Monday, June 30, 2014

Modernists in Rome and the SSPX in agreement: 1949 Holy Office Letter teaches Modernist version of EENS - CathInfo. forum

There is no substantial difference between Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay and the great ecumenist, Pope John Paul II.
I noticed this on the pro-SSPX forum CathInfo. Wow!-L.A

But you reject dogma as dogma. You give lip service to it like all Modernists, but in the end you reject dogma as dogma. That is, you reject dogma it in its literal meaning. You defend Fr. Kramer when he changes the actual words of a Catholic dogma to conform to his personal doctrine. You call the literal meaning of the dogmatic text "the private inventions of men." You do the same thing with John 3:5, which every Catholic is dogmatically bound to interpret literally and not metaphorically just as literally as the words, "This is My Body.... This is My Blood." You again defend Fr. Kramer when he corrupts the most basic rules of grammar and syntax in his treatment of our Lord's words. Again, the literal meaning is called "the private inventions of men."

Dogma is divine revelation. It is a special kind of divine revelation that has been infallibly defined by the Church in the form of a universal categorical proposition that admits only of being always and everywhere true or always and everywhere false. These propositions are suitable for all the faithful and constitute the formal object of divine and Catholic faith. The denial of any dogma is the definition of heresy. Fr. Kramer has been caught in the act of mutilating dogma by changing the literal meaning and you have been caught in the act of defending this mutilation.

Ambrose said:
Drew wrote:
You have not a clue why the SSPX failed in their Doctrinal Discussions with Rome and you will by no more successful then they until you figure out why.

The SSPX problems in theology have nothing to do with EENS (extra ecclesiam nulla salus). They have major ecclesiological problems, along with incorrect ideas about the papacy.

That is what I have been saying! Of course it had "nothing to do with EENS." The Modernists in Rome and the SSPX are in complete agreement on the New Ecclesiology and the 1949 Holy Office Letter that teaches the Modernist version of EENS. They both believe that the only necessary and sufficient criteria for salvation is the 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes. Read the quotes again posted below. There is no substantial difference between Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Fellay and the great ecumenist, Pope John Paul II.

Archbishop Lefebvre said:
The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.

The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics
(Lionel: Here Archbishop Lefebvre like the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 infer that that the baptism of desire is explicit and not implicit.So it is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is a fact of life that we cannot see any case of the baptism of desire). 

Bishop Fellay said:
Consider a Hindu in Tibet who has no knowledge of the Catholic Church. He lives according to his conscience and to the laws which God has put into his heart. He can be in the state of grace, and if he dies in this state of grace, he will go to heaven.
Bishop Bernard Fellay, The Angelus, A Talk Heard Round the World, April, 2006

(Lionel: The Hindu in Tibet saved is known only to God. So this is a reference to an implicit for us case. Since it is not objectively seen it is not an exception to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. The Letter of the Holy Office made a mistake.)

Pope John Paul II said:
For those, however, who have not received the Gospel proclamation, as I wrote in the Encyclical Redemptoris Missio, salvation is accessible… without external membership in the Church…It is mysterious for those who receive the grace (of salvation), because they do not know the Church and sometimes even outwardly reject her. John Paul II, General Audience, May 31, 1995
(Lionel: Note but these are implicit for us cases.So implicit baptism of desire and blood can be accepted. As long as it is not assumed to be explicit for us.Explicit baptism of desire and blood is to be rejected. )

Pope John Paul II said:
Normally, it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God’s invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour.
John Paul II, The Seeds of the Word in the Religions of the World, September 9, 1998
(Lionel: At the Vatican-SSPX Doctrinal talks both sides believed in an explicit for us baptism of desire and blood.This is the error of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949)

The 1949 Holy Office Letter discards the Catholic dogmas that explicit faith, submission to the Roman Pontiff, membership in the Church and the sacraments are necessary, as a necessity of means, for salvation. They are all uniformly treated as preceptive norms that are excused by "invincible ignorance." This is a condemned error of Modernism and is nothing more that the entire repudiation of dogma as dogma. And you are as responsible for this as any of the radical of Modernists.

It is a remarkable level of hypocrisy to suggest that Ss. Thomas, Alphonsus and Bellarmine can be called upon to defend this rubbish. Lastly Fr. Fenton dates the teaching of salvation by an 'explicit desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' to the encyclical Mystici Corporis. But as I have said before, the quotation taken from the encyclical to support this non-sense is a serious mistranslation.
St.Alphonsus Ligouri
(Lionel:The saints affirmed extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with implicit for us baptism of desire and blood.They did not compromise with error.)


SSPX Albano, Italy anniversary : 40 years of confusion

Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake with the Letter of the Holy Office and carried it over into Vatican Council II

No comments: