Sunday, July 1, 2012

Vatican Council II holds the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is information being blocked out by Rorate Caeli: Threats of anti-Semitism?

Rorate Caeli is not reporting that Vatican Council II upholds the rigorist interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church, even though this issue is crucial for the SSPX’s entry into the Church with canonical status.

Leftists demand that any such report (comment) on Rorate Caeli be pulled down immediately.

The Jewish Left considers it anti-Semitic.

Catholic liberals assume LG 16 is an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma so such a statement is flawed.

The (Society of St.Pius X) SSPX uses the liberal’s interpretation of Vatican Council II and also assumes LG 16 is an explicit exception. So they reject Vatican Council II.

Traditionalists supporting Fr. Leonard Feeney criticize the liberals and the SSPX for denying the ancient interpretation of the dogma. They do not say that LG 16 is implicit and so cannot be an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation.

Meanwhile there seems another breakdown in the SSPX –Vatican talks as Cardinal Ladaria and Cardinal Koch assume that LG 16 is explicit and so contradicts the literal interpretation of the centuries old dogma. Ladaria, Secretary of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and Koch, President of the Council for Christian Unity and relations with the Jews, believe Vatican Council rejects the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Fr. Leonard Feeney. So they expect the SSPX to accept their version of the Council before receiving canonical status.

Cardinals, bishops and priests do not want to comment on this issue out of concern for the Jewish Left and their anti-Semitism laws.

Bishop Bernard Fellay has been removing reports on SSPX websites which are alleged, by the Jewish Left, to be anti Semitic. Rorate Caeli is also monitored by the Left.

Now Vatican Council II is being considered anti Semitic. However this is not being reported in the main stream media. It cannot be reported.

If the SSPX admits that Vatican Council II meets the Jewish Left criteria of being anti Semitic they would be saying Vatican Council (AG 7, LG 14) agrees with the SSPX position on other religions (including Judaism) ecumenism and religious liberty, the latter being a natural consequence of the dogma on exclusive salvation.

If Vatican Council II is anti Semitic, when it supports the literal interpretation of the dogma then it means all Dominicans, Franciscans and Jesuits can hold the literal interpretation of the dogma along with being saved with implicit and invincible ignorance.

It also means Vatican Council II supports Fr. Leonard Feeney.

It is important to remember that LG 16 states that ‘those who do not know the Gospel through no fault of their own and who follow the dictates of their conscience’ can be saved. LG 16 does not say that these cases are known to us, or are the ordinary means of salvation or that they contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma or that they contradict AG 7 which says all need Catholic faith and the baptism of water for salvation.-Lionel Andrades

_____________________________________

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.- Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.- Lumen Gentium 16

MEDIA NOT ASKING THE SSPX AND VATICAN THE RIGHT QUESTIONS : BASIS FOR THE TENSION IS NOT VATICAN COUNCIL II

The media needs to see that the SSPX–Vatican problem is over ecclesiology and not Vatican Council II. If the right questions are asked liberal Catholics and other dissenters will not be able to produce any reference text from Vatican Council II, to support the non traditional interpretation of the Council.The media just has to ask the SSPX bishops or the Vatican Jesuit spokesman two questions and everything will fall into place. The two questions are:

  • 1. Do we know people in Heaven, or on earth, saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire?
  • 2. If we do not know any such person then those saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
    (Note: there is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church and there are no known exceptions, since invincble ignorance and the baptism of desire are accepted in principle ,only as possibilities they are accepted in theory, in faith. In reality we do not know any such case.)

    When the media asks these two questions and the answer based on common sense, has to be for N.1. No we do not know any such case and for N.2. Yes they are not exceptions to the literal interpretation - important conclusions follow.

    It means Vatican Council II supports the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the SSPX position on other religions and ecumenism.

    It also means Vatican Council II is saying all non Catholics, Jews included, are oriented to Hell unless before death they convert into the Church.

    It means Vatican Council II is not an issue of tension or division in the present Vatican–SSPX talks. Vatican Council II is not even an issue.

    The media is leftist and so they are not going to ask these questions. It’s unfortunate that the traditionalist media are opposed to Vatican Council II ( for the wrong reasons) and so also are not going to ask the correct questions. Neither are these questions being asked by the traditionalists who correctly support Fr. Leonard Feeney.

    It’s been a few years now since I have been asking these two questions of the SSPX priests Frs. Peter Scott and Francois Laisney and their supporters, but they will not answer. Doctrinal confusion exists among the SSPX.

    If John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter understands the two questions he is not going to ask it of the SSPX or the Vatican and so embarrass sponsors and financiers of the NCR. The conclusion is opposed to the propaganda of the NCR.

    When the SSPX rejects Vatican Council II they are rejecting an interpretation of the Vatican Council II which assumes LG 16 is explicit and not implicit. So they assume LG 16 is an implicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also to Ad Gentes 7. Ad Gentes 7 says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.

    So the SSPX rejects an interpretation by liberals who cannot cite any reference text from Vatican Council II for ‘the theology of religions’ or ‘ecclesiology of communion’.Since those saved in invincible ignorance , a good conscience, seeds of the Word, imperfect communion with the Church and other forms of implicit salvation are unknown to us on earth. They do not to contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma and AG 7. The liberals can no more quote  any  text from Vatican Council II. All they can fall back on is the phrase ‘spirit of Vatican Council ‘. Which can mean accepting Jesus according to the teachings of the Jehovah Witnesses.

    Opponents of Fr. Leonard Feeney assume I’m denying the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and so do nothing about the two questions. I have to keep repeating that the baptism of desire is always implicit and so we have no choice but to accept it in theory, as a possibility, acceptable only in faith.It is always irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma. The SSPX priests do not admit they are wrong and neither will they say in public that I am correct and neither as priests will they correct me, a layman.

    The Left will not even allow this issue to be discussed on Rorate Caeli. Threats will follow if the comments are not pulled down.

    I have not taken this issue to the media and neither do I intend to do so now. I would prefer that this issue is raised first among the bishops and the Vatican.I would prefer it to be discussed in  the Catholic media.-Lionel Andrades