Monday, November 23, 2015

Rome makes new proposal to the SSPX but irrationally with Vatican Council II's LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc being considered visible instead of in visible

When will we have religious formators who say they accept Vatican Council II with LG 16 etc being implicit, invisible and hypothetical and they reject Vatican Council II in which LG 16 etc refer to explicit cases? When will the traditionalists and sedevacantists interpret Vatican Council II as such I mentioned in previous post.Since this at the heart of the reconciliation of the SSPX with a Rome which 'has changed'.1

There are reports of the Vatican making a new approach to the SSPX in order to grant it full canonical status.2

The SSPX and the Vatican have to be aware of a factual error made in 1949 which has influenced both their interpretations of Vatican Council. The baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not known and visible to us human beings as it was assumed by the Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani in the  Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949). They did not and could not know of any such case of a non Catholic, saved outside the Church without the baptism of water, who was an exception to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was a factual mistake. An error in reasoning.It was a wrong premise and inference.

Now the SSPX, like Archbishop Lefebvre, has accepted this error in reasoning. They accept the Letter of the Holy Office and interpret Vatican Council II with the same reasoning.

For instance, Lumen Gentium 16 refers to cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water.This was the false premise of the liberals. These cases are visible and not invisible for them.This is irrational and supported by the contemporary Magisterium since the time of Pope Pius XII.

If the SSPX priests  say rationally that these cases are invisible for us human beings then there will be nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There would be no change in ecclesiology.

This is important to note for the SSPX reconciliation.

Affirm Vatican Council II with LG 16,LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc being invisible and not visible. Do not assume  hypothetical cases are defacto known in the present times.

This would change the entire dialogue process with the Vatican.Why must the SSPX like the Vatican be obliged to the Left?

-Lionel Andrades



What a long line of religious formators who will teach heresy like our pope


Rome makes new proposal to SSPX

The Holy See has made a new proposal to the Society of St. Pius X. Specifically, it relates to the status of the SSPX. The Fraternity is not canonically recognized and therefore for decades has been in a state of suspension, which leads to different interpretations among canon lawyers and bishops as to whether it is part of the Catholic Church or not.

A sedivacantist website of the United States claimed that an agreement between the SSPX which was founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Rome was imminent. This was denied to by Father Franz Schmidberger, Rector of the International Seminary of the SSPX in Zaitzkofen in Bavaria.

Father Schmidberger confirmed the proposal, but denies agreement

Father Schmidberger, who was already Superior General of the Priestly Society and German District Superior, however, confirmed that there is a concrete proposal which Rome has submitted to the SSPX. However, there is still much to clarify according to Schmidberger.

The existence of a Roman proposal had been confirmed by the Swiss District Superior of the Brotherhood to their priests, according to Secretum Meum Mihi.

This message was posted by those circles who are close to priests which left the SSPX in 2012 SSPX or have been excluded from this. The reason for this was briefly, was that there was no conflict over the conditions under which a canonical regulation by Rome could be accepted, but a fundamental rejection of any agreement with Rome by a minority in the SSPX.

No comments: