Sunday, June 29, 2014

SSPX Albano, Italy anniversary : 40 years of confusion

brindisi pretiFor 40 years the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) ,Albano, Italy has been interpreting Vatican Council II with an irrational inference and has been rejecting Vatican Council II without the false inference.
Also for 40 years they have assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance referred to visible in the flesh cases, who were exceptions to the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is heresy.
The SSPX community of religious at Albano,(Fraternità Sacerdotale San Pio X)  the SSPX Headquarters in Italy,have  celebrated 40 years of its existence in Italy.
For 40 years they were not aware that Pope Pius XII made a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when he mistook implicit desire, as being  explicit.So for him it contradicted the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Those Catholics who held to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, were  pejoratively called 'Feeneyites' by the SSPX and were said to be in heresy.Recently the pro SSPX Fr.Paul Kramer has made this charge on a traditionalist forum.
The SSPX Albano  was not aware that the baptism of desire could be accepted as implicit for us and rejected as being explicit.Albano  has held the irrational explicit for us position.
With this irrationality of salvation in Heaven being visible to us on earth, they interpreted Vatican Council II for 40 years.
cappella
Many of their books and magazines, published in Italian, criticize Nostra Aetate 2, Vatican Council II ,' a ray of the Truth'.Since they assume it is explicit and contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.
However they also considered ' implicit desire' (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) as being explicit and an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus but did not criticize Pope Pius XII.
The SSPX Albano has criticized Pope  John Paul II, during the recent canonisation, for suggesting there were exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It was  not mentioned that  Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops have also stated that there were exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus i.e the non Catholic saved in his religion through Jesus and the Church.This phenomenon is  objectively  visible for the  SSPX.
So when the religious at Albano make a Profession of Faith with the Nicene Creed, they have assumed there were three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins ( water, desire and blood).This is the same politically correct position as the liberals and Masons, whom they otherwise correctly criticize.
esterno
The SSPX priests offer the Traditional Latin Mass while believing there are explicit exceptions to the defined dogma on salvation and the Nicene Creed ( I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins). This is first class heresy in Pope John Paul II's hierarchy of truths.There is only one known baptism, the baptism of water. The baptism of desire and blood are visible only to God.So they cannot be exceptions to all needing to enter the Church with the baptism of water.
Without the irrational inference ( visible- dead exceptional theory) Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7) is in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition and there are no exceptions in the Council's text.Vatican Council II ( without the inference) is in agreement with the  SSPX traditional position on other religions and Christian communities.Yet they will not affirm Vatican Council II without the inference.
They assume there are exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II which contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the confused SSPX position which contradicts  the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 which endorsed extra ecclesiam nulla salus and said there were no exceptions.
This is all confusion and a rejection of traditional Catholic doctrine over 40 years.
-Lionel Andrades
 
http://www.sanpiox.it/public/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1362:40-anni-della-fsspx-in-italia&catid=60&Itemid=86

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

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/archbishop-lefebvre-made-mistake-with.html

No one is saved without the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith

Q. Can anyone now be saved without Baptism of Water?
A. No one can be saved without Baptism of Water.
 
 

Lionel
De facto in 2014 there is no one who is saved without the baptism of water since the ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.All those who die without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water are oriented to the fires of Hell.
De jure , hypothetically if a person is saved without the baptism of water it would be known only to God.So hypothetically it is not relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
No one is saved without the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith.
-Lionel Andrades
 

You can witness a martyrdom but cannot say the person is a martyr and is in Heaven without the baptism of water

So, are you saying that it is impossible to ever witness a true martyrdom in the Name of Jesus Christ? At least to a moral certitude?
Lionel:
You can witness a martyrdom on earth but you cannot say that the person is declared a martyr and is in Heaven without the baptism of water.
You would not know.You cannot infer it.
 It would be known only to God.-Lionel Andrades
 
 

Fault is with the SSPX Resistance.They have used the irrational premise

 
On the pro SSPX Resistance forum the politically correct version of Vatican Council II is affirmed by traditionalists. They have used the false inference in the interpretation of Lumen Gentium 16. On the forum CatInfo. they have inferred that those saved in invincible ignorance are visible in the flesh in 2014.So they become explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the rest of Tradition.
If they had  reasoned that Lumen Gentium 16 refers to hypothetical cases saved in invincible ignorance it would not be an exception to Tradition. Vatican Council II would not contradict Tradition. Instead Ad Gentes 7 would affirm Tradition and there would be no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II.
So the fault is with the SSPX Resistance.They have used the irrational premise.They have interpreted  LG 16 and other texts in Vatican Council II using a false premise.
There are no Ten Errors of Vatican Council II unless a false premise is used.
-Lionel Andrades
________________________________________
 
from the CathInfo forum
 
Reputation:
This is from the article, "Ten Errors of Vatican II," TheRecusant #16.
 Here they are.
 
Cantarella
Posted Jun 3, 2014, 3:38 pm
Thank you for posting this important information on a clear and concise manner. Traditional Catholics definitely should be able to enumerate and describe the errors of Vatican II in order to better defend their position and make an objective assessment of these errors. LG 16 seems to be the most controversial of these paragraphs.
 
From that list, the most evident:

LG 16:
Lumen Gentium said:

16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.(126) But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32108&min=3&num=3
 
 
 

Hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted over the centuries

Father Feeney, in his The Bread of Life, "more or less" denied Baptism of Desire:
Here is a brief catechism line-up, in case you would like to brush up on what I have been saying:
Q. Can anyone now be saved without Baptism of WaterA. No one can be saved without Baptism of Water.
Lionel:
It is important to define terms here otherwise there is confusion.
No one can be saved without the baptism of water in the present times, 2014, defacto, in real life.
Theoretically, in principle, in faith, hypothetically a person could be saved with the baptism of desire ( followed with the baptism of water) and it would be known only to God.We do not know if there was a single such case in real life.
Q. Are the souls of those who die in the state of justification saved, if they have not received Baptism of Water?
A. No. They are not saved.
Lionel:
The souls of those who die in a state of justification have to receive the baptism of water for salvation.This is a hypothetical case for us so either way (with or without the baptism of water) this case is not known in 2014.So it is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Q. Where do these souls go if they die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water?
A. I do not know.
Lionel:
Neither do I.God would know in each case. It is hoped that God will send a preacher to them and have them baptised. All who are in Heaven are there with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.

Q. Do they go to Hell? A. No.
Q. Do they go to Heaven? A. No.
Lionel:
In both cases it is only God who can know. Only he can know and judge individual cases.

Q.Are there any such souls? A.I do not know! Neither do you!
Q.What are we to say to those who believe there are such souls?  A.We must say to them that they are making reason prevail over Faith, and the laws of probability over the Providence of God.
 
Lionel:
These are hypothetical cases. Hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted over the centuries.
-Lionel Andrades
 

This would be an error even if it was said by Pope Francis or Archbishop Lefebvre.

If you're saying that Pope Pius X was in error,
Lionel:
Any one who says that the baptism of desire is visible for us and that these so called visible cases are an exception to the traditional understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus is in error. It is irrational.This would be an error even if it was said by Pope Francis or Archbishop Lefebvre.
 
I am not sure what other Church authority you have left to appeal to! Is martyrdom in the Name of Jesus Christ ever "visible"?
Lionel:
There is martrydon in the name of Jesus. There are many marytrs in Heaven. However individual cases would be known to God and those who are in Heaven. They are not physically visible to us.
 
If you say that a martyr ( who dies with the baptism of water or without it) is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, then you are saying that these cases are visible in the flesh on earth, to be exceptions.This is irrational.
-Lionel Andrades