Tuesday, July 24, 2012

THE SSPX HAS ACCEPTED VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN ACCORD WITH THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAMNULLA SALUS- BISHOP MULLER IS REFUSING TO DO THE SAME

Vatican Council II says outside the Church there is no salvation (AG 7). For the Vatican Curia, cardinals and bishops, Vatican Council II has rejected the dogma.For the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) AG 7 could be supporting the dogma and LG 16 and LG 8 are not known exceptions. There is ‘no possible salvation outside the Church’.For the Vatican Curia LG 16 and LG 8 are ‘known exceptions’ to the AG 7 and the dogma on salvation.

The SSPX position on Vatican Council II is rational. They do not claim to know the dead-saved who are known exceptions.The Vatican Curia’s position on Vatican Council II is irrational. They claim to know the dead who are supposed to be exceptions to the dogma.

The SSPX position is traditional. The Vatican Curia is non traditional they claim non Catholics can be saved in the present times and act as if there are such cases in 2012 which are known to them.

The SSPX has accepted Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of continuity, they are in accord with Tradition (the dogma). For Bishop Gerhard Muller it is a rupture with tradition, they deny the  dogma outside the church no salvation.

The SSPX could announce that they have accepted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and that this an indirect acceptance of Vatican Council II. They should ask Bishops Muller and Di Noia to do the same in public.

Archbishop Di Noia has denied the dogma in the National Catholic Register interview when he was asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So his interpretation of Vatican Council II will also change when he denies the dogma. He assumes that there are non Catholics saved with grace (LG 8 etc) and these cases are exceptions and of course known to us, for them to be exceptions.

The SSPX has to explain to Archbishop Di Noia, Vice President of Ecclesia Dei and to Bishop Gerhard Muller, President of Ecclesia Dei that there is ‘no possibility’ of salvation outside the Church. Since those who are dead and saved are unknown to us.So they cannot be exceptions to the dogma and the traditional interpretation and acceptance of Vatican Council II

Since the dogma is in agreement with Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church the SSPX are also in agreement with these Church documents. The Vatican Curia is not in agreement with the dogma because of alleged exceptions so their interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism has to be different.
- Lionel Andrades

CARDINAL MULLER SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II AND LUMEN GENTIUM CANNOT BE NEGOTIATED – BUT DOES NOT MENTION WHICH INTERPRETATION OF LG 16, LG 8 IS FALSE

According to a CNS/EWTN News report:

Rome, Italy, Jul 24, 2012 / 04:00 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Although the new head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is optimistic about reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X, he says that the teachings of the Church – including the dogmatic content of the Second Vatican Council – will never be up for re-negotiation.

“The purpose of dialogue is to overcome difficulties in the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council,” Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Muller told CNA July 20, “but we cannot negotiate on revealed faith, that is impossible. An Ecumenical Council, according to the Catholic faith, is always the supreme teaching authority of the Church.”

“The assertion that the authentic teachings of Vatican II formally contradict the tradition of the Church is false,” Archbishop Muller stated.

He added, however, that between various texts of the council there are “gradations” of teaching authority. By way of an example, Archbishop Muller drew a comparison between the council’s document on social communications, “Inter Mirifica,” which carries “less weight” than “dogmatic declarations” like the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, “Lumen Gentium.”

“Whatever is dogmatic can never be negotiated,” he said, while still expressing hope that the members of the Society of Pius X “can overcome their difficulties, their ideological restrictions so that we can work together to proclaim Christ as the Light of the World.”
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/lefebvriani-lefebvrians-lefebvrianos-17010/ 
In  the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) communique July 19,2012 it is said that they reaffirm that outside the Church there is no salvation and no possibility of salvation. This is a traditional interpretation of Lumen Gentium 14 and it is not contradicted by LG 16 or LG 8 since we do not know any one saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience or elements of sanctification.

The Society of St.Pius X doctrinal position on Vatican Council II is also supported by Ad Gentes 7: all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.The Vatican position on Lumen Gentium is controversial.
Archbishop Augustine Di Noia in an interview with the National Catholic Register’s Edward Pentin has said Vatican Council II mentions those who can be saved with grace indicating that there were defacto, known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The question was on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Di Noia was denying the dogma and also Vatican Council II (AG 7 and LG 14). We do not know anyone saved with elements of sanctification (LG 8). So LG 8 does not contradict the SSPX position as expressed in the communique this month.
The Vatican Cardinals see Lumen Gentium as referring to known cases being saved who are explicit exceptions to the dogma. This is irrational and not part of the deposit of Faith.
So when Cardinal Muller says that the SSPX has to accept Lumen Gentium, which interpretation does he expect the irrational one or the SSPX interpretation in the communique.
The SSPX has affirmed Vatican Council II in the communique, in accord with tradition. Vatican Council II says all need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (AG 7) and this includes Jews.This is the teaching of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II and the SSPX affirms it.-Lionel Andrades



THE SOCIETY OF ST.PIUS X HAS ACCEPTED VATICAN COUNCIL II IN ACCORD WITH TRADITION AND HAS REJECTED THE LIBERAL VERSION
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/the-society-of-stpius-x-has-accepted.html


THE SSPX COMMUNIQUE SHOULD MAKE US REVIEW HOW WE TEACH THE CATECHISM
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/the-sspx-communique-should-make-us.html#links


ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON DOES NOT CONTRADICT SSPX COMMUNIQUE: SAME DOCTRINAL POSITION AS FR.LEONARD FEENEY ON WHOM THEY PLACED SANCTIONS
If Cardinal Sean O’Malley responds to the two questions awaiting his answer, he too could hold the same position as the SSPX.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/archbishop-of-boston-does-not.html


That an error was made in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case it was known for a long time: Even the SSPX communique supports the priest from Boston
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/that-error-was-made-in-frleonard-feeney.html


SSPX, ECCLESIA DEI ASK THE PAULIST FATHERS AND THE CHURCH OF SANTA SUSSANA ROME TO AFFIRM VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH CITATIONS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/sspx-ecclesia-dei-ask-paulist-fathers.html


SSPX LINKS VATICAN COUNCIL II AND MAGISTERIUM TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/sspx-links-vatican-council-ii-and.html


SSPX COMMUNIQUE IMPORTANT FOR THE ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON AND THE FR.LEONARD FEENEY CASE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/sspx-communique-important-for.html


‘…nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation’ is the all important line in the SSPX communiqué
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/nor-possibility-to-find-means-leading.html

THE SSPX COMMUNIQUE SHOULD MAKE US REVIEW HOW WE TEACH THE CATECHISM

When the Catechism is taught here in Rome, and elsewhere, it is said every one does not have to enter the Church. While the SSPX communique says there is 'no possibility' of salvation outside the Church.

At catechism classes it is said there is the possibility of a non Catholic being saved in invincible ignorance etc.

The SSPX communique indicates this is not a known possibility on earth in these present times.

We do not know any of these persons and we cannot assume any person, however impressive, is going to Heaven. Neither can we say it for our self.

Those who teach the Catechism here assume that Magisterial documents (Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church etc) state that we know non Catholics actually, who are to be saved. No Church text makes this claim.

It is usually the Catechism teacher who reads Lumen Gentium 16 and then assumes we can know those saved in invincible ignorance etc, i.e. those who through no fault of their own who have not had the Gospel preached to them and who could be saved and who are unknown to us.

In principle, in faith we accept there is the possibility of they being saved, in reality, defacto, explicitly on earth we cannot know any such case.

So the SSPX communique does not contradict Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church or any other document. We have to assume that LG 16 refers to the possibility of being saved only, in principle. Explicitly it is only known to God. We can never meet anyone saved in this category. We can never know for sure who is going to be saved in invincible ignorance. Neither do we know if that well dressed, courteous person will die with a good conscience.

Hypothetically yes, it is possible. In reality we do not know. In theory, yes. Practically no, we do not know.

So can Catechism teachers make the change? Will the Vatican allow it? It’s irrational to assume that we know the dead-saved,

When the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II state those who know abut the Church and do not enter the Church are oriented to Hell (LG 14) and not those in invincible ignorance, is Vatican Council II assuming that we know people saved in invincible ignorance? Or is this just a matter of fact statement that only God will judge, who knows and who was in ignorance?

When the Catechism says God is not limited to the Sacraments (N.1257) this is not a criticism of the SSPX position on their being no possibility of salvation outside the Church.Superficially it may appear so. If in these rare cases (not the ordinary means of salvation) God is not restricted to the Sacraments and these cases are known only to God, it does not contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. These rare cases who allegedly are saved without the Sacraments are not the ordinary means of salvation. The ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith with the baptism of water (Vatican Council II). So these rare cases do not contradict the ordinary means of salvation and the SSPX communique.Since we do not know these cases personally we cannot judge them and so they are not exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation.

