Monday, June 29, 2015

Fr. Pier Paolo Petrucci, SSPX District Superior,Italy keeps silent over this issue for over a year : no clarification

Since February 5, 2014 there is no clarification from Father Pier Paolo Petrucci, the District Superior of the SSPX in Albano, Italy.
I had written and posted the following to Fraternità Sacerdotale San Pio X, Albano last February 2014.
I wrote in a blog post sent to them:
  • In an article on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II and the loss of the missionary spirit in the Catholic Church (1) , the District Superior Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci  assumes imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) and good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) are explicit for us, known in reality, visible in the flesh,defacto and objective. So for him Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with UR 3, NA 2 etc.
  • Then he will not affirm the traditional position on extra ecclesiam nulla salus since he assumes that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicit for us, known in reality, visible in the flesh,defacto and objective. They would have to be all these qualities for them to be visible exceptions to the need for all to convert into the Church.1

Then another blog post which was e-mailed to them said :-
  • Father Pierpaolo Petrucci, the SSPX District Superior, Italy has made a doctrinal error in an article he has written in Italian. The same error is present in books being distributed by the SSPX, Italy.There is no denial or clarification from the Fraternità Sacerdotale San Pio X (FSSP), Albano.These blog posts have been sent to him.The FSSP Albano usually issues a clarification when they want to support their position or correct a view. 2
Another blog post e-mailed to them said:-
  •  If the SSPX Superior would  consider all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II as implicit, de jure and known only to God, then Vatican Council II would not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditional  teaching on other religions and Christian communities 3                                             
There was no response to this blog post too.
  • In an article on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II and the loss of the missionary spirit in the Catholic Church (1) , he assumes imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) and good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) are explicit for us, known in reality, visible in the flesh,defacto and objective. So for him Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with UR 3, NA 2 etc.
  • Then he will not affirm the traditional position on extra ecclesiam nulla salus since he assumes that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are  explicit for us, known in reality, visible in the flesh,defacto and objective. They would have to be all these qualities for them to be visible exceptions to the need for all to convert into the Church since outside the Church there is no salvation.4
At Albano they continued to assume Vatican Council II contradicted the traditional interpretation of the dogma even after I sent them the following blog post.
  • There is no text in Vatican Council II which contradicts Cantate Domino, unless like Fr. Pierpaolo Petrucci, one assumes those saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) etc are visible to us on earth.This is an irrationality in the interpretation of the Council and the fault is not with the Council.
  • To consider the dead now saved in Heaven to be visible to us on earth is a factual error. It is a fact that we cannot see the dead. It is this factual error which prevents the SSPX Superior from seeing Vatican Council II as a continuation with Tradition on the issue of ecumenism.5
Over a year has gone by and there has been no response in writing to these reports, from even the SSPX priest in Albano, Fr. Mauro Tranquillo, who participates in theological conferences and regularly criticizes Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.6
The SSPX,Italy  are rejecting Vatican  Council II. This is a doctrinal issue. They are unable to say ,that all these years, they had made a factual mistake and the fault was not with the Council but their use of an irrational premise which comes from Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani's Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
They are not admitting that they were wrong and neither are they saying that I am correct.They are just keeping silent over this issue.
-Lionel Andrades


1.FEBRUARY 5, 2014
If Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct or wrong, still imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) and the baptism of desire are not explicit for us : no clarification still from SSPX Italy
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/if-frleonard-feeney-was-correct-or.html

2.FEBRUARY 4, 2014 No Clarification from SSPX District Superior, Italy
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/no-clarification-from-sspx-district.html


3. FEBRUARY 3, 2014 SSPX District Superior unknowingly supports Cardinal Kurt Koch
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/sspx-district-superior-unknowingly.html#links

4.FEBRUARY 2, 2014 SSPX District Superior Italy makes the same factual error as Muller, Ladaria, Di Noi, Pozzo, Kaspar and Koch    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/sspx-district-superior-italy-makes-same.html#links
5.FEBRUARY 3, 2014Factual error distorts SSPX District Superior Italy from seeing Vatican Council II as traditional on ecumenism   http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/factual-error-distorts-sspx-district.html#links
6.JANUARY 14, 2014
Father Mauro Tranquillo where is the exception in Lumen Gentium 8?  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/01/father-mauro-tranquillo-where-is.html#links

2 comments:

George Brenner said...

If during a conversation a Catholic were to say that you know and certainly believe that: "the Catholic Church has taught for millennia that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church and one baptism for the remission of sins"......if the person(s) that this is being said to is thinking and/or says immediately 'but' or there are exceptions or that is not the teaching now or it has been changed or diluted then conversation immediately becomes problematic and can not bear fruit. It is as if Pope Eugene IV, countless councils, Popes, Saints, theologians etc throughout the centuries were mistaken and recently we got it right. The devil has been having a field day for many decades.

George

Catholic Mission said...

The SSPX, Italy like the MICM ( Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary) assume that Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So for them Vatican Council II is a break with the traditional, rigorist interpretation of the dogma and the Tradition in general.
The Council would also be a break with the Syllabus of Errors

They are both really repeating the new theology which has come into the Church from Pope Pius XII and his Curia at the Holy Office 1949.This is a theology based on 'being able to see the dead'.

So when they infer there are exceptions, the SSPX and MICM, like the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, imply being saved in invincible ignorance etc, refer to known cases in the present times.Since only if they were known could they be exceptions to the dogma. They infer that people in Heaven are known to them on earth.Otherwise how would they know of these exceptions ?

So in this way Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma for them.
If they did not use this irrational premise and inference, Vatican Council II would affirm the rigorist interpretation of the dogma, just like the Church Councils, popes and saints.
Since they use the irrational inference Vatican Council II is now ambigous and a break with the past.The fault is not with the Council.