Saturday, March 1, 2014

Cardinal Muller. Archbishop Di Noia and Father Angelo Geiger F.I want the SSPX to accept the common heresy

I don't expect any answer from Fr.Angelo Geiger F.I. We have  discussed this issue via his blog some two years back.
He still denies the Catholic Faith on the following three points.
When one assumes that the baptism of desire is visible for us and not invisible for us then it is a contradiction of the Nicene Creed. When we pray 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin' , instead of meaning there is one known baptism, we are really saying there are three known to us baptisms. The Nicene Creed refers to the baptism of water.Three known baptisms would be the baptism of water, desire and blood.The baptism of desire and blood are known only to God. These persons are visible and known only to Him.
When one assumes that being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) or imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) are visible to us in the flesh and that they are really not invisible and unknown for us, then it is a rejection of Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 16 etc). When we assume that LG 16, UR 3 etc contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus we are implying that there are known, visible to us exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
When we assume that all those who are saved through Jesus and the Church in their religion (CCC 846) are known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 (and CCC 846) 'all', need 'faith and baptism' for salvation, then we are rejecting the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II. This is also a heresy.
To deny or reject the Nicene Creed, Athanasius Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, is a first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II.
He writes:
Mary Victrix is a blog that focuses on Christian chivalry in a Marian key, or Marian Chivalry. It develops the tradition of chivalry as it has passed through St. Francis in the Middle Ages, St. Maximilian Kolbe in the twentieth century and into the new millennium through Blessed Pope John Paul II.
He has posted a new report here are extracts from it ,with my comments .(1)
Father Angelo Geiger F.I :
It seems to me that a more reasonable path and one that has more promise of success is for men like Archbold and Voris to convince as many traditionalists as possible that the only way forward is to follow the path laid out very charitably and in a fatherly way by Archbishop di Noia in Advent of 2012, when the dialogue was in its last agony.
Archbishop Augustine di Noia in an interview with the National Catholic Register's columnist Edward Pentin has stated that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For him Vatican Council II refers to visible for us cases of non Catholics saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth' (LG 8). This is irrational.
Father Angelo Geiger F.I :
There is no reason to be pessimistic, but neither is healthy realism to be avoided. Archbold and Voris characterize the post-dialogue statements of the SSPX with words like “strident, “hypercritical,” “disrespectful” and “rude.” In fact, Bishop Fellay has called Vatican II the council of the Masons, Modernists and Jews.
 If one assumes that all salvation referred to or alluded to in Vatican Council II is visible to us in the flesh and so are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, then this is the ideology of the Masons, Modernists and the Jewish Left.

Father Angelo Geiger F.I :

He has said that the validity of the novas ordo is irrelevant because it is evil, and he has called Pope Francis a “genuine modernist.” I understand what they are trying to do, but they need realize they have to sell this and it is a hard sell to say the least.
The Novus Ordo Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass or Vatican Council II interpreted with the dead man walking and visible theory results in non traditional and irrational conclusions. It produces heresy.When this is affirmed intentionally even after being informed it is evil.
Father Angelo Geiger F.I :
This is the very real risk of regularizing the Society without an agreement: The minute the Holy Father put his seal on the regularization all the usual suspects would be declaring victory, would consider their cause vindicated precisely because of the regularization, and would use the it as a justification to do inside the Church all they have done outside it.
 If all sides admit that there can be a rational and irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, and accept this rational version of  the Council being traditional there could be an agreement.There can only be a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II with a rational premise.So there is only one option. It is the traditional option.
Father Angelo Geiger F.I :
I am quite sure that if Archbold and Voris search their hearts they will know this is true. And there would be no “working out the details” afterward, for two reasons: 1) because by their own clear statements the members of the Society have absolutely no intention of modifying their positions, in fact, they are wholly committed to the resistance;...
 They are correct. They are following Tradition. So how can they be wrong ?.They are rejecting the ideology of Vatican Council II and the Novus Ordo Mass, interpreted with an irrational premise of being able to see the dead-saved on earth. Any Church document with this irrationality would be heretical.
Fr.Angelo Geiger F.I :
2) because there simply would be no incentive to do so.
In various ways, I have been warning about this eventuality for a long time, long before the talks broke down, when Pope Benedict was not the traditionalist’s golden boy he is now. If you look at the statements of Bishop Fellay over the course of the dialogue with Rome, you can see that his hope was that faith and trust in the postconciliar magisterial would be weakened to the point that the SSPX and its positions would be seen to be correct.
 There are religious communities like the Paulist Fathers ( Church of Santa Suzanna, Rome) who are interpreting Vatican Council with the false premise and denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Cardinal Gerhard Muller has made a similar error when interviewed by Edward pentin for the National Catholic Register. Cardinal Muller assumes there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Vatican Council II. On this issue he and the Paulist Fathers are making an objective mistake. Worse still this is heresy.
So how can there be dialogue with them. ? Also if they are all condoned and accepted with this doctrinal error, why make exceptions only for the SSPX ?
Fr.Angelo Geiger F.I:
Perhaps his goal has had unintended consequences, further complicated by the new pontificate, but Bishop Fellay has committed himself and the Society to a trajectory that is simply and plainly inconsistent with full ecclesial communion. Whatever other problems we have on the left with the radicals, this is no reason to invite more chaos.
 If Vatican Council II affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors then Vatican Council is in agreement with the traditional position of the SSPX on other religions and Christian communities. So the SSPX has a right to canonical status if the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith admits this fact in public.
-Lionel Andrades
More on Patrick Archbold and Michael Voris

No comments: