Sunday, November 2, 2014

Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are making the same error on Vatican Council II as the SSPX and sedevacantists


The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (Still River and Richmond N.H communities ) , traditionalists, like the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) and sedevacantists Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae( CMRI) have been interpreting Vatican Council II with the same irrational premise.So the Council comes across as a break with the past when it really is in line with Fr.Leonard Feeney and his traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This should be cause for joy in the traditional camp if they understand the mechanics of what is happening here!!
They have made an innocent oversight.Vatican Council II does not  contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney at LG 16,LG 8,NA 2,UR 3.
There cannot be a theology which says LG 16,LG 8 etc are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus since there  are no concrete cases in our reality for them to be an exception.This is a breakthrough!!! On the premise of being able to see the dead now in Heaven this year we cannot create a theology.
The baptism of desire or Vatican Council II (LG 16,LG 8 ,UR 3 etc) cannot be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Practically it is not possible.
The whole Vatican Council II scenario has changed .There will be unbelievable ramifications.For one, the traditionalists are no longer on the defensive.
-Lionel Andrades


How does the Council contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney at LG 16,LG 8,NA 2

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/how-does-council-contradict-frleonard.html#links,UR 3 etc?

Bad theology among traditionalists http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/
Even the St.Benedict Centers whom Fr.Kramer criticizes interprets Vatican Council II with the same irrational reasoning. http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/slaves-of-immaculate-heart-of-mary-are.html


 

Even the St.Benedict Centers whom Fr.Kramer criticizes interprets Vatican Council II with the same irrational reasoning.

Lionel,
maybe this is nothing of importance, but I just read Father Gruner’s comments on EENS here:

I’m referring to first sets of comments directly below the video.
He seems to be a fervent supporter of a somewhat correct interpretation of the dogma.
Maybe you can contact him, and seeing how he has a relatively big media apparatus behind him, you can encourage him to promote orthodoxy on the matter to a wider audience.
Berto.

Lionel:
Here is Fr.Gruner’s good reply.
Thank you for your conscientious reply. Bishop Hay did much more justice to the need for a fuller, cogent argument (as you point out) than a single quote can demonstrate. You can find his full treatment of this important topic in his book, The Sincere Christian, in the Appendix titled, “An Inquiry, Whether Salvation Can Be Had without True Faith, and Out of the Communion of the Church of Christ?” (This classic text is online athttps://archive.org/stream/worksofbishophay02hayuoft#page/n363/mode/2up See pages 274-365 in the electronic pagination, corresponding to pages 259-348 of the printed book.)
Of course the advantage (and responsibility) of having definitions of the Faith is that we have a clear and explicit norm, according to which all non-infallible expressions – such as those of the Second Vatican Council – must be understood.
That Vatican II’s teachings differ in authoritativeness from all previous ecumenical councils is clear from a variety of admissions even from those involved in the Council. As Pope Paul VI admitted, “In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility….” (General Audience of January 12, 1966, 6th paragraph;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/audiences/1966/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19660112_it.html) Cardinal Ratzinger also made this well-known comment: “The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council.” (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Address to the Bishops of Chile, July 13, 1988;http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3032) Bishop Thomas Morris recalled his “relief” at learning of the Council’s non-infallible theological note, and he admitted that this casual attitude led him to give approval to documents which he knew had been sloppily worded: “I was relieved when we were told that this Council was not aiming at defining or giving final statements on doctrine, because a statement of doctrine has to be very carefully formulated, and I … regarded the Council documents as tentative and likely to be reformed.” (“A Bishop’s Candid Memories of Vatican II,” Catholic World News, January 22, 1997,http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=4091&repos=4&subrepos=1&searchid=1265687)
The dogma that outside of the Church there is neither forgiveness of sins nor salvation, is commonly contradicted today by theologians and clergy, and is perhaps generally even unknown to the Catholic laity, but this does not make the Church’s teaching any less true. The rule of Catholic Faith remains clear in the Church’s solemn definitions. And certainly it would be as manifestly absurd as it is untrue to suggest that the Church’s infallible proclamations are not sufficiently clear so as to allow us to arrive at the truth of Catholic teaching by what the Pope defines, but only through what some non-infallible theologian says about what the Pope defines!
Here are three precise and infallible expressions of the Catholic teaching, to which we are bound to conform our beliefs:
“We firmly believe and simply confess that … there is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council; Dz. 430, D.S. 802.)
“We firmly believe and simply confess this [one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church], outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin.” (Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam; Dz. 469, D.S. 875.)
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Eugene IV, Bull Cantate Domino; Dz. 714, D.S. 1351.)
____________________________________________________
I have written often to Your Questions Answered and also directly to Fr.Gruner and John Vennari but received no acknowledgement or answer.
While what he says above is correct and traditional he has never corrected the SSPX position. He has never mentioned that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance can be accepted as possibilities but not exceptions to the dogma since they are not visible to us in real-time.
Recently Fr.Paul Kramer made the same SSPX mistake.He is not aware of the eror in the Letter of the Holy Office.
Even the St.Benedict Centers whom Fr.Kramer criticizes interprets Vatican Council II with the same irrational reasoning.
-Lionel Andrades

http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/topic/archbishop-lefebvre-made-a-mistake/#post-5220

Modernism in the SSPX

  • Berto Slomovicci October 31, 2014 

    A Catholic Thinker,
    if there is no modernism in the SSPX, why are they purposefully using an incorrect translation of the Council of Trent on Baptism?
    Why do they show such a ferocious hate for “Feeneyism” as if it was such a peril to the Faith in our times?
    Can you care to show us exactly where has “the Church” taught universally that muslim, jews, atheists,satanists, voodoists, hindus, AND NOT CATECHUMENS ONLY, not only theoretically *could* but *are* saved “probably very rarely” with B.O.D.?
    • Lionel 

      Berto.
      Thank you!!
      if there is no modernism in the SSPX, why are they purposefully using an incorrect translation of the Council of Trent on Baptism?

      Lionel: Yes! Why?
      Why do they show such a ferocious hate for “Feeneyism” as if it was such a peril to the Faith in our times?
      Lionel:
      Agreed!
      Can you care to show us exactly where has “the Church” taught universally that muslim, jews, atheists,satanists, voodoists, hindus, AND NOT CATECHUMENS ONLY, not only theoretically *could* but *are* saved
      “probably very rarely” with B.O.D

      Lionel:
      Agreed!
  • Berto Slomovicci October 31, 2014 10:58 pm
    Reply

    So according to Lefebvre and you, a let’s say moslem, poof! one day has “implicit baptism of desire” and is saved, while keeping on being a muslim as if it was nothing. IN their religion but not BY it.
    And that has always been taught by the Church.. so effectively outside of
    the Catholic CHurch indeed there is Salvation! Extra Ecclesia Aliqua Salus!
    • Lionel 

      Berto:
      So according to Lefebvre and you, a let’s say moslem, poof! one day has “implicit baptism of desire” and is saved, while keeping on being a muslim as if it was nothing. IN their religion but not BY it.
      And that has always been taught by the Church.. so effectively outside of
      the Catholic CHurch indeed there is Salvation! Extra Ecclesia Aliqua Salus!

      Lionel:
      Yes! This is not an exception to the dogma. It has nothing to do with the dogma.

      Berto Slomovicci October 31, 2014 11:55
      *Ecclesiam.
      Also a word to clarify what I think Lionel means with his (insistent, true) campaign for SSPX to recognize etc. etc.
      He believes that B.O.D., while a possibility contemplated in numerous Church doctors et alia throughtout the years, should NOT be regarded as a real, tangible, present day certain phenomenon, as that would be irrational.

      Lionel:
      Correct!

      For all intents and purposes, we should consider it an hypothetical event which may have or may have not happened in the past for catechumens, and even more remotely for non-christians altogether.
      Lionel:
      Yes!

      Considering we have a whole DOGMA against it (indirectly or directly is debatable) and NO infallible pronounciation on the matter, I think his position is at the very least prudent and reasonable.
      Lionel:
      The dogmatic teaching stands and is not contradicted by Vatican Council II since there are all hypothetical cases mentioned and hypothtical, theoretical cases cannot be exceptions to the dogma or Ad Gentes 7 in 2014.

      My personal opinion is different, but I can see the wisdom in his reasoning.
  • *Ecclesiam.
    Also a word to clarify what I think Lionel means with his (insistent, true) campaign for SSPX to recognize etc. etc.
    He believes that B.O.D., while a possibility contemplated in numerous Church doctors et alia throughtout the years, should NOT be regarded as a real, tangible, present day certain phenomenon, as that would be irrational.
    For all intents and purposes, we should consider it an hypothetical event which may have or may have not happened in the past for catechumens, and even more remotely for non-christians altogether.

    Considering we have a whole DOGMA against it (indirectly or directly is debatable) and NO infallible pronounciation on the matter, I think his position is at the very least prudent and reasonable.
    My personal opinion is different, but I can see the wisdom in his reasoning.
  • Lionel:
    There is no modernism in the SSPX. Rather, you have adopted what has to be called [at least a pseudo] Feeneyist position.

    Lionel:
    I have asked before for a definition of Feeneyism. What does Feeneyism mean for you?
    Since if you refer to Feeneyism you are referring to theology. So explain your theology.
    Most of the theology on this subject is non traditional and modernism. Please show us how do you agree or disagree with it.
    For example if you check extra ecclesiam nulla salus/Fr.Leonard Feeney on the Internet there will be a reference to exceptions to the ‘rigorist’ interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. Lumen Gentium 16 would be considered an exception.
    This is false theology. Since it assumes that people in Heaven saved in invincible ignorance etc are visible and known on earth to be exceptions to the dogma.
    This is Cushingism. It is the mistake of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
    So are you inferring that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to Feeneyism?

    Similarly the SSPX USA website has a section on Feeneyism in which they repreat the same irrationality of the Letter of the Holy Office.
    So you may be choosing their position without thinking it through.
    __________________________________________

    If you were to research this subject in-depth you would learn that the Church has taught that baptism of desire, even implicit, can be salvific, since Apostolic times, and that this position has been clarified over the millennia numerous times.
    Lionel:
    Even if it is salvific, do you agree that we do not know any such case in 2014 for it to be an exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation?
    This would mean every Hindu, Jew, Muslim and Protestant would need ‘faith and baptism’(Ad Gentes 7) for salvation and we would not know of any exception, since we cannot know them.

    —–
    The SSPX has never taught that any soul is saved by his false religion, but, perhaps – and probably rarely – *in spite of* it.

    Lionel:
    True but Archbishop Marcel Lefebre has mentioned this in the context of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    So why metion it? Did he think these cases were known and visible to be exceptions to the dogma? They were exceptions to Feeneyism?
    —–
    You are either hung up on semantics or hold to the Feeneyist error.

    Lionel:
    What is the Feeneyist error? He could not see the dead on earth who were saved with the baptism of desire and who are in Heaven without the baptism of water? Who are these cases? Can there be such a case in 2014 ?
    _________________________

    Honestly it is difficult for me to determine which it is. (I suggest the former due to your repeated emphasis on Archbishop Lefebvre’s statement about souls being saved “in” a false religion, but it should be apparent that that does not imply “by” or “because of” such false religion.)
    Lionel:
    The issue is not if they are saved in their religion. The issue is are they exceptions to all needing the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation in the present times? Do they contradict the traditional interpretation of the dogma?
  • -Lionel Andrades
http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/tightrope/#comment-26776

How does the Council contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney at LG 16,LG 8,NA 2,UR 3 etc?

You have not denied, that for you Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) is an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In other words these cases are visible and known for you to be exceptions. So you reject Vatican Council II here.
We agree on the dogma not having any exceptions according to the text of the dogma and because the baptism of desire will be followed by the baptism of water.In principle and in fact the baptism of water is needed for all for salvation.It it is given to adults with Catholic Faith.
So far so good.
In theory if a person is saved with the baptism of desire ( with or without the baptism of water) this is a hypothetical case. So the baptism of desire, a hypothethical case cannot be known in 2014. It is irrelevant to the dogma when or if it happens.
So every one needs the baptism of water for salvation since practically we cannot know any exception. Practically there are no exceptions to the dogma mentioned in Vatican Council II. Since they would be hypothethical subjects.So how does the Council contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney at LG 16,LG 8,NA 2,UR 3 etc?
-Lionel Andrades
http://catholicism.org/cardinal-kaspers-error-on-god.html


Bad theology among traditionalists
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/