Friday, October 19, 2012

CLARIFICATION FROM THE SSPX NEEDED

If there is any journalist who is about to interview a Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) leader please ask him the following questions. It will help clarify their position regarding the recent posts on this blog (1).

1. Do we personally know any one saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance in 2012? (Are they visible to us?)

2. Do we know any one in 2012 saved with the ‘seeds of the word’ (Ad Gentes ), imperfect communion with the Church (Unitatis Redintigratio) or a good conscience (Lumen Gentium )?

3. If we do not know any of these cases in 2012 then they do not contradict Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation? (There are no known exceptions to AG 7?).

4. If there are no known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 then there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

5. It would mean there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

6.If Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma on salvation then the Council is saying all non Catholics need to convert into the Church for salvation ?( The message of AG 7 and the dogma?)

7. So Vatican Council II agrees at least with the SSPX position on other religions since there are no known exceptions?
-Lionel Andrades

1.
SSPX IS CONTRADICTING THE NICENE CREED : THEY BELIEVE IN TWO OR MORE 'KNOWN' BAPTISMS FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/sspx-is-contradicting-nicene-creed-they.html#links

SSPX IS CONTRADICTING THE NICENE CREED : THEY BELIEVE IN TWO OR MORE 'KNOWN' BAPTISMS FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)  is contradicting the Nicene Creed ince they believe in two or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins.

They assume the baptism of desire etc are know to us.So there are three known baptisms (water, desire and blood).

This is the heresy at the centre of Vatican Council II being modernist or traditional.

Since for the SSPX there are also the 'baptisms' of the 'seeds of the word '(Ad Gentes ) , imperfect communion (Unitatis Redintegro) and a good consceince (Lumen Gentium ) they assume that Vatican Council II contradicts also the Syllabus of Errors and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
In principle we can accept that there is the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood. Defacto in personal cases only God would know.
 
In faith we can accept that a non Catholic could be saved in invincible ignorance. Inreality these cases can only be judged and known by God.
 
In theory, hypothetically we can accept that a non Catholic could be saved with the seeds of the word, imperfect communion or a good conscience. Personally we cannot know any of these cases on earth. They are not visible to us.-Lionel Andrades


RAMPANT HERESY IN THE SSPX
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/rampant-heresy-in-sspx.html#links

RAMPANT HERESY IN THE SSPX

Since Fr.Niklaus  Pfluger rejects Vatican Council II as being modernist its an indication that he also in reality rejects the Nicene Creed, with explicit, known to us baptism of desire etc.

For him Vatican Council II contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors since Vatican Council II says a non Catholic can be saved with a good conscience or in invincible ignorance (LG 16). For him  LG 16 is an exception to Tradition (dogma on salvation and Syllabus of Errors). Only if these cases  are known  can they be explicit exceptions to the dogma which says every one needs to convert into the Church for salvation. (John 3:5,MK.16:16)


Since these cases, who are  dead and now  saved are visible to him, Vatican Council II contradicts Tradition and it is a modernist Council.


When invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicit for him, he is also denying the Nicene Creed.It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'. Since he believes there  are known exceptions he is also denying the Athanasius Creed which states outside the church there is no salvation.

The one baptism for the forgiveness of sins has always been the baptism of water.There is only one known and explicit baptism and it is the baptism of water.We cannot administer the baptism of desire.


For Fr.Niklaus Pfluger however the baptism of desire is explicit.So for him here is explicit baptism of desire and also explicit baptism of water. So he does not believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins but two.


He has changed the Creed. This is a denial of the Nicene Creed.


The proof is there in his interpretation of Vatican Council II. He interprets Vatican Council II as a break from Tradition, since being saved with  the baptism of desire a good conscience,seeds of the word etc, are known to him and hence exceptions to the dogma on salvation.


So for him its not just one baptism but very many baptisms!


To deny or change the Nicene Creed is first class heresy.

This heresy has been rampant in the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) for a long time. This is 'traditional heresy', the stuff of excommunications.It's also making a false Profession of Faith with the Creed.


Here is his heretical score:


I believe in more than one baptism ! (though I will say there is one)

I believe Vatican Council II contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus!

I believe that the Council of Trent was referring to an explicit baptism of desire!

I will not except Vatican Council II!

All this is not 'traditional heresy' for him.

Fr.Pfluger and the SSPX members in heresy cannot be excommunicated for this error, since the heresy is also being held by the Prefect of the CDF and the Vatican Curia and many cardinals and bishops.
-Lionel Andrades

FATHER NIKLAUS PFLUGER IN FIRST CLASS HERESY ?

Liberals because of the use of the false premise want the Council to be accepted in its present form


REDEMPTORIST PRIEST SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT ITSELF NOR THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS


SSPX DISTRICT ITALY CONFERENCE ON VATICAN COUNCIL II TO USE THE FALSE PREMISE


CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER AND ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SSPX PROBLEM BY IDENTIFYING THE WRONG PREMISE


POPE JOHN XXIII, POPE PAUL VI AND POPE JOHN PAUL II NEVER IDENTIFIED THE VISIBLE DEAD SAVED MISUNDERSTANDING WHICH CAME FROM THE FR.LEONARD FEENEY ERA

ARCHBISHOP GERHARD MULLER ASSUMES THAT THE DEAD WHO ARE SAVED ARE VISIBLE ON EARTH AND SO EVERY ONE DOES NOT NEED TO ENTER THE CHURCH:NCR interview

COULD THERE BE A THIRD FALSE EXCOMMUNICATION ?