Monday, February 4, 2013

Progressivists interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise of 'implicit desire being visible' or 'the dead are visible' and then assume that they accept Vatican Council II.

For example the Paulist Fathers say they accept Vatican Council but what they mean by Vatican Council II is a Council in which Lumen Gentium 16 says those who are saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us and so they are exceptions to tradition.This is Vatican Council II for them.

All salvation is visible only to God. There is no physically visible case for us.We cannot see any one saved physically in invincible ignorance.So if there is no physically visible case for us what kind of Vatican Council II do the Paulist Fathers and the other progressivists claim they accept.

And if the Society of St.Pius X say they reject Vatican Council II are they referring to the version which uses the false premise?

If there was no false premise then would the SSPX be able to accept Vatican Council II and then would the Paulist Fathers and others reject Vatican Council II.

Archbishop Gerhard Muller has said that those progressivists and traditionalists who interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past are heretical.

Any Church document which uses a false premise will emerge modernist and heretical.

The Paulist Fathers interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus as a break with the past.They assume that cases of implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicitly known to us and so they contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney. This was the heretical interpretation of the Archbishop of Boston.
Then for the Paulist Fathers Mystici Corporis would be abreak with the past. Pope Pius XII mentions that there could be those saved with implicit desire. The Paulist Faithers use the false premise of implicit desire being explicit.So they conclude that  Mystici Corporis contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Since for the Paulist Fathers  there is no implicit baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance CCC 1257 would contradict itself. It would be saying 'God is not limited to the Sacraments' and at the same time saying 'the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water.' If God is not limited to the Sacraments would be considered implicit for us there would be no difficulty with the Catechism for the Paulist Fathers.

Then there is Vatican Council II itself which is a contradiction since they use the false premise. AG 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. For the Paulists this is contradicted by LG 16 which says a person can be saved in invincible ignorance. Remember being saved in invincible ignorance is explicit for them.So LG 16 contradicts AG 7 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is what they mean when they say they accept Vatican Council II and the SSPX does not accept the Council.-Lionel Andrades

Traditionalist Internet forums

There are Traditionalists Internet forums. There is also the extra ecclesiam nulla salus forum and I know some of its members have  over the years been banned on other forums because of their understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So what is the understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus among informed traditionalists ? Is it the same as for the liberals?

We have extra ecclesiam nulla salus as understood by Fr.Leonard Feeney with no exceptions of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. The dogma does not mention exceptions.This is the extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the popes and Councils. This is the dogma according to the saints including St.Maximillian Kolbe in 1930s. This is the interpretation which is there in Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441,Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846.

Then we have the extra ecclesiam nulla salus in which the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are explicit and so exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to traditional and liberal forums.It is that of the Left.This is the understanding of the dogma according to Cardinal Richard Cushing the former Archbishop of Boston.

Secondly, all  who post on Traditionalist forums and other Catholic forums  come with a common understanding of reality.We are all on earth.


For me the apple falls donward.It does not rise.Night follows day.Summer follows winter.When someone is dead and buried he is no more visible. He is not seen walking.


I assume this is also the reality of the Administrators of Catholic forums.


So if someone in the forum insists that the dead are visible then the Admin. must point it out that this is a different reality shared by the poster.
-Lionel Andrades