Wednesday, August 8, 2012

The ambiguity in Vatican Council II comes from assuming that the dead are visible and it is traced to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston

The ambiguity in Vatican Council II comes from the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.


Since the baptism of the desire etc was supposed to be an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus Vatican Council II would say only those who know (LG 14)need to enter the Church and not all people since it would be presumed that there were some people known on earth in invincible ignorance etc.Cardinal Richard Cushing , the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits in Boston  were active at Vatican Council.
Before Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 no Church-document implied that invincible ignorance was an exception to the dogma.LG 14 does this. That line was allowed to pass by all at the Council since of course, only Jesus can and will judge those who are invincible ignorance and those who know about Jesus and the Church and yet do not convert. So there is no controversy here.The Archbishop and the Jesuits could only create confusion. The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) has picked up the confusion and so says Vatican Council II is a modernist Council.


The fault is with the dead-but -visible- to- us view.If the correction is made mentally, the  correct interpretation is chosen, without the visible-dead theory, the Council is no more modernist. It becomes a traditional Council.The ambiguity ends.


When one identifies the error in the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949 one can trace the fault lines throughout Vatican Council II and correct it.-Lionel Andrades

Prof. Roberto de Mattei still has to affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in agreement with Vatican Council II (AG 7, NA 4) -it is related to Religious Liberty

Prof. Roberto de Mattei still has to affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in agreement with Vatican Council II (AG 7, NA 4). From this understanding also we can draw support for the Catholic Church's teaching on Religious liberty.


De Mattei: "Religious Liberty - or liberty for Christians?"



Among the slogans of “politically correct” language there is the term “religious liberty”, which is used incorrectly at times by Catholics as a synonym for freedom for the Church or freedom for Christians. In reality the terms and concepts are different and it is necessary to clarify them. The ambiguity present in the Conciliar declaration Dignitatis humanae (1965) arose from the lack of distinction between the internal forum, which is in the sphere of personal conscience, and the public space, which is in the sphere of the community, or rather the profession and propagation of one’s personal religious convictions.

The Church, with Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (1836), with Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus and in Quanta Cura (1864), but also with Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei (1885) and in Libertas (1888) teaches that:

• 1. No one can be constricted to believe in the private forum, because faith is a personal choice formed in the conscience of man.


 Lionel: True. Man is phyically free.


• 2. Man has no right to religious freedom in the public space, or rather freedom to profess whatever religion, because only the true and the good have rights and not what is error and is evil.

Lionel: Since Vatican Council II, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors says outside the church there is no salvation this is understandable and accepted.


• 3. Public worship of false religions may be, in cases, tolerated by the civil authorities, with the view of obtaining a greater good or avoiding a greater evil, but, in essence, it may be repressed even by force if necessary. But the right to tolerance is a contradiction, because, as is evident even from the term, whatever is tolerated is never a good thing, rather, it is always a purely bad thing. In the social life of nations, error may be tolerated as a reality, but never allowed as a right. Error “has no right to exist objectively nor to propaganda, nor action” (Pius XII Speech Ci Riesce 1953)


 Lionel: True according to Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the traditional teaching. However since the Church has no political and military power it is now just a moral issue. It cannot be implemented by force as the Muslims do for their religion in Muslim countries.They also believe in exclusive salvation.

Further, the right of being immune to coercion, or rather the fact that the Church does not impose the Catholic Faith on anyone, but requires the freedom of the act of faith, does not arise from a presumed natural right to religious freedom or a presumed natural right to believe in any religion whatever, but it is founded on the fact that the Catholic Religion, the only true one, must be embraced in complete freedom without any constraints.


Lionel: This is the religious freedom that one takes for granted when Vatican Council II affirms the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The liberty of the believer is based on the truth believed and not on the self-determination of the individual. The Catholic and only the Catholic has the natural right to profess and practice his religion and he has it because his religion is the true one. Which means that no other believer apart from the Catholic has the natural right to profess his religion.


Lionel: True according to Ad Gentes 7 and Nostra Aetate 4 ( the new people of God).

The verification of this is in the fact that rights do not exist without responsibilities and duties and vice versa. The natural law, summed up in the ten commandments, is expressed in a prescriptive manner, that is, it imposes duties and responsibilities from which rights arise. For example, in the Commandment “Do not kill the innocent” the right of the innocent to life arises. The rejection of abortion is a prescription of natural rights which is separated from religion and whoever conforms to it. And this is the same for the seven Commandments of the Second Table. Comparing the right to religious liberty to the right to life, considering them both as natural rights, is however, nonsense.

The first three commandments of the Decalogue in fact do not refer to all and sundry divinities, but only to the God of the Old and the New Testaments. From the First Commandment, which imposes adoration of the Only True God, arises the right and the duty to profess not any religion but the only true one. This counts for both the individual and the State. The State, like each individual, has the duty to profess the true religion, also because the aims of the State are no different from those of the individual.


Lionel: Yes.

The reason the State cannot constrain anyone to believe does not arise from the religious neutrality of the State, but from the fact that adhering to the truth must be completely free. If the individual had the right to preach and profess publically any religion whatever, the State would have the obligation of religious neutrality. This has been repeatedly condemned by the Church.


For this reason we say that man has the right to profess, not any religion, but to profess the only true one. Only if religious liberty is intended as Christian liberty, will it be possible to speak of the right to it.

There are those who sustain that we live actually in a pluralistic and secularized society, that the Catholic States have disappeared and that Europe is a continent that has turned its back on Christianity. Therefore, the real problem is that of Christians persecuted in the world, and not that of a Catholic State. Nobody denies this, but the verification of a reality is not equivalent to the affirmation of a principle. The Catholic must desire a Catholic society and State with all his heart, where Christ reigns,


Lionel: Agreed. The Church and state should not be separate and secularism and state should be separated.

as Pope Pius XI in the encyclical Quas Primas (1925) explains.

The distinction between the “thesis” (the principle) and the “hypothesis”(the concrete situation) is noted. The more that we are obliged to suffer under the hypothesis, the more we have to try to make the thesis known. Hence, we do not renounce the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ: let us speak of the rights of Jesus Christ to reign over entire societies as the only solution to modern evils. So, instead of fighting for religious liberty, which is the equalizing of the true religion with the false ones, let us fight in defense of liberty for Christians, today persecuted by Islam in the East and by the dictatorship of relativism in the West.

Roberto de Mattei
[From: Corrispondenza Romana - July 19, 2012. Contribution and Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana. As always, posted articles reflect the views of their authors: we ask for a healthy debate in the comments.]

VIDEOS OF SSPX PRIESTS ON YOUTUBE ASSUME VATICAN COUNCIL II CONTRADICTS THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS AND THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

The videos indicate that the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) priests believe there are defacto, known exceptions to the  Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the thrice defined dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church with no known exceptions..


They assume that we know people saved who are still on earth and so are special exceptions to every one needing Catholic faith and the baptism of water to avoid Hell (for salvation).


For them the dead are visible (LG 16 etc) so Vatican Council II is a modernist Council which contradicts traditional teaching.


If the SSPX priests did not make the visible –dead error, there would be no exception to the dogma and the Syllabus. Vatican Council II (AG 7) supports the traditional teachings.


When you listen to the criticism of Fr. Chazal, who still supports Bishop Bernard Fellay, it makes sense, since Vatican Council II is  a modernist document with the visible dead error.Without the visible dead error it is a traditionalist Council.


Similarly Fr.Girouard of the SSPX would realize that Vatican Council II is a traditional Council  with SSPX values if he could not know non Catholics saved, who are ‘good and holy’ (NA), in ‘imperfect communion’ with the Church etc.


So the fault is not in the Council but in their assuming the Council says we can see the dead, like ghosts.


No text in Vatican Council II says there are explicit exceptions or that they contradict the traditional interpretation.


The Council like the Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges that non Catholics can be saved with a good conscience etc but does not say that these cases are exceptions.


The participants at the SSPX Chapter seem to understand. The communique (July 19, 2012) rejects any exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.-Lionel Andrades

LAY CATHOLICS CALL A PRESS CONFERENCE ADDRESSED TO THE DOMINICANS,FRANCISCANS,JESUITS, CARMELITES AND OTHER RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES

Lay Catholics who would want to see a reconciliation between the Vatican and the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) please write to the Superior Generals of the major religious communities, call a press conference addressed to them.


Ask them:-


1.Where does Vatican Council II state that we know non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance etc? How can these cases be visible to us?


2. When Vatican Council II does not state that we know anyone saved in the present times with a good conscience (Lumen Gentium 16) how can LG 16 be an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX?


3. When being saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience is just acknowledged in Vatican Council II and there are no known exceptions then Vatican Council II is a traditionalist Council with pro.-SSPX values?


4.Since LG 16 refers to potential, implicit cases saved and not explicitly known non Catholics in the present times, it does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need Catholic Faith and  the baptism of water for salvation?


5. Ad Gentes 7 indicates all non Catholics are oriented to Hell unless they convert with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water? All Christian communities need Catholic Faith for salvation. Orthodox Christians and Protestants need to convert with Catholic Faith (AG 7) for salvation?


6. Ad Gentes 7 and Nostra Aetate 4 (which says the Church is the new people of God) indicates non Catholics have a moral duty to enter the Church, which is the one true faith? Even though they are physically free to follow their religion they are obliged to convert into the only Church God the Father wants all people to be united in (CCC 845)?

7. The SSPX should be free to accept Vatican Council II in accord with the Syllabus of Errors, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (845, 846, 1257)?-Lionel Andrades