The Remnant newspaper has a report by Fr.Francois Laisney .None of their correspondents, can see the Council as traditional, since they all assume that the deceased are visible to us and they use this observation in their interpretation of Vatican Council II.
There is so much SSPX material on the Internet which wrongly assumes that we know people in the present times who are exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So in all their 'analysis' they assume that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus.
Then they will pick up one passage here and there to prove that the Council is modernist. Of course the Council is modernist when you interpret it with the premise of being able to see the dead, the ghosts.
This is the liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II and the only one the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) seems to know at present. This is the only one they have known all these years.
They can only criticize the Council but cannot provide an alternative interpretation because they do not know of one and the Vatican Curia is of no help to them at this time.
They could excommunicate the SSPX for not accepting the false interpretation of the Council, a Council which is a break from the past and which allegedly says we can see ghosts saved with 'the seeds of the Word' and in 'imperfect communion ' with the Church.
These same ghosts can be seen by the SSPX priests Fathers Peter Scott, Francois Laisney and Joseph Pfieffer(SSPX-SO).All in the name of Tradition!The deceased are visible!
Fr.Francois Laisney and traditionalists mention that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 suggested that the baptism of desire was relevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma. The Letter suggested first, before all of them, that they could all see ghosts.
Anyway, if we cannot see anyone saved with the baptism of desire and the Magisterium cannot name any person in particular in the present times, and yet if the Letter still says that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma, then it was an oversight in the Letter.It was a misunderstanding.
When the SSPX recognizes this oversight then they may be able to see that Vatican Council II is in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors and extra ecclesiam nulla salus and it is Fathers Laisney,Scott and Pfieffer who are in error and not Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-1015-laisney-di-noia.htm
Fr.Francois Laisney makes the same error as Archbishop Di Noia in assuming that there are explicit known cases on earth who can be saved outside the Catholic Church.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/frfrancois-laisney-makes-same-error-as.html#links
Archbishop DiNoia has “tried to argue that all the SSPX has to do is to say there’s nothing in the Council that is contrary to Tradition- Fr.Francois Laisney,SSPX
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-dinoia-has-tried-to-argue.html#links
This is the liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II and the only one the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) seems to know at present. This is the only one they have known all these years.
They can only criticize the Council but cannot provide an alternative interpretation because they do not know of one and the Vatican Curia is of no help to them at this time.
They could excommunicate the SSPX for not accepting the false interpretation of the Council, a Council which is a break from the past and which allegedly says we can see ghosts saved with 'the seeds of the Word' and in 'imperfect communion ' with the Church.
These same ghosts can be seen by the SSPX priests Fathers Peter Scott, Francois Laisney and Joseph Pfieffer(SSPX-SO).All in the name of Tradition!The deceased are visible!
Fr.Francois Laisney and traditionalists mention that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 suggested that the baptism of desire was relevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma. The Letter suggested first, before all of them, that they could all see ghosts.
Anyway, if we cannot see anyone saved with the baptism of desire and the Magisterium cannot name any person in particular in the present times, and yet if the Letter still says that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma, then it was an oversight in the Letter.It was a misunderstanding.
When the SSPX recognizes this oversight then they may be able to see that Vatican Council II is in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors and extra ecclesiam nulla salus and it is Fathers Laisney,Scott and Pfieffer who are in error and not Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-1015-laisney-di-noia.htm
Fr.Francois Laisney makes the same error as Archbishop Di Noia in assuming that there are explicit known cases on earth who can be saved outside the Catholic Church.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/frfrancois-laisney-makes-same-error-as.html#links
Archbishop DiNoia has “tried to argue that all the SSPX has to do is to say there’s nothing in the Council that is contrary to Tradition- Fr.Francois Laisney,SSPX
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-dinoia-has-tried-to-argue.html#links
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment