Sunday, August 30, 2015

A priest can offer the Novus Ordo Mass with the old ecclesiology if he avoids the exceptions-theory : the fault is there with the SSPX and not the Mass


Voris’ SSPX / Novus Ordo 


PaulVI Mass
From the blog Harvesting the Fruits of Vatican Council II
Louie Verrecchio:
As promised, in this post we’re going to take a more detailed look at the Novus Ordo relative to the recent SSPX video (featuring Fr. Steven McDonald, SSPX) and Michael Voris reaction to it...

OK, with all of that having been said, Michael Voris did his best to get his viewers incensed over the following comment made in the video by Fr. McDonald:
The New Mass is to be completely avoided as they understand it is an offense against God.
Lionel:
Fr.McDonald was criticizing the New Mass for its new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition. He is correct.
These are four  errors associated with the New Mass, which I have mentioned in the previous blog post.
1. The Holy Office 1940 said Fr.Feeney was wrong with the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Lionel: 
There were no known exceptions in 1949.The Holy Office 1949 was factually incorrect.No one in Boston or Rome in 1949 knew of someone saved outside the Church i.e without 'faith and baptism'.The New Mass is offered with this irrationality. Pope Francis is permitting the old Mass to also be offered now, as long as this irrationality is maintained.
___________________

2.The Baltimore Catechism suggests there are three baptisms and not one.
Lionel:
 There was no known baptism of desire or baptism of blood at that time, with or without the baptism of water. So this was an innovation. An opinion. No theory.This was speculation.A theoretical case was considered to be explicit, like the baptism of water which is explicit.To offer the New Mass the priest must accept that there are three known baptisms, water,blood and desire.The SSPX does not realize that this is an error.The fault is not with the Novus Ordo Mass but their accepting this error.There are no known cases of the baptism of desire and blood without the baptism of water.This was a mistake of Archbishop Lefebvre.
__________________

3.Vatican Council II says that a person can be saved in LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2.
Lionel:
 Yes and these cases would include the baptism of water, according to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441), Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14), and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257( The necessity of the baptism of water for salvation).
This is a familiar SSXP error.They assume that LG 16 etc is explicit.So they promote the new theology and ecclesiology and then they blame it on the Mass or Vatican Council II. The fault is with them and not the Mass or the Council .
__________________

4.The Catechism 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments.
Lionel:
We do not know any such case, so  CCC 1257 is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and Church-tradition over the centuries.A possibility known only to God cannot be an explicit exception to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church in 2015.
There are no known exceptions to the old ecclesiology. For the SSPX there are exceptions. The fault is with them and not the Novus Ordo Mass. A priest can offer the Novus Ordo Mass with the old ecclesiology if  he avoids the exceptions-theory.
- Lionel Andrades
____________________

This is an illustration of what Fr. McDonald stated, “The New Mass is to be completely avoided as they understand it is an offense against God … Knowledgeable Catholics should avoid the New Mass.”
Lionel: 
Why  avoid it if the ecclesiology is the same as that of the Traditional Latin Mass for the priest who offers it?
__________________________
Often, the mere suggestion that the new Mass could possibly be an offense against God invites yet another question:
Lionel:
If the Mass is offered by a priest who knowingly changes the Nicene Creed ( I beleive in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin), rejects a defined dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and interprets Vatican Council II as  a break with the past, by using an irrational inference then something is definitely wrong some where.
________________________
Our conservative friends have long recognized this truth as summarized so very clearly by Cardinal Ratzinger who said:
“One cannot manufacture a liturgical movement … but one can help contribute to its development by striving to reassimilate the spirit of the liturgy and by defending publicly what one has thus received … What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it–as in a manufacturing process – with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”
Lionel:
Cardinal Ratzinger has been offering Holy Mass ( knowingly or unknowingly) by  changing  the Nicene Creed ( I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin), rejecting  a defined dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church, calling a dogma an 'aphorism' in the Catechism(1995)  and interpreting Vatican Council II as  a break with the past, by using an irrational inference then something is differently wrong somewhere.
________________________
By all means, come to know the Mass of Ages (as it is also called) more deeply moving forward, but for now it will suffice to recognize that the TLM, the Roman rite codified by Pope St. Pius V in 1570, after having existed in the same substantial form for more than 1,000 years; the rite repeatedly praised for its Heavenly perfection by the Saints, the Doctors of the Church and the popes throughout the ages, in part, for its efficaciousness in communicating the Catholic faith in all integrity via its magnificent sacred signs, both collectively and individually, forming the faithful in such way as to exemplify the principle lex orandi, lex credendi…
Lionel:
It is being offered with the priest unable to affirm the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is a break with the pre -1808 times when the Traditional Latin Mass was offered. So  this is an innovation.
This rite contains absolutely nothing whatsoever that could in any way be considered an offense against God.
Lionel:
Except that it is offered with the New Ecclesiology which Pope Benedict and Pope Francis approves of.
__________________
Sure, there are abuses that occur in the New Mass owing to all kinds of issues that we point out here on the Vortex all the time. But those abuses are just that — abuses.
Lionel:
Neither has Michael or Louie referred to the irrational premise which creates a new ecclesiology by making Vatican Council II a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades


 https://harvestingthefruit.com/voris-sspx-novus-ordo-conniption/

Ask the wife 2

Ask the wife 1
Immagine correlataImmagine correlata
Well I did show my wife your post on your blog and she said: " Nobody KNOWS where they are going until they die."
Lionel:
You've missed the point again and have asked her the wrong question.
Ask her:
1.Is she familiar with the concepts objective-subjective, abstract-concrete, visible-invisible.
2. Then if she says YES then ask her: if she cut her finger and saw a little blood, would the blood she saw be visible or invisible, objective or subjective.
If she says NO to question 1 then there is nothing more to say.
3. Then ask her about the baptism of your first child. When you'll went into the Church was the baptism visible or invisible, concrete or abstract, known or unknown.
4. Ask he about your children's feelings for God or their country. For her are the feelings which the children have in their mind, abstract or concrete for her, are they objective or subjective, are they visible or invisible for her.
Once you and your wife have discussed this then I can ask you a further question.
_____________________________________________________________
Immagine correlata
Now ask the wife.

1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2015, can we personally know them by name  ? Explicit or implicit for us ?

2) Could Catholics in the past see or know  persons in Heaven, saved with the baptism of desire or martyrdom, without the baptism of water? Would this be possible in Baltimore in 1808 or Boston, USA in 1949?Explicit for implicit for them?
3Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ? Can implicit and invisible cases be exceptions to the dogma?

Fine we have agreement on all this since these are common sense issues.

 'Could Catholics BE in Heaven, saved with the baptism of desire or martyrdom, without the baptism of water? Would this be possible in Baltimore in 1808 or Boston, USA in 1949?'
Note : I have  said in other blog posts that we can accept the baptism of desire and being saved with martrydom with the baptism of water.

However  when the American Catholics in Baltimore and Boston suggest that being saved with the baptism of desire  or in martyrdom is a baptism equivalent to the baptism of water, the issue is how would they know ? How could they see or know these cases ? So this would only be a personal opinion of theirs. It would be speculation.
Secondly how could they set aside the dogma which says all need to be formal members of the Church; all need faith and  baptism for salvation ? This is heresy.They are rejecting the dogma with this opinion.
Thirdly how could any one in pre-1808 know of someone saved without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water  unless that person went to  Heaven and confirmed it.
The Church does not tell us that any one in the past had a personal revelation accepted by the Catholic Church and that we have to accept it.

Conclusion:
 So there were no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus , the Feeneyite traditional interpretation.There were no exceptions in1808 when the Baltimore Catechism was issued and neither in 1949 when  the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston was issued. The Letter issued by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvatggiani suggested that the baptism of desire and  baptism of blood excluded the baptism of water and so were exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma. The Letter also suggested that these cases were explicit , to be exceptions to the teaching on all needing to be card carrying members of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.This was speculation and irrational. There were also no such cases, known at that time or in the past.

So can there be any exceptions n 2015 to the old ecclesiology ?
Answer: No.

ASK THE FRANCISCANS OF THE IMMACULATE
When the Franciscans of the Immaculate are asked to accept Vatican Council II they must clarify that they accept Vatican Council II  but with the old ecclesiology.
This means they accept Vatican Council II with the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They also must clarify that they reject  the new ecclesiology of the Vatican Curia, in which Vatican Council II is a break with the old ecclesiology because of alleged exceptions.
So if Fr.Sabino Ardito does not accept Vatican Council II along with the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, it has to be rejected.
If any one in the Vatican Curia says they accept Vatican Council II ask them to be specific.
Is it with Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance)  being explicit or implicit  for us.
Vaguely referring to Vatican Council II for those who discern, and then  denying reason and truth, is cheating.
___________________

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Another approach for the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate is to simply announce that they affirm the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which is at the centre of the old ecclesiology.
 If there are objections then these could be the answers:
 1. The Holy Office 1940 said Fr.Feeney was wrong with the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Answer: There were no known exceptions in 1949.The Holy Office 1949 was factually incorrect.No one in Boston or Rome in 1949 knew of someone saved outside the Church i.e without 'faith and baptism'.
___________________

2.The Baltimore Catechism suggests there are three baptisms and not one.
Answer: There was no known baptism of desire or baptism of blood at that time, with or without the baptism of water. So this was an innovation. An opinion. No theory.This was speculation.A theoretical case was considered to be explicit, like the baptism of water which is explicit.
__________________

3.Vatican Council II says that a person can be saved in LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2.
Answer: Yes and these cases would include the baptism of water, according to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441), Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7, Lumen Gentium 14), and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257( The necessity of the baptism of water for salvation).
__________________

4.The Catechism 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments.
Answer: We do not know any such case, so  CCC 1257 is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and Church-tradition over the centuries.A possibility known only to God cannot be an explicit exception to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church in 2015.
- Lionel Andrades
____________________


Franciscans of the Immaculate Lay Association intervention needed
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/08/franciscans-of-immaculate-lay_29.html

1
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/08/ask-wife.html