.

The SSPX must admit that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, like the SSPX bishops, made a doctrinal error in assuming that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ,when it really has nothing to do with the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

The SSPX has to get its message across that they accept Vatican Council II as a historical reality. Archbishop Lefebvre participated in it.However they are not obliged to accept an interpretation of Vatican Council II with an irrational premise.The dead man walking on earth is not part of the deposit of the faith.

The SSPX should take the initiative . Don't expect the leftists papers to do it for you.This issue has only to be brought out in the open and the CDF will then respond.-Lionel Andrades

1.
CDF HAS PUBLISHED DOCUMENTI WHICH INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II AS A RUPTURE WITH TRADITION.IT IS HERETICAL ACCORDING TO THE RECENT STATEMENT OF ARCHBISHOP MULLER
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/cdf-has-published-documenti-which.html#links

2.
Congregation for Catholic Education says Fr.Robert Christian O.P's case should be referred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/congregation-for-catholic-education.html#links
WHAT IS THE CREDIBILITY OF URBANIANA PONTIFICAL UNIVERSITY, ROME ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/06/what-is-credibility-of-urbaniana.html#links

3.

Paulist Fathers, Sant Egidio and Legion of Christ must also accept Archbishop Muller's ' fullness of the Catholic faith and its practice'
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/paulist-fathers-sant-egidio-and-legion.html
Archbishop Gerhard Muller says that the SSPX needs to distinguish the true teaching of the Second Vatican Council: but he will not correct Reuters.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/archbishop-gerhard-muller-says-that.html

4.

For this reason it seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation;

http://www.dici.org/en/news/society-of-st-pius-x-general-chapter-statement/

5.
http://www.sspx.org/books/Is_Feeneyism_Catholic.pdf

6.

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/three_errors_of_feeneyites.htm

7.

http/eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/search/label/TWO%20QUESTIONS


Photos: (above) The Eucharist in Perpetual Adoration today, Christmas, at Santa Anastasia, the only church open throughout the day in Rome, the CDF/ITC heretical book Documenti, a creative crib in Rome and Fr.Leonard Feeney speaking courageously at the Boston Common.