Wednesday, March 11, 2015

SSPX 'spokesman' : Theology of Vatican Council II is in agreement with the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Elia a young man along with his wife and their cute little daughter attend Mass at the SSPX chapel in Rome. If Elia a lay man like me, was a spokesman for the SSPX, Italy, or if I was a spokesman for them ( I am not) then I would have to respond to the growing reports of the SSPX and schism even though there are Catholics at SSPX chapels who accept Vatican Council II.
It's simple for me. I would announce on behalf of the lay SSPX that cardinals Muller and Ladaria, the Prefect and Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith must first set an example for the SSPX. They should affirm Vatican Council II , in agreement with Tradition i.e the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) , the Syllabus of Errors.
Obviously they cannot.
Never ever has  Cardinal Muller,Cardinal Ladaria, Archbishop Di Noia and Mons.Pozzo affirmed Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of continuity, in agreement with the Feeneyite  understanding of the dogma.
Instead they use the Marchetti irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II and the dogma defined by three Church Councils.This creates a Vatican Council II with a hermeneutic of rupture, a rupture with EENS.It is also a rupture with the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 which endorsed Feeneyism.
So the lay-SSPX could ask the CDF to affirm Vatican Council II in accord with the rigorist  interpretation of the dogma,the SSPX General Chapter Statement version.Otherwise the magisterium is officially denying a dogma and promoting heresy. Official heresy.
Appeal to the CDF. Ask Cardinal Muller.Things to do.
If he says Vatican Council II contradicts the strict interpretation of the dogma mention that for me (Lionel) LG 16,LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases of salvation, which are not physically visible in 2015.Humanly speaking they would have to be hypothetical.Angels could see the dead.  So they cannot be objective exceptions to all needing faith and baptism in the Catholic Church. They cannot be exceptions to the dogmatic teaching.Humanly it is unknown.
For me Vatican Council II affirms an ecumenism of return.AG 7 and LG 14 says all need to formally enter the Church with 'faith and baptism'. All need to convert.
Those who know about Jesus and the Church and do not enter or those who are in invincible ignorance and are saved would only be known to God. I cannot meet any such person on the street.I cannot say that any particular person will be saved as such.The ordinary means of salvation is Catholic faith with the baptism of water (AG 7, LG 14).
So the bottom line is that I accept Vatican Council II and the dogma on exclusive salvation   according to Feeneyism  and not Cushingism, while for the CDF it is the opposite.I avoid the Marchetti irrationality the CDF does not.
For me there is no change in the 'authentic magisterium'( as Bishop Bernard Fellay terms it) before and after Vatican Council II. For the present magisterium, there is a rupture.This is heresy.
The CDF cannot accuse me of denying Vatican Council II. It is the CDF which is not affirming Vatican Council II in accord with the dogma. The text of the dogma does not mention any exceptions. For the CDF there are exceptions.Vatican Council II without the false premise does not mention any exceptions. Yet for the CDF there are explicit exceptions.It is as if they are angels at the Vatican. A  new doctrine emerged and the CDF approved it.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma for the CDF. They are using an irrational premise.People in Heaven the CDF assumes, are visible and known on earth to be exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church.This is fantasy.
This cannot be magisterial.It cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit.The Holy Spirit cannot teach error.The Holy Spirit cannot teach that the dead who are now in Heaven are visible to us.No this cannot be true. The Holy Spirit cannot teach that these deceased did not receive the baptism of water and are saved and are physically visible to us in 2015 to be defacto exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma.Yet this is the official position of the CDF; of Muller, Ladaria, Di Noia and Pozzo.It's public.
All of them have been associated
at one time with the International
 Theological Commission, Vatican (ITC).
In two theological papers of the ITC it is inferred that the dead now in Heaven are visible on earth. So the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma.They would have to be visible and known  in 2015, for them to be exceptions.
An exception must exist to be an exception.Invisible cases cannot be defacto exceptions. This is a given.This is a magisterial factual error  available on line for all to read.It was approved by Pope Benedict XVI.
So if I was a spokesman for the lay members of the SSPX , who attend Mass at SSPX chapels, I would ask Cardinal Muller to give up his heretical position on these subjects. Here is the countdown. 1) Vatican Council II  ( with the false premise), 2) Extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( interpreted with Marchetti's visible-dead-saved premise),3)Nicene Creed 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness  of sins, which changes to three or more known baptisms without the baptism of water.Since Marchetti  indicated that there were visible exceptions to the dogma outside the Church 4)Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257), 'God is not limited to the Sacraments' ( as if we know of a known exception.Again we have Marchetti's error),5) Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus (they infer that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church for salvation).
Also other magisterial documents overseen by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger repeat the error from Cardinal Francesco Marchetti-Selvaggiani's Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.
So there is no change in theology and doctrine for me when I attend the Novus Ordo Mass.Theologically there are no exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II or any Church document for me.Ecclesiology has not changed for me at Mass in Italian.Ecclesiology is exclusivist  before and after Vatican Council II. There is no new Revelation in the Catholic Church.
So a lay member of the SSPX, like Elia, can  interpret Vatican Council II, the Tradtional Latin Mass, the Novus Ordo Mass, and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, consistently and traditionally.This is also possible for the magisterium in 2015.
So a lay  spokesman for the SSPX  could ask Cardinal Muller how could the SSPX Mass be considered schismatic? The SSPX is waiting for the cardinal to first affirm Vatican Council II in line with the dogma. You do it first.Then they could respond.
I still believe that the Holy Spirit guides the magisterium of the Church, when they are in accord with Tradition. However Marchetti made an objective error. This has to be recognised and corrected.
Without the Marchetti Inference Vatican Council II is in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius X and extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the three Church Councils.There is no new theology related to the Mass. Nor any new doctrine associated with the Novus Ordo.The innovations and novelties had its basis in the 1949 error accepted by the magisterum.
-Lionel Andrades

No comments: