Tuesday, July 31, 2012

SSPX should expose the secret of the visible dead theory in the Vatican-SSPX talks

Bishop Richard Williamson says Bishop Bernard Fellay should not have allowed the doctrinal talks to be confidential.He thinks the doctrinal talks were secret because Rome had a lot to hide.

On the video SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome Part 7 the English bishop said that when it comes down to doctrine the Society is in the driving seat and not Rome. He said Bishop Bernard Fellay should not have allowed the discussions to be confidential.

"Normally Rome is in the driving seat since it is the Supreme Authority but if you have the truth and Rome does not have the the truth, the truth is in the driving seat." ( 31:57)

I agree the discussions should have been made public but the Vatican side would simply cite Vatican Council II and assume the dead are visible and then provide citations from the Council. The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) would assume this is the teaching of Vatican Council II and then go back to rejecting the Council.

The SSPX would repeat  that this is not the traditional teaching of the Church and not point the error of the visible dead, the source of this non traditional interpretation.

We can see this on the videos in which Bishop Williamson says Vatican Council II is modernist, confused and it rejects the traditional teaching of the popes. He is correct this interpretation  of Vatican Council II is modernist and heretical. So what the SSPX bishop says is rational and correct.

However if he used a different premise, then the interpretation of the Council would change. His view would still be rational and correct.

The wrong principle he is using in this analysis on the videos is that of knowing the dead, he assumes that the dead are visible.

This was the premise used by the Vatican team ,Cardinal Luiz Ladaria and Bishop Charles Morerod , in the doctrinal talks.

Bishop Bernard Fellay could  expose the doctrinal errors in the Vatican-SSPX talks and point out that we do not know a single person who is saved implicitly and who is an exception to the dogma  outside the church there is no salvation mentioned in the SSPX communique (July 19, 2012).

e.g THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

We cannot have a theology of religions since Vatican Council II says outside the church there is no salvation. Vatican Council II does not cite any explicit exception.There is  no known case of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience (LG 16) or elements of sanctification (LG 8). So LG 16 and LG 8 cannot be cited as an exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation.

If Bishop Richard Williams would use the premise  that we cannot see the dead saved Vatican Council II would open up before him as a traditional Council, just like Trent.However hard to believe, it is simple. He just has to try it.

This error originated in the 1940's in Boston and it should have been corrected at that time.It's the Richard Cushing heresy of the visible baptism of desire.-Lionel Andrades



WHEN WILL THE BISHOPS OF THE WORLD REALIZE THAT WE DO NOT KNOW ANY VISIBLE DEAD SO VATICAN COUNCIL II IS A PRO SSPX TRADITIONAL DOCUMENT ?

There is no dead person visible who has been saved with the baptism desire. So if the Holy Office in 1949 assumed there were, it was a mistake. It was a factual mistake since we cannot see such a person.

Do all the bishops in the world agree that we cannot see the dead saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, imperfect communion with the Church, seeds of the Word and a good conscience ?

So if we cannot see all these deceased then there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.If nothing in Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma outside the church there is  no salvation then we are back to exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.

If Vatican Council II says outside the church there is no salvation (Ad Gentes says all need Catholic Faith) then the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) have a traditional Vatican Council II before them. There are traditional Conciliar  values on other religions and ecumenism. The  ecclesiology is once again traditional.

The bishops through out the world  must realize that it is the traditionalists who are affirming Vatican Council II and it is Bishop Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia who are denying the traditional interpretation. They are denying it because they assume that Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to the dogma and to Ad Gentes 7. And why do they assume that ? Since for them, we can see the dead-visible. They can see the deceased saved in invincible ignorance etc who are exceptions to the dogma!.

Can the bishops see all this?

Can they state in public that Vatican Council II is a traditional document in agreement with the SSPX communique (July 19, 2012) affirming that outside the Church there is no salvation and endorsing the uninterrupted magisterium of the Catholic Church.

This is not just an SSPX issue. It  is a problem, all the bishops must face. Firstly we do not know the deceased who are saved and are alive and who could be exceptions to the dogma. Secondly, since there are no exceptions Vatican Council II (AG 7) affirms the dogma outside the church there is  no salvation.Thirdly, we still have the traditional ecclesiology , ecumenism, evangelisation etc. These SSPX values are pro-Vatican Council II.

So when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Prefect says the SSPX must accept Vatican Council II the answer is "Yes , they have! But what about you Bishop Muller ?".

That three SSPX bishops also do not know all this is part of the problem.-Lionel Andrades
1.
 
APPEAL TO BISHOP MULLER TO ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/appeal-to-bishop-muller-to-accept.html


CAN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON AND WASHINGTON SUPPORT THE SSPX BY SAYING VATICAN COUNCIL II IS A TRADITIONAL DOCUMENT WITH TRADITIONAL VALUES?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/can-archdiocese-of-boston-and.html