Friday, August 24, 2012

Those out of the Church for the SSPX would include Jeff Mirus,of Catholic Culture,Phil Lawler's employer, who interprets Vatican Council II as break from Tradition

If the Vatican had wanted to pick a new fight with the SSPX, it would have been easy enough. A confrontational response might have pointed out that if the traditionalists believe that salvation is impossible outside the Catholic Church, they should be working feverishly to ensure that they are inside, not trifling with the risk of excommunication. - Phil Lawler (1)

According to the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) they are in the Church and those who reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Syllabus of Errors and other Magisterial texts are out of the Church.

Those out of the Church for the SSPX would include Jeff Mirus,of Catholic Culture,Phil Lawler's employer, who interprets Vatican Council II as break from Tradition.

Mirus and the Vatican Curia use a false premise of the dead saved and visible to us who are exceptions to the dogm. So for them there is salvation outside the Church in Vatican Council II.

Jeff Mirus and those with the possibility to excommunicate the SSPX at the Vatican do not realize that to interpret Vatican Council II with this false premise is a heresy aside from being irrational and non traditional.

Vatican Council II is a traditional document in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus and this is not understood by Jeff Mirus.

Jeff Mirus' Trinity Communications has placed an article on the internet critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney (Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard Feeney)  in which it is assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicit exceptions to the dogma and to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

 We do not know anyone now dead but saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. So how can it be an exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney's 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma?

How can Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance and a good conscience) be an exception to the dogma. We do not know any such case on earth.So how can the Vatican Curia and Catholic Culture postulate that there is salvation outside the Church when we do not know a single exception  to the dogma on exclusive salvation?

Phil Lawler believes in the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

However we have a Vatican Curia in public heresy, in public mortal sin for denying a defined dogma, Vatican Council II (AG 7) and demanding that the SSPX accept a Vatican Council II with the Cushing error of knowing the dead saved in invincible ignorance etc who are alleged exceptions to the dogma.

In a month or so Jeff Mirus will be proclaiming more of this irrationality and demanding that the traditionalists say that they can see the dead on earth and so there is salvation outside the Church according to Vatican Council II.All Catholics must accept this heresy , the SSPX included.

Phil Lawler does not say that the key to understanding the SSPX and Vatican Council II is the General Chapter comment on outside the Church there is no salvation.Since there are no exceptions for the SSPX, Vatican Council II does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So we have the possibility of the SSPX accepting Vatican Council II in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and with their traditional position on other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty.-Lionel Andrades


1.
 
The SSPX didn't say No. An agreement is still likely. The Vatican made an offer, and the leaders of the SSPX said No. Or did they?
Go ahead: read our CWN news story. Better yet, read the full statement from the SSPX general chapter. Do you see a clear “No” anywhere? Neither do I.

There is no “Yes,” either, I admit. And some of the language used in the SSPX statement is not calculated to please Vatican officials. The reference to “the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors” is a reminder that the SSPX is not ready to yield. The call for “an open and serious debate” could be taken as a complaint that the Vatican is not taking the issues seriously yet. The expression of hope for “the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities” suggests that Church officials have broken with the apostolic tradition—a charge that the Vatican cannot take lightly.

But really, is there anything new in these statements? We all knew that the SSPX cannot accept some Vatican II teachings. We knew that the group wants to debate with the Vatican about the interpretation of those disputed teachings. We knew that the SSPX claims to uphold “Tradition” in a way that, it claims, the Vatican today does not. Anyone who takes offense at these statements is probably too thin-skinned to be engaged in the ongoing talks between the SSPX and the Holy See.

The mild, noncommittal communiqué from the Vatican seems to indicate that Vatican officials did not take offense. Although it was not a formal reply to the SSPX, the tone of the Vatican’s public statement seems to send an encouraging message: “Say what you want among yourselves. We’ll keep talking. We’re waiting to hear more from you.” Notice too that the Vatican showed no sign of surprise at the SSPX statement. This was not unexpected; the lines of communication are open.

If the Vatican had wanted to pick a new fight with the SSPX, it would have been easy enough. A confrontational response might have pointed out that if the traditionalists believe that salvation is impossible outside the Catholic Church, they should be working feverishly to ensure that they are inside, not trifling with the risk of excommunication. Or that for a group that proclaims the Roman Pontiff as the supreme ruler of the Church, the SSPX shows precious little fealty to the Pope. Or that it is presumptuous for SSPX members to compare themselves to the victims of persecution, when they are suffering no hardship that they did not bring upon themselves. But Vatican officials are not making those points. The Holy See is watching carefully, silently—like a loving parent, waiting for an angry child to calm down and a reasonable discussion can resume.

As resume it will. The SSPX did not say No. On the contrary, the traditionalist group settled on a procedure by which an “extraordinary chapter” would be convened to approve any offer of reconciliation. Why would that procedure be necessary, if the SSPX did not anticipate an acceptable offer? Moreover, the procedure that the SSPX established gives more control to Bishop Bernard Fellay, who has given every indication that he wants to see the talks with Rome successfully concluded.

Before the meeting of the SSPX general chapter, there were reports that unnamed Vatican officials had subverted the wishes of Pope Benedict XVI, attaching onerous new requirements to the offer for reconciliation. No such accusations appeared in the SSPX public statement. The traditionalist group did not denounce Vatican officials, nor complain about recent talks. The statement gave every indication that the SSPX hopes for talks with the Vatican to continue, and to reach a mutually acceptable conclusion.

The SSPX surely knows that these talks cannot go on forever. The statement from the general chapter placed heavy emphasis on the importance of reading all Church teachings in the light of the tradition “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.” Here the SSPX invokes the “hermeneutic of continuity” that Pope Benedict XVI has insisted must be the key to understanding Vatican II. This pontificate has opened the door to the discussion the SSPX wants, and now the discussion is taking place in earnest. But this pontificate will not last forever, nor will the Vatican’s patience with these long-running discussions.

Pope Benedict, too, knows that the window of opportunity could close soon. He is very serious about his role as the focus of Christian unity, and determined to end this painful division. His appointment of Archbishop Augustine Di Noia as vice-president of the Ecclesia Dei commission makes sense only if the Pope sees a realistic opportunity for closing the deal and reconciling the SSPX.

So where do we stand? The two sides, Rome and Écone, still have serious differences, but we knew that. The two sides are also taking care to avoid unnecessary provocations; they are keeping their talks confidential, rather than playing out the debates in public. These are usually indications that the two sides believe an agreement is within reach. Sure enough, both sides are making preliminary plans for how a final agreement could be hammered out and ratified. Don’t bet against it.

July 19, 2012 

THE GOSPEL IS NOT BEING PROCLAIMED IN ROME IN HOMILIES AND PUBLICATIONS

I was talking to a seminarian of the Franciscan Conventuals, the community of Saint Maximillian Kolbe. He could not speak about the dogma on exclusive salvation,which is based on the Biblical teaching (John 3:5,Mk.6:16). He said he was studying Philosophy and had not begun theology.


Even the priests of his community at the Center on Via San Teodoro, where St. Maximillian Kolbe lived, will not answer the question:'Do  non Catholics need to convert for salvation?'

In the Jan-June 2012 edition of the Miles Immaculate there is confusion on doctrine contradicting the Catholic Faith. St.Maximillian Kolbe affirmed the ‘strict interpretation’ of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.(There is only one interpretation but the media uses this term)


How is extra ecclesiam nulla salus contrary to Vatican Council II? This seems the message in one of the articles when the writer Calzaloro refers to Vatican Council II.


Today the SSPX is criticized for not accepting Vatican Council II but the real issue is extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


The Franciscan Conventuals interpret Vatican Council II as saying there is salvation outside the church. They use the premise:' those who are saved in invincible ignorance and who are now dead, are known to us, they are visible to us on earth.' So their conclusion is that there are exceptions to the dogma on salvation and hence there is salvation outside the Church.


This is the issue that separates the heretics and those who like St. Maximillian Kolbe believe outside the church there is no salvation.


The wrong premise is made in the Miles Immaculatae magazine and it is the political position of those who write for that magazine. In reality they are saying that extra ecclesiam nulla salus as held by St. Maximillian Kolbe is contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.


But it is contrary to Vatican Council ,only with the false premise, which makes the Council say there is salvation outside the Catholic Church.


It’s the priests who are afraid, to proclaim the Faith as did St.Maximillian Kolbe. So  seminarians are confused.


Similarly at the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate Philosophy seminary ,Boccea, Rome it is the priests formatters who are afraid to proclaim the faith.


The Gospel today is not being proclaimed in Rome in homilies or publications.


It’s the deposit of faith that there can be implicit desire .It is not the deposit of faith that implicit desire is known or is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


This is part of the confusion.-Lionel Andrades


SEMINARIAN OF THE FRANCISCAN FRIARS OF THE IMMACULATE EXPRESSES FORMATION
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/seminarian-of-franciscan-friars-of.html#links

Religious Superiors

I have been e-mailing this post to Catholic Religious Superiors of Congregations. If you ,reader, would know any Religious Superior please send him or her this post and ask for permission to cite them.Send me their reply.

Question:
Can all Catholic religious communities, affirm Vatican Council II in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the founders of their community ?

Here is the text of Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II and the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

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.
Here is the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

No magisterial text claims there are known exceptions( of invincible ignorance or implicit desire) or that there are exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation or Ad Gentes 7.


When magisterial texts refer to in principle (implicit) exceptions to the dogma one has to assume that they are defacto (explicit, known) exceptions to the dogma. The text does not say it.

They have to be only in principle (dejure, implicit) exceptions since we cannot know any de facto (explicit) case on earth saved in invincible ignorance, who has not had the Gospel preached to him through no fault of his own.

Since those who are saved in invincible ignorance etc are known only to God we do not know if there is any such case in 2012 or ever. We cannot know if these ‘exceptions’ are saved with the baptism of water or without the Sacraments. However this does not contradict the dogma, either way.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 affirms the dogma and the literal interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney in the earlier paragraphs. If in the latter paragraphs it assumes implicit desire is an explicit exception to the dogma then it made an objective mistake.

Implicit desire is irrelevant to the dogma. We do not know any particular case.

If Lumen Gentium 14 assumes that we know those saved in invincible ignorance and so only those who ‘know’ about Jesus and the Church and who do not convert are oriented to Hell, then this would be an objective mistake. However I interpret it as only God can decide who is in invincible ignorance and who ‘knows’ so there is no controversy here.


So can all Catholic religious communities, affirm Vatican Council II in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the founders of their community ?-Lionel Andrades
_______________________________________

PATRICK MADRID AND PETER VERE ARE STILL DENYING THE FAITH ON EWTN TO KEEP THEIR JOB

Patrick Madrid and Peter Vere on EWTN are not saying that invincible ignorance etc are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Instead they have put out a book against the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX).

Peter Vere is up to his nose in the Cushing error. See here.(1).He says.
Having said that, let us move to the larger question. It is clear from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) promulgated by Pope John Paul II that the Church currently promotes aless exclusive understanding of the dogma “Outside the Church no salvation” (EENS) as well asthe effects of desire for baptism (BOD) and pre-baptismal martyrdom for the faith (BOB). Lest I be accused of bias in my canonical opinion, I want to note up-front that I personally accept the teaching on these issues outlined in the CCC.
Vere means he has 'a less exclusive understanding of the dogma' because he interprets BOD and BOB as known exceptions to the dogma.

 It is only God who can judge who has been saved with BOD and BOB.So BOD and BOB are not relevant to the dogma.If Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Letter of the Holy Office assumed that they were relevant to the dogma, it was an objective mistake. We do not know any case on earth.

Instead of correcting this mistake Patrick Madrid and Peter Vere are criticising the SSPX as extremists and they are posing as liberals.For them being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known exceptions to the dogma? This is his interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church?


According to Canon Law can we be a Catholic when we reject the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also Vatican council II (AG 7) with claims of being able to see the dead -saved, in invincible ignorance etc who are exceptions to the dogma? This is heresy and they are earning a living on it-Lionel Andrades