Saturday, December 22, 2012

According to Archbishop Gerhard Muller Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was a heretic for interpreting Vatican Council II as a rupture with the past

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was not aware of the widespread visible dead error in the Catholic Church, which was supposed to be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.



So he assumed that Vatican Council II contradicted the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on other religions.


We now realize that it was his interpretation of the Council with the visible dead theory, which was at fault.


Once one is aware that Vatican Council II affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Dignitatis Humanae and other documents of the Council can be interpreted according to Tradition.


The key issue is other religions. The SSPX assumes invincible ignorance, implicit desire, seeds of the word, imperfect communion with the church, elements of sanctification, good and holy things in other religions etc are explicit exceptions known to us.


The Council does not state that these cases are explicit or that they contradict the dogma on salvation.Neither is this clearly mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.It has to be implied.


The secular media and Cardinal Richard Cushing the Archbishop of Boston implied that these cases were exceptions to the dogma.Archbishop Lefebvre picked up this error like about every body during his time.




This false premise, the dead man walking theory, has resulted in a modernist interpretation of Vatican Council II. The Archbishop condemned the Council without being aware of the premise being used.


He was correct the Council is modernist but only if you use the premise of, the dead man walking on earth, saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.
-Lionel Andrades

JESUIT PRIEST TODAY MORNING OFFERED MASS AND THEN INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II AS A BREAK WITH TRADITION

JESUIT PRIEST TODAY MORNING OFFERED MASS AND THEN INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II AS A BREAK WITH TRADITION

Fr.Wilfrid S.J offered the 11 o'clock Mass today at the Chiesa del Gesu, Rome,  the church which has the tomb of St.Ignatius of Loyola.

In the sacristy after Mass I told him I found it interesting when he called us to be' protagonists of salvation'(protaganisti di salvezza).

Then I affirmed my Faith.I said I believe in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in accord with Vatican Council II. He said Church is the sacrament of salvation.(This was Alert N.1 that he has had a liberal religious formation).

I was waiting to see how he would respond the the next line which would make things clear for him.

I said I believe that the Church teaches that all non Catholics are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Church.

He could not accept this and suggested Vatican Council II had changed the teaching of the Church. He mentioned Ad Gentes and Lumen Gentium but could not provide any particular citings from these documents.

I mentioned Ad Gentes 7 said all need faith and baptism for salvation. Muslims and Jews need faith and baptism to go to Heaven.

Then Lumen Gentium 16 ( which he probably had in mind) mentions those saved in invincible ignorance but we do not know of any case in the present time.So there are no known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 and the defined dogma on salvation.

He said that the Church does not say that anyone is in Hell.I agreed that only God can finally know who is in Heaven and who is not. So I use the word 'oriented'.Non Catholics are oriented to Hell, they are on the way to Hell.He accepted this and did not object.

He had earlier mentioned that a non Catholic could be in imperfect communion with the Church and so saved.I agreed with him, I explained that this is accepted in principle.We do not know any defacto case.So it does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or AG 7.

In his Jesuit formation he was taught:

1. To see invincible ignorance etc in isolation, that is without placing AG 7 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus before you.

2. Dominus Iesus says that the church is the sacrament of salvation-period. They are not taught that Dominus Iesus also says all need to enter the Church for salvation, even though salvation is open for all (DI 20).

3.They are taught that salvation is open for all but every one does not need to enter in 2012.

4.Every one does not have to enter the church for them, since for them there are known cases in 2012.

5.So the Jesuits cannot say that all non Catholics in 2012 are on the way to Hell unless they convert into the Church since there could be exceptions in the present times.As if we could know them or meet them for them to be exceptions.
Now the Rector from E.Europe at the Jesuit seminary, next door, says there is no one in Hell.Other Jesuits here say the same. While the Italian Vice Rector here says the natives in Goa and in the East where St.Francis Xavier went on missions, were saved even before St.Francis Xavier was there, since they were all in invincible ignorance.Invincible ignorance is the ordinary means of salvation and not faith and baptism (AG 7).

It was the Jesuits who dismissed Fr.Leonard Feeney from their community even though invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire were not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They had nothing to do with his literal interpretation of the dogma.

The Jesuit Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now a cardinal, formerly a profesor at the Gregorian University, also believes the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma.

Assuming Fr.Wilfrid today said all non Catholics are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church,would they allow him to remain a Jesuit and a priest ?
Suppose the Jesuit Provincial and Rector at this Church said like St.Ignatius of Loyola, that all non Catholics are oriented to Hell in 2012 unless they convert into the Church, would the pope under political pressure, send them all home?

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Prefect recently said that those who interpret Vatican Council II as a break from Tradition are heretical.For Fr.Wilfrid, perhaps out of ignorance,Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition. He  assumes being saved in imperfect communion with the Church etc are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition.For him Vatican Council II is not in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors and the teaching of the Social Reign of Christ the King. For him Vatican Council II would also contradict itself .(AG 7 vs LG 16).-Lionel Andrades