Monday, July 8, 2013

Important points the SSPX left out in From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy

Are non-Catholics members of the Church?26. In consequence of what has been said, the following proposition bears careful analysis: “Those [born outside the Catholic Church and therefore not able to ’be accused of the sin of division’] who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in a certain communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect” to the extent that “justified by faith in Baptism, they are members of Christ’s body and have a right to be called Christian, and be duly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church” even though “the differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church – whether in doctrine, sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church – do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones88”. (1) (emphasis added)
 
 1.
Here the SSPX should have simply have said that we do not know any of these cases in the present times. We cannot name any such  case. They are physically not visible to us. So they cannot be known exceptions to the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.
 
This was the important point that the SSPX left out in their report  From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy. We cannot see the dead.
 
 2.
Similarly the SSPX must not consider being saved in invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word etc as being  visible to us. So this is not an issue which needs to be discussed theologically.When these are invisible cases why are they being considered visible theologically.
 
 3.
The Council for Christian Unity, Vatican does not know of any exceptions. Cardinal Kurt Koch, the President of the Council  cannot name any such exception  He does not know if there were five or seven persons saved in 2012 with 'seeds of the Word'.
 
 4.
Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) say all need Catholic Faith for salvation.Christian communities do not have Catholic Faith.
 
 5.
To assume that we can know in 2013 Lutherans saved in imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3) , elements of sanctification and grace(LG 8), seeds of the Word(AG 11) etc would be making the Richard Cushing Error.
 
 6.
If the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II assumed invincible ignorance (LG 16) ,seeds of the Word(AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3), 'good and holy ' non Catholics saved in their religion (NA) are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition in general, they made an objective, factual mistake .The Council for Christian Unity, Vatican suggests this.


Vatican Council II says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation, the Catechism states,  under title Outside the Church No Salvation, that all need to enter the Church 'as through a door'(CCC 846) -and neither does Vatican Council II or the Catechism of the Catholic Church mention any exceptions (invincible ignroance and the baptism of desire, seeds of the Word,elements of sanctification and grace(LG 8), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) etc not being exceptions).
-Lionel Andrades
 
 
(1)
 From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy

The Church Fathers at Vatican Council II knew


If the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II assumed invincible ignorance (LG 16) ,seeds of the Word(AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3), 'good and holy ' non Catholics saved in their religion (NA) are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition in general, they made an objective, factual mistake - then they would have  made a mistake in the text of Vatican Council II .
Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits, at Vatican Council, misinterpreted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. They assumed that there were known exceptions to the dogma on salvation.
The  conservatives at Vatican Council II could have allowed the Cushing 'emphasis' on invincible ignorance etc ,  to pass through, since they are irrelevant to the dogma or tradition.They are known only to God.They are not objective exceptions. Implicit cases were never considered exceptions in Catholic Tradition.
 
The Council Fathers could have let Cardinal Richard Cushing and Fr. John Courtney Murray S.J have their way, knowing that implicit for us salvation was never an exception to  Tradition.All salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II is implicit. They also knew that Cushing and Murray were referring to teachings accepted in principle and not known in explicit cases. for them to be rejections of the dogma on salvation or the Syllabus of Errors.
-Lionel Andrades

Present magisterium can make a mistake and refuse to be guided by the Holy Spirit

We can accept Vatican Council II without using the interpretation of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX).Both are using the Richard Cushing objective mistake.
 
 Archbishop Gerhard Muller and Augustine Di Noia indicate that the present magisterium can make a mistake .It can refuse to be guided by the Holy Spirit. It can accept a factual error and heresy. This is done under threats from the known enemies outside  the Church.
 Archbishop Gerhard Muller is reported as wanting to break all relations with the SSPX who have already announced they have broken dialogue with the Vatican.
 
The SSPX does not endorse  Vatican Council II with the Richard Cushing Error  used by the Vatican, while the Vatican wants the SSPX to accept an interpretation of the Council with the Richard Cushing Error.
 
Recently Cardinal Kaspar referred to the Richard Cushing Confusion  caused by the Richard Cushing Error and Deadwood Statements, while the SSPX actually agreed with him!- unaware of the Cushing Confusion and the two ways of interpreting the Council- with or without the Cushing error.
 
Meanwhile the San Egidio community, Paulists Fathers, Jesuits and Dominicans and the Pontifical universities and seminaries in Rome are interpreting Vatican Council II with the Richard Cushing Error.The  CDF wants to maintain full contact with them.They interpret the Council as a break with the past.
 
Archbishop Muller has interpreted Vatican Council II as a break with the past himsef (National Catholic Register interview) and - has also issued a statement saying all who intepret the Council as  a break with the past,  are in heresy.
 
Reuters continues to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past and no one issues a clarification from the Vatican.
 
I am not an active  member of the SSPX and I reject the liberal magisterium interpretation of the Council,using the Richard Cushing Error, however I accept a Vatican Council II. A Vatican Council II which is in perfect agreement with Pope John Paul II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Syllabus of Errors, and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted in Tradition for centuries, without any exceptions.
 
 The magisterium needs to admit that it made an objective, factual error and invite the SSPX into the Church with full canonical status.The SSPX  has a  traditional position which is already in agreement with Vatican Council II, without the Richard Cushing objective mistake. The Holy Spirit cannot teach irrationality.
-Lionel Andrades

SSPX mentions non theological issues in its paper on Ecumenism: Cardinals Koch and Kaspar make the Richard Cushing Error

The SSPX priests in Rome with whom I have spoken to admit they cannot meet anyone personally, who now also is in Heaven.
Like the normal, average person they cannot physically see the dead- including those persons declared saints.If I met Bishop Bernard Fellay and asked him if he could see the dead saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire I assume he would say "no".
This was the important point that the SSPX left out in their report on ecumenism. We cannot see the dead.
When responding to the Joint Document by Catholics and Lutherans issued last month, they simply had to say that we humans cannot see the dead in Heaven. If we cannot see the dead-saved in imperfect communion with the church (UR 3), seeds of the Word (AG 11) or elements of sanctification (LG 8), there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
'Zero cases of something are not exeptions', says the American apologist  John Martigioni. There are no known exceptions he says in 2013 to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is not theology. It is a simple human observation.Though it can influence theology. It can create a factually incorrect theology as that of the liberals in the Vatican.
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson also has written  that we do not know cases in the present times saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a good conscience, seeds of the Word and imperfect communion with the Church. The  Nuncio to Ukraine had answered two questions on his blog Deo Volente Ex Anima .
 
Archbishop Gullickson and John Martigioni are not making the error of the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing.
 
Cardinal Cushing assumed that visible to us baptism of desire was a known exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
 
Similarly the SSPX must not consider being saved in invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word etc as being  visible to us. So this is not an issue which needs to be discussed theologically.
 
If these cases do exist in real life in 2013, they are not visible to us .So why discuss them? If we can accept these cases in principle, in faith only ,since they are only known to God, why mention it in theology with reference  to ecumenism and other religions?
Cardinal Kurt Koch mentions it since he is using the Richard Cushing Error.Why should the SSPX respond theologically ? He cannot name any such exception  He does not know if there were five or seven persons saved in 2012 with 'seeds of the Word'.
The SSPX simply has to say that we do not know anyone (Lutherans etc) in 2013 saved in imperefect communion with the Church etc for these cases to be considered exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II , the Syllabus of Errors (other religions and Christian communities) and Tradition in general.-
Lionel Andrades
 


ARCHBISHOP,CATHOLIC PRIESTS AND LAY APOLOGIST SAY VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS AND THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS : "We don't know any case of the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.Only Jesus can judge"