Friday, January 4, 2013

OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION- MICHAEL VORIS

VATICAN COUNCIL II IS TRADITIONAL SO THE SSPX IS AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLED TO CANONICAL STATUS :implications of priest's statement in Rome

SSPX priest's comment on the baptism of desire not being visible to us is important for their full recognition.
dsc02555

The comment yesterday by the priest of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) in Rome is important for the present reconciliation of the SSPX. The SSPX is  faithful to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (General Chapter statement July 19,2012), the Syllabus of Errors and the Social Reign of the Kingship of Christ all affirmed by Vatican Council II.

The implications of his saying that implicit salvation is not visible to us are:-

1. Since there are no known cases of implicit salvation, there are no known exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

2.There are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.Th baptism of desire etc are irrelevant to his traditional interpretation of the dogma on salvation.

3.So all implicit salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II (LG 16 'invincible ignorance, good conscience', LG 8 'elements of sanctification', AG 'seeds of the word' etc) are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

4. There is no text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.

5.Vatican Council II does not contradict the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism.
Protestants, Jews and Muslims do not have Catholic Faith which is needed for salvation (AG 7).Th Council is traditional on the issues of other religions and ecumenism.

6.It was an oversight, if the Prefects of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) assumed that the baptism of desire was relevant, or an exception, to the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation.

7.It was an oversight of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops and priests,who also assumed like the Prefects of the CDF, that there were explicit exceptions to the dogma, which said everyone needs to convert into the Church for salvation.

8.So the wrong premise, of being able to see the dead who are saved,results in an interpretation of Vatican Council II which is a break with Tradition.The premise influences theology and the interpretation of the Council.

9.So there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II.
a) with the irrational premise of being able to see the dead saved LG 16(invincible ignorance) would contradict AG 7(all need faith and baptism).It would also contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
b) Without the irrational premise of being able to see the dead saved in 2013, there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to AG 7 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

10.When Vatican Council II really affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors we have a moral duty to affirm the Social Reign of the Kingship of Christ the King.This is also mentioned in Dignitatis Humanae.

Conclusion:

The Society of St.Pius X could accept a Vatican Council II without the irrational premise of being able to see the dead saved.This would be accepting Vatican Council II without the dead man walking theory.

Vatican Council II is not a break with the past. The SSPX can support their traditional position on other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty, with references from the Council.

Modernists cannot cite any reference from Vatican Council II to support 'a development of doctrine' unless they are using the dead man walking theory.There is textual-basis for ' a theology of religions', 'ecclesiology of communion' or an 'ecumenism of on return'.

Vatican Council II is traditional and so the SSPX could be automatically entitled to canonical status.-Lionel Andrades

January 4, 2013
SSPX PRIEST IN ROME SAYS IMPLICIT SALVATION IS NOT VISIBLE TO US.WE DO NOT KNOW ANY CASE OF A PERSON SAVED WITH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE

Archbishop, numerous priests and lay Catholic apologist contradict CDF Prefects- baptism of desire cases are not visible to us

Bishop Bernard Fellay, like Archbishop Lefebvre and the Prefects of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made a doctrinal error on the baptism of desire being visible to us. Could the SSPX also be wrong about the Holy Mass ?

January 1, 2013
SSPX YOUR DOCTRINAL MIRACLE HAS COME THROUGH FROM OUR LADY
Your rosary bouquets and prayers have been answered.

RECONCILIATION OF THE SOCIETY OF ST.PIUS X (SSPX) IS NOW POSSIBLE

If I spoke to an SSPX priest in Rome

SSPX NEVER BROUGHT SCHONBORN'S ERROR TO THE ATTENTION OF CDF PREFECTS

THERE IS NO DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT IN VATICAN COUNCIL II AS CARDINAL CHRISTOPH SCHONBURG ALLEGES : SINCE THE COUNCIL DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE TRADITIONAL TEACHING ON OTHER RELIGIONS

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

SSPX PRIEST IN ROME SAYS IMPLICIT SALVATION IS NOT VISIBLE TO US.WE DO NOT KNOW ANY CASE OF A PERSON SAVED WITH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE

Implicit salvation is not visible to us.We do not know any case of a person saved with the baptism of desire. We do not personally know anyone saved in invincible ignorance.So there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was said yesterday evening by a young priest of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX).I briefly spoke with him at the SSPX chapel  St.Catherine of Siena, Via Urbano, near the Cavour Metro Station in Rome.
dsc02555


 
It was clear for him that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were not exceptions to the dogma on salvation.Since we do not know these cases they are always implicit and never explicit for us.


All who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church he mentioned. Of course we do not personally know these cases so this is not a contradiction of the dogma on exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.All need to enter as through a door( Ad Gentes 7)


The priest who was to offer Mass at the chapel  mentioned that there could be a catechumen who explicitly asks for the baptism of water but could not receive it before death,and who could be be saved. Again these cases are known only to God, so they do not contradict the dogmatic teaching that all need faith and baptism for salvation.All need to convert into the Catholic Church.(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 etc)


It means Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance etc) is not an exception to Ad Gentes 7 which says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation. There are no known exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II, to Ad Gentes 7 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The Council does not contradict the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism.


All implicit salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Vatican Council II does not state that implicit salvation is explicit or an exception to the dogma.There are no explicit- implicit salvation cases mentioned in Vatican Council II.


Since there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation there are no known exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are irrelevant to Fr. Leonard Feeney's literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation.-Lionel Andrades

Photo from the SSPX website .This is not the priest with whom I spoke to but I am sure he and the other priests in Albano, Italy would agree that implicit desire is not explicit for us and is known only to God.