Saturday, December 15, 2012

Is the SSPX heretical?

Archbishop Mueller
Archbishop Mueller, speaking of the integral magisterium, adds:




whose highest expression is the Council presided over by the Successor of St. Peter as Head of the visible Church. Outside this sole orthodox interpretation unfortunately exists a heretical interpretation, that is, a hermeneutic of rupture (found) both on the progressive front and on the traditionalist one. Both agree on refusing the Council… the traditionalists in their not wanting to get there, as if it was the winter of Catholicity. (1)


For the Society of St.Pius X Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a rupture with the past.

This is because they use the false premise.

Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church without the false premise of being able to see the dead saved, is traditional.It is rational,with the hermeneutic of continuity.It is not a break with the past.

It does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.

Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees with Tradition.The SSPX websites still do not address this issue, for or against. Neither do the SSPX leaders comment on it.
-Lionel Andrades
(1)
http://www.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/is_the_sspx_heretical_3_12-11-2012.htm  
 
YEAR OF THE FAITH : VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AFFIRMS THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS ttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/year-of-faith-vatican-council-ii-and.html#links

The Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II are in accord with the sedevacantist position on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church  and Vatican Council II is in accord with the sedevacantist position on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The sedevantists  Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae(CMRI) and the Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) hold the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Whether they accept the baptism of desire or reject it, it is irrelevant. Since these cases are not known and so are not exceptions to outside the church there is no salvation.
It's time for the CMRI and MHFM  to come back into the Church since the Catechism  of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II is in agreement with their traditional interpretation of the dogma on salvation.

On the websites of the CMRI and the MHFM it can be seen that they assume that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are explicit and known to us and so contradict the dogma. The CMRI accepts the baptism of desire along with the traditional interpretation of the dogma and the MHFM rejects the baptism of desire and also accepts the traditional interpretation of the dogma. Both have fallen for the Cardinal Richard Cushing Error.

 It was the cardinal of Boston who assumed that cases of the baptism of desire and those saved in invincible ignorance are explicit to us and so are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since the 1940's this error is being made by most Catholics.
-Lionel Andrades


YEAR OF THE FAITH : VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AFFIRMS THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/year-of-faith-vatican-council-ii-and.html#links