Monday, February 23, 2015

Bishop Fellay uses a false premise when he assumes LG 8 refers to visible in the flesh cases : Doctrine has not changed unless you use a false premise.

Patty,In this link do you think that Bishop Fellay was not aware of the irrational premise?
Do you think he made an objective mistake?

April 23-Sept.11, 2014 - still no clarification from the SSPX

Patty :
It is my view that Bishop Fellay stated precisely what he intended to say.

'The same declaration (LG. 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities' and the SSPX bishop concludes that 'Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church,” which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949.'
Patty the dogma says all need to formally enter the Church and it does not mention any exceptions. So how is LG 8 an exception to the dogma for Bishop Fellay and the SSPX ?Do you know of any any exceptions to the dogma? Can you name them? Would Bishop Fellay be able to name any case ?Do you see what I mean ? This is an issue of doctrine. It is at the center of the SSPX canonical status issue.
Doctrine has not changed unless you use a false premise.
The false premise is that we can see and known in the present times people who are in Heaven.
So the false conclusion is that these deceased now in Heaven are living, explicit, objective exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation.
 Bishop Fellay uses a false premise when he assumes LG 8 refers to visible in the flesh cases.
Bishop Fellay does not realize that there are no exceptions to the dogma in Vatican Council II.There can never be an exceptions since we cannot see the dead who are now in Heaven.
But, again, in charity, I would say that you should pursue clarification at the source. Anything less would be conjecture and likely add to confusion.
I don't know how to do it.I have been sending regular e-mails to the SSPX sources in the USA , Econe, Italy etc for the last few years.They still don't know what I am talking about.They are full of the Marchetti theology.
The Vatican knows precisely what I am saying. They are keeping silent. They are not going to say that the Council affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Rome Vicariate is preventing priests from speaking about this including those who offer the Traditional Latin Mass. This issue is monitored by the Jewish Left here.


That said, if you hold the view that this misperception of '49 is 'the' pivot point for breaking from what the Church has always taught, I suggest, instead of stating what the Society must do, that you take the onus to do it yourself.
I have been writing about this subject on my blog.I have been posting material on this subject to different people.I have visited Vatican offices.
On the other hand this is not a personal theology or a point of view.
It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead who are now saved in Heaven.This is a given.
So how can Marchetti and the SSPX ( and you?) imply that the baptism of desire- cases are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
We are back to the questions I asked earlier. Where are these exceptions in 2015? What are their names and surnames?
How can people in Heaven be explicit exceptions to the dogma on earth?
They would have to exist in our reality to be exceptions.
If you Patty infer that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma, then it is a factual error. You are saying that the deceased are living exceptions to the traditional teaching. In other words that you and all of us can see and know the dead.
Do you follow me? Do you agree?
I asked you those questions to see if you had understood what I had said.


You'd rather be barking up the wrong tree in expecting someone you believe misguided on such a critical issue to take up your banner and pursue Rome.
It is not my banner. It is something objective and known to all people that we cannot see or know in the present times(2015) people in Heaven who could be exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation.
This only has to be understood!


Again, that's just my take on it. Not gospel...and no finger wag by any means.
I understand.
-Lionel Andrades
For the SSPX magisterial teachings are accepted on the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 but rejected with respect to Vatican Council II (with the premise)
August 24, 2014
April 13-August 24,2014 and still no correction or clarification from Bishop Bernard Fellay

No comments: