Saturday, July 28, 2012

SSPX NEEDS PEGS ON WHICH TO SHOW THE MEDIA THAT VATICAN COUNCIL II IS A TRADITIONAL DOCUMENT AND THEY ACCEPT IT

Here are some pegs.
FR.FRANCOIS LAISNEY'S BOOK
1. Fr. Francois Laisney’s book critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney should be pulled down by the SSPX. It contradicts the SSPX communique (July 19). The ‘uninterrupted magisterium’ (1)  did not consider those saved in invincible ignorance and with implicit desire as explicit possibilities. With LG 16, LG 8 always implicit Vatican Council II (AG 7) affirms the dogma on exclusive salvation. So we have a traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II with the dogma on exclusive salvation supporting  traditional values on other religions, ecclesiology, ecumenism, etc.

The SSPX endorses this interpretation of Vatican Council II according to its communique. Vatican Council II is accepted here.

RESPONDING TO ARCHBSIHOP AUSGUSTINE DI NOIA IN FUTURE

 2. When Archbishop Augustine Di Noia in his next media interview says the SSPX has to accept Vatican Council II and that Jews do not have to convert, cite texts from Vatican Council II which say they do  have to convert (AG 7, NA 4).This interpretation is in line with Tradition and without ‘novelties’.(2)

 It is different from the Vatican Curia‘s interpretation which is a break from tradition. They considered LG 16, LG 8 as implicit. So there  are known dogmatic exceptions for teh Curia.


RESPONDING TO BISHOP MULLER IN FUTURE
3. Recently the CDF Prefect gave an interview to the L'Osservatore Romano and the SSPX just let it pass without responding . The impression people have is that the SSPX rejects Vatican Council II and there is only one interpretation of the Council.

People do not know that the SSPX rejects only the liberal  interpretation of Vatican Council II with ‘novelties’ and which is a break from the ‘uninterrupted magisterium’. It can accept a Vatican Council  II which has the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.

The Vatican Curia wants the SSPX to come out clearly and say they accept the liberal interpretation (with the visible-dead theory). If they do not compromise there will be an ‘ecclesial rupture’.

The SSPX should counter this propaganda of the Curia and state that they accept Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of continuity with the ‘uninterrupted magisteriam’. This is in accord with '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(3)

So the SSPX communique is not a negation of Vatican Council II  according to tradition and it is not an affirmation of Vatican Council II with novelties and irrationality (visible -dead).

Communication must bring out the point: ‘We have said yes to Vatican Council II in line with Tradition and we will continue to criticize the non traditional version which has no rational reference texts from the Council (LG 16, LG 8 are ‘visible dead’ ,irrational non applicable citations).

So when Bishop Gerhard Muller keeps saying that the SSPX must accept Vatican Council II asks for a clarification.Is Bishop Muller saying the SSPX must accept Vatican Council with AG 7 in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with Lumen Gentium 16 and Lumen Gentium 8 not being exceptions? This is a Vatican Council II to which the SSPX is open to.
Does Bishop Muller accept Vatican Council II (traditional interpretation)?

The SSPX must find a system to respond to media reports. Vatican Council II and traditional doctrine is on their side.
-Lionel Andrades
 
1.
The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, and also in regard to the reforms issued from it. We find our sure guide in this uninterrupted Magisterium which, by its teaching authority, transmits the revealed Deposit of Faith in perfect harmony with the truths that the entire Church has professed, always and everywhere.


2.
The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors


3.
 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 July 19, 2012(emphasis added). 

PRIESTS IN WASHINGTON AND SYDNEY REFUSE TO SAY THAT THE DEAD-SAVED IN HEAVEN ARE NOT VISIBLE TO US

Threat to the Archbishops of Washington and Sydney's theological 'novelties'.

A Catholic priest in Sydney and Washington are resisting the Catholic Church going back to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and are refusing to say that we do not know the dead-saved. They are refusing to say on their blogs that in general we cannot see the dead, now in Heaven. They are not visible to us is something  we take for a fact but not Fr. Joe Jenkins pastor of Holy Family Church, Mitchellville, MD in the Archdiocese of Washington, DC and Fr.John George a retired priest in the Archdiocese of Sydney who writes on the blog True Catholic.

If they say they obvious, that we cannot see in heaven those who have died naturally, there are theological implications so they don't want to take a chance.

It is difficult for them to accept the traditional teaching that all non Catholics are oriented to Hell and there no known exceptions. So they will not say in communication on the Internet that we cannot see the deceased who are saved in invincible ignorance etc.

Fr.Joe Jenkins on a blog post of the BLOGGER PRIEST mentions that not all non Catholics are definitely oriented to Hell but only 'those who know'. Those who who do not know about Jesus and the Church are oriented to Heaven. Yes of course - but he and I do not know who these cases are. It is God who will judge and make a distinction. The de fide teaching is that all are oriented to Hell with Original Sin and mortal sins and with no access to the Sacraments.They need to enter the Church to benefit from Jesus' Sacrifice for them.(Dominus Iesus 20).If we knew any case on earth; any visible case, then we could say that not all need to enter the church but only those who know.

There may not be a single case in 2012 saved in invincible ignorance but we accept in principle that it is possible ,known to God, that there could be people saved in invincible ignorance.This is not contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction since the dejure(implicit) knowing that there can be exceptions does not contradict with the defacto(explicit) knowing that there are not any and we cannot know of any.

If Fr.Jenkins claims to know who is saved , who 'knows' then there is a contradiction with  the dogma on exclusive salvation and also Ad Gentes 7 which states all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.So he suggests that we know these cases, visible to him.

Then Fr.Jenkins says that the Holy Office 1949 condemned Fr.Leonard Feeney for rejecting the baptism of desire. It is not a de fide teaching that the baptism of desire is visible to us and that these these cases are known to us in some way. Pope Benedict XVI could announce that we do not know any person saved with implicit desire and so this is not an exception to Fr. Leonard Feeney. The misunderstanding would be removed for all Catholics. He could correct the error.

 Fr.Joe Jenkins and Fr.John George would then hopefully say that we do not know cases saved with the baptism of desire, people who are dead but allegedly visible to us.-Lionel Andrades

BISHOP RICHARD WILLIAMSON IS READY TO JOIN ROME 'if the pope was in line with Tradition'.


Situation is hopeful after the SSPX communique July 19, 2012 (1)

The ball is in the Vatican court. Can they acknowledge that we do not know the dead-saved so Vatican Council Ii is a traditional document with traditional values on other religions, ecumenism, ecclesiology, evangelization etc ?

After the July 19 communique for the first time ever the Society of St.Pius X is able to say that there is one rational interpretation of Vatican Council II for all Catholics including the SSPX and which can be supported with citations from the Council texts.

If the Vatican Curia does not want to accept it they cannot expect the SSPX and all Catholics to believe that we know the dead saved who are supposed to be explicit, known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation and to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.(2)

The next move is that of Bishop Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, President and Vice President of Ecclesia Dei.

During this summer Catholics should write to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asking them to clarify :-

1) Do we know  people dead and now saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience?

2) So how can they be explicit exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

3) Is there anything in Vatican Council which contradicts the dogma on outside the church no salvation ?

4) Does not the SSPX affirm Vatican Council II according to Tradition and the dogma through their communique?

Why cannot the Franciscans, Carmelities and Salesians affirm Vatican Council II according toTradition and the dogma?

The Vatican Curia is up against a wall trying to disprove that Vatican Council II is not in accord with the literal interpretation of the dogma and the SSPX communique.

To apear rational and sane,over the we-can-see-the-dead- issue, Rome, the Vatican, has to choose the traditional path once again. Since Catholics in general are not going to accept this non-sense of seeing ghosts saved with implicit desire and a good conscience.

The ball is now in the Vatican court. In case they don't know, Catholics should give them a reminder.
 
On the video SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre and Rome Part 3 Bishop Richard Williams has said that he is willing to join Rome if Pope Benedict was in line with Tradition. (18:23). He said that "we are right because we are line with the Church of the centuries and not the SSPX' .(13:20) .(http://youtu.be/qgRj6qj45BY )
 
If the issue of the dead-but-visible people is sorted out, Vatican Council II becomes once again a traditonal document and there is the hope of Bishop Richard Williamson entering the Church and being satisfied with doctrine.-Lionel Andrades



1.
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 July 19, 2012(emphasis added).

2.
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