Tuesday, May 29, 2012

VATICAN COUNCIL II IS A TRADITIONALIST DOCUMENT

Even if the SSPX bishops are faulted they still call the shots since traditional doctrine is fully in accord with Vatican Council II.

The liberals do not have any citations from Vatican Council II since LG 16 does not contradict AG 7. For the Jewish Left the Council is just an empty political slogan for whatever is on their agenda.

Vatican Council II is a traditionalist document irrespective if the SSPX rejects or accepts it.

Some 13 or 14 years back I was a day student at a Catholic seminary near my house.During the ecclesiology semester we were taught different models of Church. There was the inverted pyramid model,or the Church as communion, or collegiality etc.I ask myself how do any of these models contradict AG 7? It does not!

And finally all of us will be judged individually and not in communion etc.

Similarly the ecclesiology seminar during the first week of June at the Gregorian University is on the theme ‘An ecclesiology which serves’.In other words reject the traditional model and choose what you want. They cannot cite texts from Vatican Council but just claim that it is the spirit of Vatican Council II and the spirit of Vatican Council II could be different for different Catholics. They cannot cite texts from Vatican Council since it is a traditionalist Council.

SSPX and many traditionalists do not see Vatican Council II as a traditionalist Council,since like the liberals, they assume that those saved in invincible ignorance etc (LG 16) are explicitly known.Once this error is detected, no one can doubt that Vatican Council II is a traditionalist Council, with traditional values on Judaism, other religions and ecumenism.Over time more Catholics will realize this.

Once this error of the visible baptism of desire and invincible ignorance is detected things begin to fall into place, the texts seem ‘refreshingly clear’ as someone put it.

One has to explain the Council using AG 7 and extra ecclesiam nulla salus as the basis and all traditional values become coherent : ecclesiology, other religions, ecumenism etc.

If someone criticizes the Council as being liberal the odds are he or she assumes people saved with a good conscience etc are known to us on earth.-Lionel Andrades

SSPX COULD MAKE THINGS EASIER FOR POPE BENEDICT XVI

The solution to the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) canonical status issue is easy and the SSPX can help Pope Benedict XVI.They can make his decision easy with a clear announcement on Catholic doctrine.

Bishop Bernard Fellay is quoted as saying that they do not reject the Council per se and could accept 95% of Vatican Council II.He would want the other five percent to be interpreted also according to Tradition.

So an announcement is called for:

The SSPX can state that they accept the Council as a historical reality-it happened. They would agree with the Council when it is  interpreted according to Tradition. They also agree with Ad Gentes 7(AG 7), specially, which says all people, all non Catholics included, need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. This includes Jews, Muslims, Orthodox Christians and Protestants. AG 7 is not contradicted by Lumen Gentium 16 since we do not know anyone on earth saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience. So AG 7 does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Every one needs to convert into the Church and there are no known exceptions of the baptism of desire, seeds of the Word etc.We accept in principle the possibility of non Catholics being saved in invincible ignorance etc and in a manner known only to God. These cases are unknown to us.

Since the dogma and AG 7 affirm the need for all people to enter the Church, all political and social legislation must be centred on Jesus as he is understood by the Catholic Church, the one true Church (UR 3).AG 7 places a moral obligation on Catholics to affirm only the Catholic Church in inter-religious dialogue and ecumenism. In inter religious dialogue it must be remembered that the Church is the ordinary means of salvation (Redemptoris Missio 55).Catholics are the new people of God (NA 4), the Chosen People of God. They have the Jewish Messiah, the new and eternal Covenant and the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Once this is all clear and announced in public SSPX critics will observe that the SSPX is endorsing Vatican Council II (AG 7 etc). They are also affirming it in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In accord with Tradition, they are also affirming traditional ecclesiology and the traditional understanding of Judaism, other religions and ecumenism. So they cannot be faulted. They can cite references from the Council while the liberals cannot support their new ecclesiology with texts from the Council since LG 16 is not an exception to AG 7. There are no exceptions e.g. collegiality or Nostra Aetate do not reject AG 7.

Meanwhile the SSPX continues to reject the liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II which has no supporting text from the Council and assumes those saved in invincible ignorance etc are known to us on earth.

SSPX could in turn ask Cardinal Kurt Koch and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and the rest of the Vatican Curia, to affirm Vatican Council II (AG 7) in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no known exceptions.

Cardinal Kurt Koch in his May 16 statement at the Angelicum University, reported by Catholic News Service and Rorate Caeli has indicated that Jews do not have to convert in the present time. This is proof that he does not accept Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades

SSPX (USA) IS STILL REALLY SAYING THE MAGISTERIUM MADE A MISTAKE IN THE FR.LEONARD FEENEY CASE

We know there is no known baptism of desire and if the Letter of the Holy Office 'condemned' Fr.Leonard Feeney for denying the baptism of desire then they made a mistake.

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) position on the baptism of desire is the same as that of Cardinal Walter Kaspar who will preside at an ecumenical conference next week on ecclesiology to be held at the Gregorian Pontifical University, Rome.

The seminar is to reject the traditional concept of ecclesiology.Cardinal Kaspar too believes like the traditionalists that the baptism of desire is visible and so is an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

In a way Cardinal Kaspar and the SSPX are saying that every one on earth does not need the Eucharist for salvation and there are known exceptions to John 6.

Whatever way one may interpret the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and however one may argue, we all have to agree that we do not know any case of the baptism of desire neither do we know anyone on earth, or Heaven, saved in invincible ignorance.

Once the SSPX makes a clear announcement on this subject Cardinal Kaspar and  others will realize that they are pushing a dead horse, a false ecclesiology with no available citation from the Letter or any other magisterial text-unless they assume that the Magisterium made a mistake.

When the Letter refers to the baptism of desire, like other magisterial documents, it means the baptism of desire accepted only in principle, as a belief, in faith. It cannot be otherwise. We cannot know defacto(explicit) cases of anyone saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.So the Letter of the Holy Office has not made a mistake. It is the SSPX and Cardinal Kaspar who have made the error of assuming that the baptism of desire cases are known to us personally in the present time.

We know that there is no known baptism of desire and the Letter refers to 'the dogma',whose text carries the literal interpretation of the priest from Boston.

Even if the SSPX says that the Magisterium made a mistake, or did not, it could acknowledge that its bishops, priests, nuns and lay members do not have the charism to identify non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.
-Lionel Andrades