Saturday, June 29, 2013

SSPX BISHOPS IMPLY POPES MADE AN OBJECTIVE ERROR: RICHARD CUSHING ERROR BEING USED BY THE SSPX IN THE REJECTION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) has issued a Declaration in which it's bishops still seem unaware of the Richard Cushing Error  being used in the interpretation of Vatican  Council II. They are also unaware of the Richard Cushing Error made in the interpretation of two well known quotations of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on other religions.
 
Vatican Council II is traditional when interpreted without the Richard Cushing Error. The SSPX like the liberals and the naive, interpret the Council with the false premise of being able to see the dead in Heaven who are allegedly known exceptions to the dogma on salvation and the traditional understanding on other religions.
 
Here is part of the CNA report on the SSPX statement.
 
The document – titled “Declaration on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the episcopal consecrations (30th June 1988 – 27th June 2013)” – is signed by Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais and Alfonso de Galarreta...

   In their statement Thursday, the group contradicted now-retired Pope Benedict XVI's stance on Vatican II. The letter made explicit reference to the “hermeneutic of continuity,” rejecting the interpretive lens by which Benedict XVI saw the conciliar documents in light of the Church's tradition.

The bishops say that the documents themselves have grave errors and that they cannot be interpreted without clashing with tradition.

Lionel:
This is false the Second Vatican Council II does not have grave errors. The SSPX is using a false premise, the Richard Cushing Error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents.

SSPX websites also indicate that Pope Pius XII assumed the dead saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire are physically visible on earth for them to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II.They would have to be physically visible or personally known for them to be exceptions.This would be an objective observation.So for the SSPX, the popes made an objective mistake.This same mistake or interpretation is being used by the SSPX.
 
 The “cause of the grave errors which are in the process of demolishing the Church does not reside in a bad interpretation of the conciliar texts – a 'hermeneutic of rupture' which would be opposed to a 'hermeneutic of reform in continuity,'” they wrote, “but truly in the texts themselves, by virtue of the unheard of choice made by Vatican II.”
 
Lionel:
False. There is a 'hermeneutic of continuity' when you avoid the Richard Cushing Error. There is a  'hhermeneutic of rupture' if it is assumed that the dead now in Heaven, are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is the Richard Cushing error and the public error also of SSPX priests Fr-Francois Laisney and Fr.Peter Scott on SSPX websites.
The group also claims that the Second Vatican Council “inaugurated a new type of magisterium, hitherto unheard of in the Church, without roots in Tradition; a magisterium resolved to reconcile Catholic doctrine with liberal ideas; a magisterium imbued with the modernist ideas of subjectivism, of immanentism and of perpetual evolution.”
 
Lionel:
This is true if one is using the Richard Cushing Error.This is being done by the Vatican Curia, as it is also being maintained by the SSPX bishops and priests who do not want to admit that they made an objective, factual mistake .This is an error of doctrine.
 
No pope or Church document in Tradition states that we can see the dead who are known exceptions to the traditional teaching on other religions and Christians communities.If you cannot see the dead, if all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II is invisible in the present times, then where are the known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation ? When Ad Gentes 7 is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, where are the known exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the thrice defined dogma? Where is there a rejection of Catholic Tradition on other religions when the Council does not mention any known exception or the possibility of knowing any exceptions who are now in Heaven ?
 
The Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II are in perfect accord with Tradition when the Richard Cushing Error is avoided. There then is a hermeneutic of continuity.

The document argues that “the reign of Christ is no longer the preoccupation of the ecclesiastical authorities,” and that the liberal spirit in the Church is manifested “in religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality and the New Mass.”
 
Lionel:
This is true. Church documents are also being interpreted with the liberal error. They use the visible dead premise, the Richard Cushing Error.The SSPX is still not aware of it.

Because of religious liberty, they claim,  the Church is being “shamefully guided by human prudence and with such self-doubt that she asks nothing other from the State than that which the Masonic Lodges wish to concede to her: the common law in the midst of, and on the same level as, other religions which she no longer dares call false.”
 
Lionel:
This is a factor. However this is all possible since the traditionalists like the liberals and the Masons within the Church are interpreting Church documents (Letter of the Holy Office 1949, Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church etc ) with the Richard Cushing Error.

Because of inter-religious dialogue, “the truth about the one true Church is silenced,” they also say; while the spirit of collegiality “represents the destruction of authority and in consequence the ruin of Christian institutions: families, seminaries, religious institutes.”
 
Lionel:
The SSPX is also part of this misinformation. On the  SSPX and SSPX-SOS websites,priests claim that every person in the present times do  not need to enter the Catholic Church, since there are/can be known exceptions, saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.Irrational!
 
In other words Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective blunder. According to the SSPX he assumed that implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to cases known to us in the present times. He could name these exceptions.The pope could see the dead, the SSPX implies, and these dead-saved are exceptions to the interpretation of  Fr.Leonard Feeney.
 
Is this Tradition? Does Mystici Corporis claim that the dead saved are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?It is this objective error which the SSPX uses in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.

There can be a liberal and traditional interpretation of mortal sin in the Catechism: the conference on the liturgy particpants could have been using an irrationality

Fr.Jim, my English Spiritual Director at the Beda Pontifical College, Rome, the Catholic seminary for late vocations, would tell me in spiritual direction that only hatred of God is a mortal sin and we could never know when a person was in mortal sin and meets the three conditions mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

20130628-153625.jpg

May be speakers and particpants at the conference on the liturgy have the same liberal concept of mortal sin and they offer Mass and hear Confession.

Here is the Catechism of the Catholic Church on mortal sin.

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

Lionel:
Adultery, homosexuality, immodesty in clothes are mortal sins. If they are committed or not committed with 'full knowledge' and 'deliberate consent' it would be known only to God.For instance it is a mortal sin for a Catholic woman to wear a bikini at a public beach.It is a mortal sin involving grave matter. The sin is visible and obvious.In general it is a sin.

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Lionel:
So the norm for mortal sin is grave matter. The norm is not 'deliberate consent' and having 'full knowledge'. Also 'no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.' Every one in general knows what is right or wrong. Every Catholic in general is not ignorant of the principles of moral law which is known within in his conscience.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

Lionel:
Unintentional ignorance would be known only to God.When we see the woman at the beach in the bikini we know it is a mortal sin.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

Lionel:
The woman in the bikini at the beach is in a sinful act.We do not condemn her, since she can choose to go for the Sacrament of Reconciliation. However if she dies immediately without absolution she is on the way to Hell. The Church tells us what are the conditions for mortal sin and the woman at the beach in the bikini meets them. The Church through the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Tradition tells us that all it takes is one mortal sin for a person to go to Hell.

THE CREED
In the Nicene Creed we pray 'I believe in the Holy Catholic Church'. The Holy Catholic Church does not ask us to believe that deliberate consent and full knowledge are personally known to us and so these are factors and saying that a person is not in mortal sin

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

The Catechism 1857 does not state that there are known exceptions to mortal sin or that we can personally know these exceptions or see them in real life.
However in general we know what are grave sins and what is a scandal. We know this through the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Bible, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. So mortal sin in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is still the same as in the past.

If we say that the woman at the beach in the bikini could not have full knowledge etc this could be accepted in principle, as a possibility.She could have a patholgical disorder or there could be external pressure an emergency case. However in reality, in fact, in real life we cannot ever claim to know such cases in general. Our judgement of an exception could be wrong.Since only Jesus can judge the exceptions.

Pope John Paul II's encyclical on moral theology Veritatis Splendor affirmed the traditional teaching on mortal sin. The outward action indicates the inner intention. So the woman wearing the bikini indicates subjective sin in thoughts and actions.We can judge when the matter is grave.We cannot judge if she is an exception.

When a young couple who are not married live togetehr the outward action indicates subjective sin in thoughts and actions.

When we say in the Creed " I believe in the Holy Spirit", we know that the Holy Spirit cannot make a mistake and teach something in the past and then change it in the present times or the future. The way to avoid Hell is still the same.

The Holy Spirit also cannot guide us to proclaim an irrationality in morals. The Holy Spirit cannot teach the Church to say that deliberate consent and full knowledge are known to us in the present times or that they are the new norm and so the tradtional understanding of mortal sin is no more there. It would be irrational to claim that there are known exceptions in the present times to contradict mortal sin in general. The rule does not change because we can judge certain extraordinary case (or think we can judge them).

This understanding of mortal sin is necessary for those who offer Mass.It is an issue relative to the liturgy.

How can a priest who does not accept traditonal morality and who uses an irrational interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church be allowed to offer Holy Mass?
-Lionel Andrades

Cardinal Raymond Burke at the Conference on the Liturgy in Rome (Photo from Fr.Z's Blog)