Friday, October 18, 2013

It's the false premise which creates the theology which makes the Novus Ordo Mass 'evil' for Bishop Fellay

Bishop Bernard Fellay has once again mentioned that the Novus Ordo Mass is valid  but has said that the liturgy is 'evil', it is reported.It the past there was a clarification from the SSPX(USA)  that they accept the Novus Ordo Mass as the Sacrifice of Jesus.
Bishop Fellay will continue making these statements until someone corrects him and shows him that  there is a false premise being used in his understanding of Vatican Council II and the theology of the Novus Ordo Mass.
Once this false premise is identified the Novus Ordo Mass , which is not political, becomes traditional in its ecclesiology.
 The Traditional Latin Mass(TLM) retains the old ecclesiology so it is criticized by the Left and considered ideological by Pope Francis. It predates the 1940's when Cardinal Richard Cushing  and the Jesuits in Boston  introduced the false premise  into the Catholic Church. They consolidated the error right through the 1970's and 1980's.
Since this false premise is being used by Bishop Fellay - and nobody corrects
him,  the Novus Ordo  Mass and Vatican Council II comes across , for the bishop, as liberal and heretical, a complete break with Tradition .No wonder he uses the word 'evil'.
 The SSPX bishops have also interpreted  Archbishop Lefebvre 's 'Hindu in Tibet  saved in his religion by Christ' as referring to known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is Cushingism. No one corrected the four bishops.
 The priest who offers the Novus Ordo Mass  also assumes there are known exceptions to the dogma on salvation. So these known exceptions are assumed to be there also in Vatican Council II (LG 16,LG 8,AG 11 etc). This is the understanding of the Vatican Curia.So possibly  also for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Vatican Council II contradicted the traditional teachings on other religions and Christian communities.

There are non-SSPX priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass (reported on this blog) who know there are no known exceptions to Tradition in the present times.  So for them the Novus Ordo Mass is as traditional as the TLM.They are traditional on the subjects of other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty. They have the traditional ecclesiology which is independent of the liturgy.
This is not acknowledged by the SSPX, the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney and other traditionalists. They could  accept implicit salvation known only to God along with the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and there is no contradiction.
This is being done by priests, who offer the Novus Ordo Mass, interpret Vatican Council II  without the false premise and also accept the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
I am still banned on pro-SSPX Internet forums since they say Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said a Hindu can be saved in his religion. The traditionalists on these forums are unaware  that they are using the false premise and that there is an alternative interpretation for the Hindu in Tibet being saved. If there are no known exceptions then the Hindu saved in his religion is not an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
-Lionel Andrades

SSPX agrees with Vatican Council II but Bishop Fellay does not know it

Bishop Bernard Fellay has said that the SSPX will never accept Vatican Council II. He does not realize that he already has accepted Vatican Council II if he holds the traditional teaching and does not interpret the Council with the Richard Cushing premise , as is being done  presently.
He is still unaware that the Council, like Archbishop Lefebvre's 'Hindu in Tibet saved in his religion',  can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism.He can assume there are visible and known  exceptions to Tradition or there are not. We can see the dead-saved in invincible invincible ignorance (LG 16) etc or we cannot. Based on a a simple , irrational premise there is a hermeneutic of continuity or one of  rupture. The Council is ambiguous or not ambiguous.It  depends on  the false premise.
 So when Bishop Fellay says that he  will not accept Vatican Council II , it is becasue he is not aware that he is using the Cushing version of the Council ,with the irrational premise.
Vatican Council II is traditional without the ambiguity of the SSPX, Cardinal Walter Kaspar, Bishop Athanasius Schneider etc.

 There is  no one to tell Bishop Fellay that he has made an objective error. Since Fr.J.M Gleize, the SSPX's top theologian  and a professor of Ecclesiology at Econe, Switzerland  also makes the same error. He refers to a ' via eccezionale'(exceptional way) in his book for which the preface was written by Bishop Fellay. They assume that there are known exceptions so there is an exceptional way of salvation to the baptism of  water and Catholic Faith needed for salvation.
Probably by now most of the SSPX priests in Italy know  what I am saying and agree with me but they do not want to contradict Bishop Fellay.

Care in interpreting Vatican Council II

We have to be careful on how we interpret Vatican Council II since there was a heretical group active at the Council. I am referring to Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits at Boston who believed there were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, even though they could not name any of these exceptions in person.
caution sign photo: caution sign caution.jpg
A common error people make in the interpretation is : not every one needs to enter the Church but except those who know.
It is true hypothetically, in theory that ' those who know' and did not enter the Catholic Church will be condemned(LG 14) . However this line can also be a ' dummy', dead wood. Since only God knows who knows or who does not know and will be saved or not saved.So it is irrelevant to the traditional teaching which says all (AG 7) in general need to be visible members of the Catholic Church for salvation, with visible 'faith and baptism'(AG 7). All in the present times, 2013, and not  those who know or do not know of whom we know nothing, to be able to judge either.
-Lionel Andrades