Saturday, August 11, 2012

SSPX NEEDS TO EXPLAIN THE COMMUNIQUE TO ITS PRIESTS AND NOT EXPEL THEM

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) needs to explain to its 500 plus priests the import of its July 19 communiqué and not issue admonitions and disrupt unity amid the present confusion.


Fr. Chazal and the other priests are still under the view that Vatican Council II contradicts the Syllabus of Errors and other magisterial documents including the defined dogmas on salvation.


The SSPX has to show its priests how this is not true.


Firstly the last communiqué needs to be understood in which the SSPX affirmed that there was no salvation outside the Church and there were no exceptions. This is the position of Fr. Leonard Feeney which was opposed by Fr. Peter Scott, Fr. Francois Laisney and even Bishop Richard Williamson.


Secondly it has to be brought to their attention that we do not know any case of a non Catholic saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance and so there are no explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


So when the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing assumed that there were exceptions to the dogma it was heresy. The dogma does not mention any exceptions. So it was not Fr. Leonard Feeney but the Archbishop and the Jesuits of Boston who were in heresy.


Since the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, and being saved with a good conscience are not exceptions to the dogma there is nothing in Vatican Council II which contradicts the literal interpretation of the dogma or the Syllabus of Errors.


This has to be explained to the SSPX priests.


Then they can understand that contrary to what they were taught before Vatican Council II affirms the traditional teaching on ecclesiology, ecumenism, other religions and religious liberty.


Until this is explained to the priests they will assume that the SSPX is compromising with Satan. Since if the Archbishop of Boston is not in heresy for the SSPX then Vatican Council II really is a modernist Council.


However if it is realized that there are no cases known of the visible dead ( saved in invincible ignorance etc) then Vatican Council II is a traditional Council with values as those of Fr. Chazal and the other priests of the community. This is a time for extra patience from the SSPX administration because of the normal confusion that exists all over.-Lionel Andrades

FR.CHAZAL RECEIVES SECOND ADMONITION :"MANY PRIESTS ARE BEING THROWN OUT"



Society of St Pius X – District of Asia
SECOND CANONICAL MONITION
TO THE REVEREND FRANCOIS CHAZAL


Dear Fr. Chazal,

On 8 June 2012 a penal precept and a first canonical monition were issued, with the accord of the Superior General and his Council, in the hope that you would realize the gravity of the actions, declarations, and publications which have been the cause of grave scandal and great spiritual damage for our faithful and for our apostolate.

This document was hand-delivered to you by Fr. Thomas Onoda on 9 June 2012. That very day you violated the interdiction of the penal precept by flying to Hong Kong, and then to Korea and to Japan, against explicit orders not to do so.

In Korea, on 10 June 2012, you preached a sermon called “What’s Next”, which you publicized in the Internet. This same document, as well as your other document “War On”, you have also subsequently distributed in Tanay and Baguio Mass centers, and you have displayed “What’s Next” in Our Lady of Victories Church, in Manila, on Sunday morning 22 July 2012. Two other documents of yours, “I accuse the Counsel” and “I Excuse the Council” have just been put on the Internet as well.

I am hereby issuing a second and final canonical monition according to can. 697 C.I.C. 1983/ can. 660 C.I.C. 1917, asking you to submit to the penal precept of 8 June 2012. If you violate its terms once more, the Superior General will institute penal proceedings leading to your dismissal from our Society for stubborn disobedience to legitimate orders in a grave matter and for grave scandal resulting for culpable behavior, according to can. 696 C.I.C. 1983/ can. 656 C.I.C. 1917, and to the particular law of the Society of St. Pius X (cf. General Chapter 2006, Cor Unum n. 85; Modifications to the Statutes, 4).

You have already been notified of your right under the law to self-defense, including a canonical counsel. You have the right as well to present to the Superior General, in person or in writing, your defense against this second canonical monition and the proposed dismissal within fifteen days of receipt of this document. All your communications and responses will be given due consideration in the process.

Given at Manila, July 31, 2012

+
Fr. Daniel Couture

In the presence of Fr. Michael Fortin
+Vienna, Virginia, 06 August 2012

Dear Father Couture,

The blade is now about to fall. You have kindly notified me that I may present a defense before the Superior General before that action is taken. I would be grateful to you if you would convey to him this – my last defense against the accusation of “stubborn disobedience” and “grave scandal”, resulting from “culpable behavior”.

There is no need for me to present again my case of evidence of a clear change of stance concerning Vatican II, now viewed as a fixable or bypassable Council; or the dangerous failure to denounce today’s “Magisterium”; or the desire to place the SSPX under the ongoing fornicating new rome, not to mention the new possibilities of placing our houses under the local dioceses, as well as other practical surrenders.

Since May of this year, no attempt at resolving these differences has been successful, and no written refutation of the four documents “War On”, “What Next”, “I Excuse”, and “I Accuse” has been made thus far, isolating my arguments and evidence, and then refuting them.

I would think, in the interest of your cause, that it would be better for you to do so now; otherwise, you might show the world that your best argument is the guillotine. As a result, many priests of the Society who clearly agree with what I have said in the four documents, will be left without doctrinal protection against what you view as a “great scandal” and thus be further encouraged to disagree with Menzingen as I will stand as a punished witness to a yet unrefuted stance.

But the sole “War On” document alone, some say, contains 33 arguments, and the whole case rests essentially on the fact that modernist rome and its actions are still deeply steeped in heresy.

That is why I have lost all expectation that you would issue such a refutation, which in turn opens another question: Is the publication of such a dissenting line from the party line of Menzingen, in all possible forms – pulpit, print, speech, internet, beard, red sash, etc. – a “great scandal” and a “great damage” and a grave disobedience to the Society?

The answer to such a question is yours, because you know so well that our founder did much more than I do. He dared to stand against Popes, Councils, Bishops worldwide and theologians.

Therefore my condemnation will make sense if the content of these four public documents is erroneous, and I do believe that I was always glad to obey my superiors until this crisis.

Lastly, I would like to complete my defense with Our Lady. To this day, I still do not understand how the piety of our faithful towards Her was chosen as an instrument for the reconciliation plans. And is there an awareness that the man who will process the reconciliation plans is the prefect of the CDF, a man notorious for his denial of Mother Mary’s virginity? I have heard from the Horse’s Mouth (the First Assistant) that we cannot build our plans on a miraculous triumph of Our Lady above the institution of the Papacy; I remember that Benedict XVI is the most recent chief plotter of the burial of the message of Fatima, and, in the end, instead of Our Lady choosing the time and nature of Her Triumph, we will tell Her what the circumstances are that She must follow and supposedly this is how the papacy will convert.

Indeed, if you choose to deny me proper trial and examination, I shall rejoice at the fall of the blade.

Reverenter ac devote,

In Iesu et Maria,

Francois Chazal+

FR.NICHOLAS PFLUGER PLEASE ANNOUNCE THAT THE RICHARD CUSHING HERESY IS UNACCEPTABLE.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) needs to correct the confusion in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.


We cannot phone, fax or meet anyone saved with the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire is not an exception to anything .The CDF must acknowledge that it was the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits there who were in heresy.


Fr.Nicholas Pfluger the second in charge of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) says that the moto proprio regarding the Traditional Latin Mass was being opposed by many bishops since it was feared that it “would create doctrinal problems.It endangers the achievements of Vatican Council II” (31:40)


Fr. Pfluger like the bishops who oppose the Traditional Latin Mass  could know that the Latin Mass sidesteps the controversy in the 1940’s when the cardinal archbishop said that there were known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma.


So the issue is extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Traditional Latin Mass still has the ecclesiology of the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation. Those who offer the Mass in the vernacular assume that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are explicit exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma.


So it is the dogma which has been changed for them in Vatican Council II since there are alleged exceptions (LG 16 etc).


So it is because of the Richard Cushing heresy they interpret Vatican Council II as liberal and a rejection of Fr.Leonard Feeney.


If Fr.Nicholas Pfluger would see that the problem originates in the error of Archbishop Richard Cushing then Vatican Council II becomes a traditional Council. There are no exceptions to the dogma. Since there are no exceptions to the dogma, we have the literal interpretation still valid.


When there is the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus there cannot be a ‘theology of religions’ , ‘ecclesiology of communion’ vagueness on ‘collegiality’...


The present Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Sean O Malley will not answer two questions(1). He probably knows unlike Fr.Nicholas Pfluger that Cardinal Richard Cushing held a heretical position.


If Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy and not Archbishop Cushing then Vatican Council II is a modernist Council. So bishops are opposing the Traditional Latin Mass since they assume that Fr.Leonard Feeney is in heresy.How can he be in heresy when the dogma does not mention exceptions. It was Cardinal Richard Cushing who claimed there were exceptions.- Lionel Andrades





1.
NUMBER OF PRIESTS NOT ANSWERING THE TWO QUESTIONS INCREASES
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/number-of-priests-not-answering-two.html#links

FR.JOE JENKINS WANTS THE SSPX TO ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH THE VISIBLE DEAD THEORY: EVEN BISHOPS MULLER AND DI NOIA WANT THE SAME
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/frjoe-jenkins-wants-sspx-to-accept.html#links

SSPX - ARCHBISHOP RICHARD CUSHING WAS IN HERESY AND NOT FR.LEONARD FEENEY

When this is understood Vatican Council II emerges with the traditional values on ecclesiology, other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty.


Ask the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) to announce that we do not know any exceptions to the dogma. We cannot personally know anyone saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.


So it was heretical for the Archbishop to suggest there are known exceptions to the defined dogma. He placed restrictions on Fr.Leonard Feeney and approved an excommunication.Then included his error in Vatican Council II.


The SSPX communique (July 19,2012) supports Fr.Leonard Feeney when it states outside the church there is no salvation ‘we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation’.Nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation!! Nor possibility of exceptions!


When the CDF admits that it was the Archbishop who was irrational, non traditional and heretical it would be simple for the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II in only one interpretation –with rational citations.


When the liberals cite Lumen Gentium 16 they are irrational. Since those saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience are not known to us.So they are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.


So the liberals do not have any citations to support their non traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II.


When the CDF announces that it was Archbishop Richard Cushing who was in heresy the SSPX reconciliation problem ends.


The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective error in suggesting that there were visible exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation.-Lionel Andrades

THE BOSTON HERESY OF THE ARCHBISHOP INFLUENCED VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH


Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II

It is assumed that there can be non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire etc and these cases are known to us, for them to be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to Fr.Leonard Feeney’s interpretation. So  it is suggested (above) that those who are aware are oriented to Hell. The dogma says every non Catholic is oriented to Hell.

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.-Lumen Gentium 16.

Since the Boston Heresy of the Archbishop and the Jesuits it was assumed that we know those who are saved with a good conscience etc. So  Lumen Gentium 16 indicates  (like in the Letter of the Holy Office on implicit desire) that there are exceptions to the dogma.It implied that those saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience are exceptions, and it is not  said that we do not know these cases, they are not visible to us and so they are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14

This line above is a repetition of the one in Ad Gentes 7 and is patterned on the ambiguity in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.


In the first paragraphs of the Letter Fr.Leonard Feeney is supported and in the latter paragraphs he is criticised.


Similarly Ad Gentes 7 supports the dogma and Fr.Leonard Feeney (blue) and then also suggests that there are exceptions to the dogma (red).

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II

Here is the same pattern in Lumen Gentium 14.The dogma is affirmed then it is suggested there are exceptions.

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14
The same pattern is there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude...God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.-Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257


846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? (on extra ecclesiam nulla salus as known traditionally)...Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body( there are those who are saved without the baptism of water and they are known to us personally and so contradict the traditional understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.).

The Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits thought there were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so they inserted this error in the Council (1) and the Catechism. It causes confusion. The SSPX assumes the Council and the Catechism are modernist heretical documents.
-Lionel Andrades

1.
Second Vatican Council.
At the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) Cushing played a vital role in drafting Nostra Aetate...His emotional comments during debates over the drafts were echoed in the final version- Wikipedia