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
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
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment