Wednesday, July 25, 2012

THE SSPX ACCEPTS VATICAN COUNIL II ACCORDING TO TRADITION (DOGMA): SECONDARY ISSUES PREVENT RECONCILIATION

The SSPX accepts Vatican Council according to Tradition and rejects the Council as a break from Tradition and so will criticize the non traditional version which rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

According to Vatican Insider there are three conditions presented by the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) to the Vatican before they can accept Vatican Council II and receive canonical recognition.

Here are the conditions:

1.“The freedom to preserve, share and teach the sound doctrine of the constant Magisterium of the Church and the unchanging truth of the divine tradition and the freedom to accuse and even to correct the promoters of the errors or the innovations of modernism, liberalism, and Vatican II and its aftermath.” Discerning Catholics will always criticize the we-can-see-the-dead-version of Vatican Council II.

The Muller-Koch-Ladaria-Di Noia version of Vatican Council II claims those dead and saved  in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire,elements of sanctification tc   are known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation. This  results in a new interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

They want the SSPX to accept this error  and not criticize them for their irrationality.

2. The exclusive use of the Liturgy of 1962. The retention of the sacramental practice that we currently maintain (including: orders, confirmation, and marriage).

3.‘The letter also includes other conditions which are considered desirable but not essential: the possibility of having a separate ecclesiastical court of the first instance; the exemption of the houses of the Society of St. Pius X from the diocesan bishops and a Pontifical Commission for the tradition of Rome, which depends directly from the Pope, with the majority of the members and the president in favour of tradition.’

The SSPX has accepted Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of continuity, they are in accord with Tradition (the dogma). 

The issue really is no more Vatican Council II which the SSPX accepts according to the dogma as indicated in their  communique of July 19,2012. Here it is:

This is why its seems to us opportune to reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the only Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation and no possibility of finding the means that lead to it; in its monarchical constitution, willed by Our Lord, which means that the supreme power of governance over the whole Church belongs to the pope alone, the Vicar of Christ on earth; in the universal kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the creator of the natural and supernatural order, to whom every human being and all society must submit. - SSPX Communique (Emphasis added).
According to the SSPX version of Vatican Council II all non Catholics need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation (to avoid Hell) and there can only be an ecumenism of return.-Lionel Andrades

Video Conference Series: Bishop Williamson on the SSPX and Rome

Below are  links to  the Video Conference Series from the blog The Catholic Life

There are a series of videos placed on the internet and before I can see them  I can surely say they hold the 'traditional' error.May be they have not mentioned it here but the error is so commonplace among them that it has influenced most of their talks and writings on Vatican Council II and they do not even realize it.

They do not realize that the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is at the centre of the problem and the error of the visible baptism of desire is being made on all sides- theirs and the Vatican.

The SSPX communique (July 19, 2012) has identified the  problem and clarified that there is 'no possibility of salvation' outside the Roman Catholic Church.

If this perspective is held the two bishops will realize that there can be a traditional and non traditional version of Vatican Council II and they can endorse the traditional one without conceding their traditional Catholic values- Lionel Andrades

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 1   http://youtu.be/gsxklW_A3ig

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 2 http://youtu.be/QkERiSw4Qx4


SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 3 http://youtu.be/qgRj6qj45BY

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 4

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 5.mov

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 6

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 7 (B…

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 8 (B…

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 9 (B…

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 10

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 11

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 12

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 13

SSPX ASK BISHOP GERHARD MULLER TO ANSWER THE TWO QUESTIONS WHICH CARDINAL SEAN O'MALLEY WILL NOT : ENTIRE CONCEPT OF VATICAN COUNCIL II CHANGES


The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) communique ( July 19, 2012) supports the priest from Boston on whom the Archdiocese placed sanctions.

This is why its seems to us opportune to reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the only Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation and no possibility of finding the means that lead to it; in its monarchical constitution, willed by Our Lord, which means that the supreme power of governance over the whole Church belongs to the pope alone, the Vicar of Christ on earth; in the universal kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the creator of the natural and supernatural order, to whom every human being and all society must submit. - SSPX Communique(Emphasis added).
The SSPX communique is saying there is no possibility of finding the means of salvation outside the Catholic Church. It is not possible to know anyone with implicit desire or who will be saved  in invincible ignorance. Humanly this is not real.

It is possible to accept in theory, in faith and in pricniple that someone can be saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience (LG 16) but not as a known possibility on earth. The SSPX is affirming the literal interpretation of the dogma as was done by Fr.Leonad Feeney. So they are answering positively the two questions asked of the Archdiocese of Boston weeks back and to which there is no response. The two questions are:

1) Do we personally know the dead saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc ?

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

If the SSPX would ask Bishop Gerhard Muller to respond to these two questions the CDF Prefect would have the same understanding of Vatican Council II as the SSPX.Probably this frightens the Archdiocese of Boston .

We now know that Fr.Leonard Feeney the priest from Boston answered the two questions in harmony with Tradition and was falsely penalized for rejecting the baptism of desire, as if the baptism of desire was relevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma.

If Cardinal Gerhard Muller says that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston rejected the literal interpretation of the dogma, then it means there  was an objective mistake made by the Holy Office.The baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma. It is irrelevant to the dogma.

If Cardinal Muller agrees that  we do not know the dead saved then it means LG 16 is not an exception to the dogma.So there is nothing in Vatican Council II or the Catechism of the Catholic Chruch which contradicts the literal interpretation of the dogma as expressed in the SSPX communique. We do not know anyone saved with 'elements of sanctification' (LG 8), seeds of the Word, in imperfect communion with the Church and other implicit cases known only to God.

So holding the literal interpretation of the dogma is an affirmation of Vatican Council II according to Tradition. Ad Gentes 7 supports Fr.Leonard Feeney and the SSPX position while LG 16, LG 8 etc are not known exceptions.-Lionel Andrades

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 Bostonhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/that-error-was-made-in-frleonard-feeney.html#links