Thursday, March 6, 2014

Bishop Michael Olson could be assuming that the TLM rejects the New Revelation in Vatican Council II with the visible dead premise

The issue of Fr.Leonard Feeney has to be clarified with Bishop Michael Olson . Since if he thinks the baptism of desire (implicit desire)  is visible  for us in the present times , then he probably assumes that Fr.Leonard Feeney  was wrong for not accepting the baptism of desire as an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So he would also be implying that Pope Pius XII made an objective mistake. Since Pope Pius XII assumed, for Bishop Olson, that we can see the dead  saved with implicit desire.So these cases are exceptions  to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. If Bishop Olson is making this objective error, then he could be extending it to Vatican Council II.
He could be assuming  Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium  16 (invincible ignorance) is a known exception in 2014 to the literal interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
So this could be the New Revelation from God in the Catholic Church for Bishop Michael Olson.He has used an irrational premise  ( the dead-saved are physically visible) to discard the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, defined three times by three Church Councils.He also rejects the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition.

 Bishop Olson has prohibited the Traditional Latin Mass, at Fischer More College, since he like the Vatican Curia, could believe the TLM does not support this New Revelation which has come to us from Vatican Council II ( with the visible dead premise), allegedly from the Holy Spirit.
Feast of the Assumption_05
Bishop Olson could be opposed to Michael King, Dr.Dudley and the guest speakers at Fischer-More College who affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus without the New Revelation allegedly from God, but really due to an irrational premise.

The bishop is not opposed to the TLM when the priests, like those with the FSSP, do not reject the New Revelation in Vatican Council II with the visible dead premise and interpret the Council as a break with the past.

The use of the visible dead premise results in heresy. The Nicene Creed is changed to, 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sin.

Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation) is contradicted with visible to us salvation of those in invincible ignorance (LG 16).LG 16 opposes AG 7.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) would say all who are saved  through Jesus and the Church in their religion are known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism) .

This is all the confusion which has come into the Catholic Church with the use of the irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.

Without the use of this irrational premise , Bishop Olson would affirm Ad Gentes 7  and extra ecclesiam nulla salus , like the Fischer More College faculty.He would not claim there are known exceptions  to the dogma in Vatican Council II. He would be a 'traditionalist'. Those who offer the Novus Ordo Mass would be traditional.
If a priest or bishop is in public heresy, public mortal sin, St.Alphonsus Ligouri, the father of Moral Theology  says, then,we must not go to receive the Eucharist or the Sacraments from him.(Teologia Moralis Bk 46,N.3).He wrote it would be a sin of charity and religion to do so.Since that priest is going to Hell and you would be acting as if all is well for him.He writes do not go to receive the Sacrements unless it is an emmergency. For example one's Sunday obligation cannot be fulfilled.

So it is important to determine if, in the diocese of Fischer More College, the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorane etc are known exceptions to the credal teaching and to the dogma which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible teaching' (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).
-Lionel Andrades


Anonymous said...

I think I found the answer to your EENS question re: Bishop Olson...

Catholic Mission said...

Bishop Michael Olson has still not commented on this issue.

Anonymous said...

Yes he has. See link above.