Monday, October 8, 2012

SSPX ITS THE WRONG INTERPRETATION

According to the SSPX North American District website:

Here are our comments on this interesting piece of news on the role of the Magisterium in the Catholic Church and the problem raised by the interpretation of it.

The divine institution of the Church demands a social authority, the Magisterium, exercised by its constant preaching. Its function is to propose with authority, to clarify, always in the same sense the deposit of the faith.

Hence, the Church could not be defined in principle as the “Church of the seven or twenty first ecumenical councils.” It is defined in principle as the “Church of all times”. This means that the Church remains substantially the immutable in its signification, despite the verbal elaboration in which the Magisterium gives an ever clearer precision of the same truth.

Pius XII in Humani Generis explains that the Magisterium is exercised “in view of a more and more exact presentation of the truths of faith”, not in view of a clarification of its own teachings. The Magisterium interprets and clarifies the divine truths, but it does not need to interpret itself. On the contrary, the Scripture needs interpretation because it often uses figurative and metaphorical language open to different senses. But the interpretation which the Church gives of the Scripture clarifies the scriptural sense, and there is no need of “an interpretation of the interpretation” under pain of going on forever in the process.

As a rule, the role of the Magisterium is to interpret the points of doctrine not yet clarified by the anterior Magisterium. Thus, Nicea I gives a clear teaching on the Second Person of the Trinity, and Nicea II, far from clarifying Nicea I, dealt with another dogma, of the Third Person of the Trinity.

The problem with the post-conciliar Magisterium is that it tries to give the good interpretation of Vatican II, by eliminating the wrong one.

Lionel: Different premises will result in different conclusions.The post –conciliar Magisterium like the SSPX is using the premise of  being able to see the dead saved on earth.It sounds riciculous but here is where the problem lies.The result is a wrong interpretation.

Take as an example the speech of Benedict XVI of December 22, 2005:

Why was the reception of the Council, in great parts of the Church, reached with such difficulty? Well! Everything depends on the just interpretation of the Council—or, as we would say today—of its correct hermeneutic, of the right key of reading key and application. The problems of the reception came from the confrontation of two opposite hermeneutic.

Lionel: Correct. There are two hermeneutics one in accord with tradition and the other is opposed to tradition. The premise responsible for this error when identified should end the wrong interpretation of Vatican Council II which is a break from tradition. The premise itself is a break from tradition.

This in itself is the proof that, far from clarifying the doctrine, this Council has at least obscured it.

Lionel: This is the 'proof' of the wrong premise. The SSPX and the Magisterium have to identify the ‘proof’ with the faulty premise. They have not noticed it.

This alone puts into question its proper magisterial nature. Hence, it is vain to take Vatican II as the criterion, since we could not understand the teachings of the previous Magisterium, clear in themselves, by following equivocal teachings.

Vatican Council II is equivaocal since awrong premise is jused.

Iota Unum (#48) explains that the very fact that theologians most faithful to Rome strive to disculpate the Council from equivocity is a sign that things are not right.

Lionel: Things are not  right since both sides have not identified the wrong premise.Change the premise of ' the dead are visible to us on earth' to 'the dead are not visible to us on earth' and Vatican Council II changes. Same Council but with different premises leading to different interpretations and conclusions.-Lionel Andrades

What a disappointment!


The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) has posted the photograph of SSPX members of the ‘Rome Theological Commission. They are probably the group who represented the SSPX in the talks with Rome.

What a disappointment!

They went through the whole talks, over months, not knowing that there is no visible baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and so there is nothing in Vatican Council II which contradicts the Syllabus of Errors and extra ecclesiam nulla salus. What a waste of time.

It is possible that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre also did not know otherwise he would have interpreted the Council as a continuation of tradition and would continue to reject the heretical interpretation with the visible dead theory.-Lionel Andrades

http://www.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/wrong_or_right_conditions_for_the_sspxs_future10-2-2012.htm

SSPX INFORM THE CDF THAT THE FR. LEONARD FEENEY CASE HAS CHANGED THE INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II TODAY.

The SSPX must bring it to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Prefect that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

This changes the entire interpretation of Vatican Council II. For example when we assume that those saved in invincible ignorance are visible and known to us then Lumen Gentium 14 will be interpreted as saying only those who know need to convert for salvation. Those who do not know ( ignorant) and who are on earth and known to us , do not have to convert. They can be saved in invincible ignorance.

Similarly it was said that Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong since there is a baptism of desire and invincible ignorance , which,being known to us, are exceptions to his literal interpretation.

In other words because these cases with the baptism of desire etc are known to us they are exceptions. If they were not known to us they could bot be exceptions.

So Archbishop Gerhard Muller in the interview with the National Catholic Register this month assumed that those saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He cited Lumen Gentium 14 as an exception. In other words the dead who are saved are visible and they contradict the traditional understanding of this dogma on exclusive salvation.

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) could bring it to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) that for 19 years the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was not lifted even though the baptism of desire was not relevant to the dogma.

So the Archbishop of Boston was in heresy for alleging that there were exceptions (known to him) to the defined dogma.

Similarly Archbishop  Muller's interpretation of Lumen Gentium 14 is heresy. He is implying that Vatican Council II (LG 14) contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.So every one does not have to convert in the present times for him. This also contradicts Vatican Council II (AG 7). Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism.

Now he expects the SSPX to use his heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II,which is  also irrational,since we cannot see the deceased saved in 2012. This  interpretation also does not have the hermeneutic of continuity that Pope Benedict XVI mentioned.

 
The SSPX referred to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the last Chapter statement (July 19,2012) it also affirmed its support for the 'uninterrupted  magisterium' which always endorsed extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Pope Pius XII referred to it as 'the dogma', the 'ìnfallible teaching' so it was not just something of the past.The dogma of the Trinity is even older than extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades


ARCHBISHOP GERHARD MULLER CHOOSES A HERETICAL INTERPRETATION OF LUMEN GENTIUM 14 WHICH IS A BREAK FROM TRADITION

For nearly 20 years the Holy Office(CDF) and the Archbishop of Boston did not lift the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney when the baptism of desire was never ever an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

ARCHBISHOPS IN HERESY EXCOMMUNICATING THE INNOCENT