If we assumed that these rare cases are known to us then they would contradict the dogma. So CCC 1257 does not contradict the SSPX doctrinal position because we do not know anyone saved without the Sacraments.
-Lionel Andrades

DR. JEFF MIRUS DID NOT KNOW THAT NOSTRA AETATE 4, VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS CATHOLICS ARE THE NEW PEOPLE OF GOD: NOW THAT HE IS UPDATED IT IS HOPED HE WILL MENTION IT


Vatican Council II is a pro-SSPX document and all Dr. Jeff Mirus' ‘objections’ mentioned in a recent report (1) are clarified in the Council documents. Firstly, Vatican Council II holds ‘the rigorist interpretation’ of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. However Jeff Mirus believes there are known exceptions to the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance so he assumes the Council rejects the dogma. Ad Gentes 7 says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.

It is based on the traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II that the Society of St.Pius X in the communique last week mentioned there is no possibility of salvation outside the church.You can read Vatican Council II like you can read the Summa of St.Thomas Aquinas.

When the SSPX says that they reject Vatican Council II they mean that they reject Dr. Jeff Mirus’ interpretation. They reject a known to us LG 16 (invincible ignorance/ good conscience).The SSPX must always reject Jeff Mirus’ interpretation.
Does he even want to know, that the baptism of desire is never ever an explicit exception the literal interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney? His report on the Internet for EWTN repeats the error of the visible baptism of desire (2). It seems he can telephone and fax those who are saved with the baptism of desire. Since these extraordinary cases can be contacted , he believes they are exceptions to the dogma on outside the church no salvation as now interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney and the SSPX.
Does he know that Vatican Council II also says Jews at the time of Jesus were responsible for the His death (NA 4) ? Bishop Richard Williamson’s statement on this subject is ‘conciliar’.

For how long out of ignorance or whatever, will he deny Vatican Council II, the dogma extra eclesiam nulla salus, Dominus Iesus 20, the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846, Redemptoris Missio 55 and of course the Bible (John 3:5,Mk:16:16 etc).For a long time that he has been receiving the Eucharist even after being informed .

It would seem that the teachings on the Eucharist have also been changed for him. If you can change the church's teachings on salvation, the teachings on the Eucharist can also change.Non Catholics could receive the Eucharist.

How can he receive the Eucharist? Why do people send him and Catholic Culture donations?The Bible says Jews need to convert. A slow re reading of the Gospel of John is required.

As a Catholic he should have removed the report Tragic Errors of Fr. Leonard Feeney but when he is willing to contradict the Bible regarding the Jews, the factual errors in the report ‘Tragic Errors’, is small. Is he misleading other Catholics because it is in your interest, financial etc  or does he just does not know? What would become of his Trinity Communications if he outright said that Jews need to convert according to the Bible? He would lose his friends in the USCCB? Can you  change the teachings of the Catholic Church just to protect your career or whatever ? There will be no Anti Semitic charge.

After all these years of knowing only the liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II this is going to be difficult for him.He criticizes John Vennari for not accepting an interpretation of the Council, with a version  which is a break from the past. (3) Do John Vennari and Jeff Mirus still do not  know that there can also be a ‘Conciliar thinking’ which is traditional?

The SSPX communique last week mentioning no salvation outside the Catholic Church and no possibility of salvation outside the Church is ‘Conciliar’.

When Archbishop Augustine Di Noia  says Jews do not have to convert in the present times he contradicts Vatican Council II. Nostra Aetate tells  us that Catholics are the new people of God, the Chosen people. Ad Gentes 7 indicates all Jews and other  non Catholics need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. So Di Noia's statement is not 'conciliar'. The SSPX is 'conciliar'. They reject the compromising  'magisterium', and mention the uninterrupted Magisterium, the magisterium of Church-documents to which they are  faithful. This includes the traditional interpretation of  Vatican  Council  II.

How can he claim the SSPX is anti Semitic when they are following Vatican Council II according to Tradition- is the Council anti Semitic? Is Jesus and the New Testament anti Semitic?-Lionel Andrades