If the Vatican had wanted to pick a new fight with the SSPX, it would have been easy enough. A confrontational response might have pointed out that if the traditionalists believe that salvation is impossible outside the Catholic Church, they should be working feverishly to ensure that they are inside, not trifling with the risk of excommunication. - Phil Lawler (1)
According to the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) they are in the Church and those who reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Syllabus of Errors and other Magisterial texts are out of the Church.
Those out of the Church for the SSPX would include Jeff Mirus,of Catholic Culture,Phil Lawler's employer, who interprets Vatican Council II as break from Tradition.
Mirus and the Vatican Curia use a false premise of the dead saved and visible to us who are exceptions to the dogm. So for them there is salvation outside the Church in Vatican Council II.
Jeff Mirus and those with the possibility to excommunicate the SSPX at the Vatican do not realize that to interpret Vatican Council II with this false premise is a heresy aside from being irrational and non traditional.
Vatican Council II is a traditional document in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus and this is not understood by Jeff Mirus.
Jeff Mirus' Trinity Communications has placed an article on the internet critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney (Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard Feeney) in which it is assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicit exceptions to the dogma and to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
We do not know anyone now dead but saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. So how can it be an exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney's 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma?
How can Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance and a good conscience) be an exception to the dogma. We do not know any such case on earth.So how can the Vatican Curia and Catholic Culture postulate that there is salvation outside the Church when we do not know a single exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation?
Phil Lawler believes in the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
However we have a Vatican Curia in public heresy, in public mortal sin for denying a defined dogma, Vatican Council II (AG 7) and demanding that the SSPX accept a Vatican Council II with the Cushing error of knowing the dead saved in invincible ignorance etc who are alleged exceptions to the dogma.
In a month or so Jeff Mirus will be proclaiming more of this irrationality and demanding that the traditionalists say that they can see the dead on earth and so there is salvation outside the Church according to Vatican Council II.All Catholics must accept this heresy , the SSPX included.
Phil Lawler does not say that the key to understanding the SSPX and Vatican Council II is the General Chapter comment on outside the Church there is no salvation.Since there are no exceptions for the SSPX, Vatican Council II does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So we have the possibility of the SSPX accepting Vatican Council II in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and with their traditional position on other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty.-Lionel Andrades
1.
The SSPX didn't say No. An agreement is still likely. The Vatican made an offer, and the leaders of the SSPX said No. Or did they?
Go ahead: read our CWN news story. Better yet, read the full statement from the SSPX general chapter. Do you see a clear “No” anywhere? Neither do I.
There is no “Yes,” either, I admit. And some of the language used in the SSPX statement is not calculated to please Vatican officials. The reference to “the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors” is a reminder that the SSPX is not ready to yield. The call for “an open and serious debate” could be taken as a complaint that the Vatican is not taking the issues seriously yet. The expression of hope for “the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities” suggests that Church officials have broken with the apostolic tradition—a charge that the Vatican cannot take lightly.
But really, is there anything new in these statements? We all knew that the SSPX cannot accept some Vatican II teachings. We knew that the group wants to debate with the Vatican about the interpretation of those disputed teachings. We knew that the SSPX claims to uphold “Tradition” in a way that, it claims, the Vatican today does not. Anyone who takes offense at these statements is probably too thin-skinned to be engaged in the ongoing talks between the SSPX and the Holy See.
The mild, noncommittal communiqué from the Vatican seems to indicate that Vatican officials did not take offense. Although it was not a formal reply to the SSPX, the tone of the Vatican’s public statement seems to send an encouraging message: “Say what you want among yourselves. We’ll keep talking. We’re waiting to hear more from you.” Notice too that the Vatican showed no sign of surprise at the SSPX statement. This was not unexpected; the lines of communication are open.
