Friday, November 23, 2012

THE ONUS IS WITH THE CDF. THE SSPX IS NOT IN SCHISM DOCTRINE-WISE


The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) cannot be considered to be in schism since they accept all the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church; all the dogmas and doctrines.

They accept Vatican Council II historically and do not reject it as an event in the Church. If they reject an interpretation of Vatican Council II it is because the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,(CDF) is using a false premise which results in a non traditional interpretation of the Council.Let the CDF identify the false premise and then the SSPX would be able to accept the traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II.The responsibility is with the CDF. They simply have to announce:

'We do not know any case on earth of someone dead and saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire in 2012.We accept in principle only, the possibility of people being saved implicitly with the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, seeds of the word, imperfect communion with the Church, a good conscience, elements of sanctification etc'.

This is enough.

Everything will fall into place and the SSPX could accept Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades


They excommunicated the SSPX once unaware of the false premise they could do it a second time not knowing that without a precise, false premise being used by all, the Council is traditional

CARDINAL PROBLEM


We cannot appeal to any cardinal to enter the SSPX -Vatican impasse since the cardinals also assume implicit salvation is explicit for us and so Vatican Council II is a break from the past.

To which cardinal can we appeal to end the SSPX-Vatican deadlock? None!. We need a cardinal who understands that implicit salvation (invincible ignorance etc) are not explicit to us and who can explain to all concerned. These cases are explicit only for God. So there is nothing in the Council which contradicts Tradition unless one uses an interpretation which assumes there are known exceptions to the dogma and that the possibility of being saved implicitly is also an explicit known reality.

Recently a cardinal spoke on Vatican Council II in an English diocese and because he assumed that the dead are visible to us , for him Vatican Council II was a break from the past.

There was not comment or correction from the SSPX or the Vatican. How could they there be one? They both assume that the dead are visible and so these cases contradict Tradition and so Vatican Council II is a break from the past.This is a cardinal problem in interpretation.-Lionel Andrades

SSPX IN ANALYSIS PARALYSIS

After so many years of analysis of Vatican Council II and unknowingly using the visible-dead-saved false premise, the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) cannot see that there are no explicit exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Neither is their position on other religions contradicted.

They cannot throw out those scores of years of analysis and suddenly say : 
' Vatican Council II is traditional and supports our position on other religions and ecumenism. We accept Vatican Council II in accord with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.'

Analysis-paralysis.
-L.A


Bro.Peter Dimond assumes that the Council of Florence contradicts the Council of Trent


Bro.Peter Dimond in another video assumes that the baptism of desire is  explicitly known to us and so is relevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He also does not differentiate between the ordinary means of salvation and being saved implcitly.

He quotes sedevantists and other priests who say non Catholics can be saved in another religion. Bro.Peter Dimond does not differentiate between saved in general or saved implicitly.Then he does not mention if he is referring to explicit or implicit baptism of desire. The implicit, explicit distinction is not made and so there is confusion.The sedevantist priests could be referring to implicit baptism of desire known only to God.Bro,Peter Dimond could believe they are mentioning explicit baptism of desire for it to be an exception.

If the implicit-explicite explanation is used then we have the Council of Florence saying that every one on earth needs to explicitly enter the Catholic Church while implicitly a non Catholic could be saved in another religion and it would be known only to God. So it is not contradictory.

Then he does not mention that the ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of desire. This is the ordinary,normal means of salvation. The ordinary means of salvation is not the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.So when some one mentions people being saved in another religion it is not the ordinary way.The sedevacantist preists are definitely not saying being saved in other religions is the ordinary means of salvation.

Then Bro.Peter Dimond also does not mention when is he referring to known or unknown salvation. There are no known exceptions to the dogma since we do not know any one in the present times saved in invincible ignorance. Unknown salvation refer to posibilities, something we accept in faith. Being saved in another religion is a possibility and not a known reality.

So when Bro.Peter Dimond quotes the priests who affirm the baptism of desire of the Council of Trent, and this baptism of desire being implicit and known only to God, it  does not contradict Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441.The Council of Florence does not contradict the Council of Trent.
Since he does not make the distinction between explicit and implicit salvation, i.e salvation is always explicit for God and implicit for us, he assumes Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The SSPX makes the same mistake. Since these cases are  known only to God and these cases are unknown to us LG 16 does not contradict AG 7 .Neither does LG 16 (invincible ignorance etc) contradict  the dogma on salvation or the Syllabus of Errors.The ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water irrespective if somone is saved in another religion.

