Wednesday, February 13, 2013

PRIEST SAYS CANADIAN CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS MADE A MISTAKE : SSPX NOT IN SCHISM


Clarifying a Clarification: The SSPX are NOT Schismatic
The statement made by the CCCB indicated that the SSPX is a schismatic group, and the statment published here in Hamilton also stated that other than Baptism, all of their sacraments are invalid.  Here is where the problem lies, and here is where the clarification is needed.  The SSPX is not now, nor has it ever been a schismatic group, as it does not meet the canonical requirements for such a definition.  This matter was clarified by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a matter known as the "Case of the Hawaii Six", and further clarified by the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, which stated that while Archbishop Lefebvre's actions were schismatic, the SSPX itself never went into schism


http://greatandglorious.blogspot.it/2013/02/clarifying-clarification-sspx-are-not.htmlMy Photo

SSPX-SO LIKE THE SSPX ASSUMES THAT SALVATION IN HEAVEN IS VISIBLE TO US ON EARTH

There is a new website which supports the break away group of priests of the SSPX. Just as the SSPX, the SSPX Strict Observance assumes that  salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II (UR) is visible to us, it is physically explicit for us and so it is an an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. SSPX-SO calls it one of the Eight Massive Heresies (1) of Vatican Council II and the text can be accessed on the front page of their website Operation Survival (2).

It says:

Unitatis redintegratio (# 3):

"It follows that these separated churches and communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation whose efficacy comes from that fullness of grace and truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church."[

This is one of Vatican II's worst heresies. It is a total rejection of the dogma outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
SSPX-SO makes the same mistake as the SSPX: it assumes implicit-for-us salvation is explicit and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. When it is said 'For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation ' Vatican Council II is not saying that these cases are visible to us. Unitatis Reintigratio in its text has not stated that these cases are physically explicit for us. Neither has it said that these cases are 'a total rejection of the dogma on salvation'.


This is all implied by the SSPX and SSPX-SO.


There can be non Catholics saved in other religions and they would not be known to us.Since salvation is only known to God in Heaven. So these are invisible cases. Since they are invisible cases for us humans how can they be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nula salus ?


So when the SSPX uses the false premise of being able to see the dead now saved in Heaven and who are visible on earth, then the Council emerges modernist. Otherwise Unitatis Redintigratio does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


As Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said that there could be a Hindu saved in Tibet. We would not know who this Hindu is and so it is irrelvant to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.-Lionel Andrades  

1. http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/Privatican.htm

2. http://operation-survival.blogspot.it/p/blog-page.html

AMERIO CALLED FOR AN EX CATHEDRA STATEMENT : BIRSOTTI, RADAELLO AND THE SSPX HAVE NOT NOTICED THAT THE SOLUTION IS SIMPLE



Manfred on Saturday, Feb 9, 2013 9:16 PM (EST):The question does not turn on the obedience of the SSPX to the Pope; but rather the obedience of the Pope (and the Church) to dogma! The entire Council is suspect.
See the articles by Birsotti and Radaello and Iota Unum by Romano Amerio) (Comment)
Romano Amerio author of Iota Unum is quoted as saying that the pope should issue an ex cathedra statement saying that there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He writes that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not part of the Catholic Tradition.

There have been articles by Birsotti and Radaello recently and they are being commented upon by bloggers. The SSPX USA website has also taken notice of it. So has Fr.Z.

Romano Amerio understood that the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus could not be rejected in the name of Vatican Council II. However the issue has been made so complicated that traditionalists including Amerio, Birsotte and Radaello did not realize that the solution was simple. There is no visible-to-us salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II or the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. It is only because the traditionalits assume that salvation indicated in Vatican Council II is explicit and so contradicting the dogma on salvation, that Vatican Council II emerges modernist and a break with the past.

Recently Archbshop Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said that those who interpret the Council, as a break with the past are heretical. The SSPX criticized this statement on their U.S website. Since, for the SSPX those saved in invincible ignorance etc, mentioned in Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, is physically visible,it is explicit,they can see the dead saved in invincible ignroance and implicit desire.This is ridiculous ? Obviously if you add a false premise(visible dead saved) to any Church document it will emerge modernist.

So the pope does not need to issue an ex cathedra statement on this subject. He or the traditionalists just have to mention that there is no visible baptism of desire etc.Then automatically others would realize, like Archbishop Muller, that it is heretical to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past, and this applies to the progressivists and  traditionalists.The Council is traditional.The entire interpretation of the Council changes.-Lionel Andrades

FISH EATERS CATHOLIC TRADITIONALIST FORUM ASSUMES THERE IS A VISIBLE BAPTISM OF DESIRE

Fish Eaters: The Whys and Hows of Traditional Catholicism (art by Daniel Mitsui)

There is a Catholic traditionalist forum Fish eaters which accepts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as including the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. For them there is visible baptism of desire ! The baptism of desire is physically visible and so it is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, defined three times.This is the irrationality of the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing. It is also heresy. It is implying that the dogma as it was known historically by the Church Councils, popes and saints has visible exceptions i.e non Cathoics who are going to be saved in the present times and who do not have to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.

Fish eaters like other traditionalist forums also implies that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, a magisterial document for them, taught an irrationality and heresy.The Administrators of Fish eaters state that the priest from Boston, Fr.Leonard Feeney was corrected by the Letter of the Holy Office which said that the baptism of desire was an exception(!?) to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Take Back the Net!




Historicially in the Catholic Church, being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire was accepted,from even the time of the Church Fathers.They are possibilities only known to God, and these cases are not visible to us. So they are irrelevant to the thrice defined dogma. Since they are invisible they cannot be exceptions to every one needing to enter the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism' (AG 7) for salvation.


The Letter of the Holy Office no where states that being saved with implcit desire or in invincible ignorance is visible for us and neither does it state that these cases are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Fish eaters implies all this. It assumes all this wrongly.


There is no Magisterial document which claims  that these cases are physically visible to us or that they are exceptions to the dogma -Lionel Andrades

http://www.fisheaters.com/ http://www.fisheaters.com/evangelize.html http://www.fisheaters.com/links.html