IDENTIFY THE VISIBLE DEAD PROBLEM IN VATICAN COUNCIL II AND CREATE UNITY AMONG ALL SSPX PRIESTS

We acknowledge invincible ignorance etc but they are not exceptions to anything.

Normally there are no exceptions. So Vatican Council II is a traditionalist document since it contains no exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors.

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) priests are invited to answer two questions (1) which are being avoided by Cardinal Sean O Malley, the  Archbishop of Boston.

The answer to these two questions can unite all the SSPX priests some of whom are concerned that the SSPX would compromise the Faith with the Vatican.

The two questions have also been asked of Bishop Richard Williamson and his response is awaited.

In the National Catholic Register interview Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, Vice President of  Ecclesia Dei,Vatican  seems to answer these two questions irrationally and non traditionally .The questions however were not directly put to him.(2)

I would invite Fr. Chazal or any other SSPX priest to answer the two questions and send me their views. -Lionel Andrades

1.

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 ?

2.
How much is a perceived weakening of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (no salvation outside the Church) a major part of the problem, as some traditionalists assert? Has today’s understanding of the dogma contradicted its earlier teaching?

I don’t know if you can blame this on the Council so much as the emergence of a theological trend that emphasized the possibility of salvation of non-Christians. But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it. … [Karl] Rahner had a disastrous effect on this with his “anonymous Christianity.” But the Council does not alter the teaching of the Church.

And yet they argue it does?

This is a very good example of two of the things we’ve mentioned: the danger of reading this as it’s been read by Rahner, instead of in the light of the whole Tradition.

They claim that salvation is hardly proclaimed anymore.

Ralph Martin agrees with that. We do have a crisis, because the Church has been infected with the idea that we don’t have to worry or be anxious or we don’t sufficiently take the mandate to proclaim Christ seriously. But it’s not because of Vatican II, but bad theology. That’s why Dominus Iesus was part of the response to all of that theology of religion. There is no question that the necessity of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus has a long history. But they were talking about heretics, not nonbelievers. That formula addresses the problems of heresies. It has its history.

The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.07/01/2012

 

(Emphasis added: Noted the archbishop is saying that we know people who are saved with elements of grace in other religions for them to be explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It's only if these cases are known that they can be exceptions to the tradiitonal teaching.-L.A)

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-dinoia-ecclesia-dei-and-the-society-of-st.-pius-x/