No Church Council , pope or Magisterial text including that of Vatican Council II says that being saved in invincible ignorane and the baptism of desire are explicit cases which are exceptions to the dogma. One has to imply this wrongly.Bro.Peter Dimond wrongly assumes that the baptism of desire is explicit and known to us.
-Lionel Andrades

COUNCIL OF TRENT DOES NOT SAY IF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS DEFACTO OR DE JURE KNOWN TO US
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/06/council-of-trent-does-not-say-if.html#links

SSPX WEBSITES CANNOT RESPOND TO SEDEVACANTIST VIDEO 'SSPX REJECTS SALVATION DOGMA'



The sedevacantists have put out a video on Youtube titled SSPX REJECTS SALVATION DOGMA and none of the SSPX websites have responded.They cannot. Since the SSPX does assume there is explicit known-to-us cases of persons saved, who are exceptions to the salvation dogma.


They cannot respond to the video.Since they do assume implicit salvation is explicit and an exception to the dogma. They  assume implicit salvation is explicit.So it follows that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.

They are now awaiting excommunication N.2 since no one on their websites says that Vatican Council II is in accord with the SSPX position on other religions. Ad Gentes 7 supports the salvation dogma and LG 16 etc are not known exceptions but the websites do not mention it. Why? Since Lumen Gentium 16 is a known exception for the SSPX even though they cannot name any one saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience in 2012.

Their websites should be discussing this issue. They cannot - since they have no answer. How can they deny the sedevacantist charge on the video ?


If they realized that the baptism of desire and invincible are never inherently explicit for us and that they are explicit only for God, they could issue a clarification.


They could have said that the SSPX General Chapter meeting stated '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'

So there is no known possibility of salvation outside the Church and every one needs to convert into the Church (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441).They need to convert  with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.(Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II).

Since there are no known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus if a non Catholic is saved in another religion, it does not contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma. Only if one assumes that these cases are explicit would it be an exception to the literal intepretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


Also, those who are saved in another religion are saved through Jesus and the Church and they could also be saved with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith, if God sends a preacher to them. We don't know.Either way, they are irrelevant to the dogma, these cases do not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction .They are implicit.


So when Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said that a non Catholic can be saved in another religion he was speaking of a possibility and not a known reality.A possibility is not a reality in 2012.

It is the sedevantists who have the problem when they assume that the baptism of desire is explicit and known to us. So they reject the baptism of desire of the Council of Trent.

Similarly the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Fr. Leonard Feeney's communities, assume that Vatican Council II contradicts the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney since for them implicit desire, invincible ignorance etc are explicit.

The SSPX priests Fr. Peter Scott and Francois Laisney assume implicit desire etc is explicit for us, i.e there is an explicit implicit desire. So they, unlike the MHFM accept it .They accept an explicit baptism of desire etc and assume that it contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus or is an exception to the dogma.


So they cannot respond to the sedevantist video since like the MHFM they assume that the baptism of desire etc is explicit. The difference is that the sedevantists reject the baptism of desire since they believe it is explicit while the SSPX accept the baptism of desire and also assume it is explicit.


So the MHFM claim that  the SSPX is heretical because they reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by accepting explicit baptism of desire etc. So it is no surprise that the MHFM also rejects Vatican Council since they are using the same false premise of being able to see the dead saved with the baptism of desire who are defacto, known exceptions on earth to the dogma.


When the Church Councils defined the dogma they were aware of implicit desire and invincible ignorance mentioned by the Church Fathers and they knew that it does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.

The Dimond brothers in the video believe it would contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since for them implicit desire etc is always explicit.


The traditionalists unaware of this error of the explicit implicit baptism of desire and invincible ignorance, seeds of the word and imperfect communion  reject Vatican Council II when the fault is really with them and not the Council.-Lionel Andrades


SEDEVACANTIST VIDEO ASSUMES THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE ETC IS EXPLICIT FOR US

THE SSPX IS ON THE VERGE OF ANOTHER EXCOMMUNICATION AND THEIR WEBSITES ARE SLEEPING


No Magisterial text including Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the Syllabus-one has to imply it does.

One has to assume the deceased saved are visible on earth and are exceptions.No Magisterial text makes this claim.This error was assumed by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre during the first excommunication and this error  is not known also to the magisterium today.


The Scoiety of St.Pius X (SSPX) rejects Vatican Council II as modernist, unaware of the false premise while the Magisterium is ready for the next excommunication, unaware of the false premise.

The SSPX, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, sedevacantists MHFM,CMRI all assume invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicitly known to us.Correct this error and Vatican Council II has a traditional ecclesiology.


Mons.Gherardini and Prof.Roberto Mattei cited in the SSPX websites are unaware of the false premise of the visible dead.The late Prof. Amerio wrote that the pope should make an announcement regarding invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.Explicit implicit salvation is not part of the deposit of the faith.
 
These are the points that the SSPX should be discussing, accepting or refuting.-Lionel Andrades