If the Vatican had wanted to pick a new fight with the SSPX, it would have been easy enough. A confrontational response might have pointed out that if the traditionalists believe that salvation is impossible outside the Catholic Church, they should be working feverishly to ensure that they are inside, not trifling with the risk of excommunication. Or that for a group that proclaims the Roman Pontiff as the supreme ruler of the Church, the SSPX shows precious little fealty to the Pope. Or that it is presumptuous for SSPX members to compare themselves to the victims of persecution, when they are suffering no hardship that they did not bring upon themselves. But Vatican officials are not making those points. The Holy See is watching carefully, silently—like a loving parent, waiting for an angry child to calm down and a reasonable discussion can resume.
As resume it will. The SSPX did not say No. On the contrary, the traditionalist group settled on a procedure by which an “extraordinary chapter” would be convened to approve any offer of reconciliation. Why would that procedure be necessary, if the SSPX did not anticipate an acceptable offer? Moreover, the procedure that the SSPX established gives more control to Bishop Bernard Fellay, who has given every indication that he wants to see the talks with Rome successfully concluded.
Before the meeting of the SSPX general chapter, there were reports that unnamed Vatican officials had subverted the wishes of Pope Benedict XVI, attaching onerous new requirements to the offer for reconciliation. No such accusations appeared in the SSPX public statement. The traditionalist group did not denounce Vatican officials, nor complain about recent talks. The statement gave every indication that the SSPX hopes for talks with the Vatican to continue, and to reach a mutually acceptable conclusion.
The SSPX surely knows that these talks cannot go on forever. The statement from the general chapter placed heavy emphasis on the importance of reading all Church teachings in the light of the tradition “which, by its teaching authority, transmits the revealed Deposit of Faith in perfect harmony with the truths that the entire Church has professed, always and everywhere.” Here the SSPX invokes the “hermeneutic of continuity” that Pope Benedict XVI has insisted must be the key to understanding Vatican II. This pontificate has opened the door to the discussion the SSPX wants, and now the discussion is taking place in earnest. But this pontificate will not last forever, nor will the Vatican’s patience with these long-running discussions.
Pope Benedict, too, knows that the window of opportunity could close soon. He is very serious about his role as the focus of Christian unity, and determined to end this painful division. His appointment of Archbishop Augustine Di Noia as vice-president of the Ecclesia Dei commission makes sense only if the Pope sees a realistic opportunity for closing the deal and reconciling the SSPX.
So where do we stand? The two sides, Rome and Écone, still have serious differences, but we knew that. The two sides are also taking care to avoid unnecessary provocations; they are keeping their talks confidential, rather than playing out the debates in public. These are usually indications that the two sides believe an agreement is within reach. Sure enough, both sides are making preliminary plans for how a final agreement could be hammered out and ratified. Don’t bet against it.
July 19, 2012
Posts
1 comment:
My prayers and meditation tell me that it is NEVER permissible to teach to anyone that that they will be saved outside the Catholic Church. The second that anyone would imply that Baptism of Desire, for instance is an option for Salvation they would violate centuries of doctrine, Ex Cathedra pronouncements and truth itself and be guilty of error up to and including heresy. No one would should teach to a catechcumen, let alone a non Catholic that if they were to die before they received baptism that they would be judged to have received Baptism of Desire. The possibility of Baptism of Desire certainly exists along with all of the other unknown attributes and sins of such a persons BUT these conditions would be known to God alone for eternal judgement and not men on earth. They are NOT exceptions to always teaching that there is No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church. How could anyone on earth possibly know, judge and award Salvation to someone that seeks God with a sincere heart and is not Catholic? How could anyone know the intricate facts of this persons life as God would be privy to and in every minute detail? Who would tell us the names of the invincible ignorant other than God Himself if and when they exist? This is exactly where Cardinal Cushing crossed the line because of his affiliation with lax Catholics or non Catholics and thus broke with centuries of Church teaching. He was followed by so many for so long down the wrong path and so we along with Jesus, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church have suffered.
Post a Comment