Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Church Militant TV has missed the point.The doctrinal issue has still not been touched by Pope Francis

A Step Towards Full Communion?

by Peter O'Dwyer  •   September 1, 2015   
Pope Francis has taken a huge leap in helping to bring the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) back into full communion with the Church. In a statement released September 1, Pope Francis is granting all clergy the power to absolve the sin of abortion. Abortion incurs a latae sententiae — or automatic — excommunication, and requires the faculty of a bishop to lift such a penalty. Because the sin of abortion is so common, most bishops give all or most of their priests permission to absolve the sin and lift the excommunication. But in the Jubilee Year of Mercy, the Holy Father is granting all priests this faculty — including the priests of the SSPX...
The sacrament of confession is known as a juridical act. To absolve sins, one must not only have received holy orders, but have faculties from a bishop in communion with Rome. The SSPX bishops do not have jurisdiction and are not in full communion, so the priests of the SSPX have never been able to absolve sins in confession.
The absolving of sin does not depend on jurisdiction.Their Confession is not licit but it is valid.
But in the year of mercy, starting on December 8, all that will change. For one year from that point on, the faithful may confess their sins to a priest of the SSPX.
The SSPX is a fraternity of priests opposed to the Second Vatican Council. 
They are not opposed to Vatican Council II per se but Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are assumed to be explicit instead of implicit, visible instead of invisible.When this distinctiion is not made then the Council is interpreted with an irrational premise. So the Council then emerges as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old ecclesiology.
This point is never considered by Church Militant TV which repeats the leftist propaganda on Vatican Council II.
They are notable for declaring the missal of Paul VI to be evil and a threat to the Faith. Founded by French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the group was canonically dissolved in the 1970s after releasing a controversial document blaming the changes in the Church on the Second Vatican Council and the Pope.
The error was there in the irrational premise( cases in Heaven are visible on earth saved without the baptism of water and in invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word(AG 11) etc). This was followed up with the irrational inference( these visible-dead who are now in Heaven are explicit exceptions on earth to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus). They are inferred to be explicit since they are considered exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation.They would have to be objective to be exceptions.
The Archbishop had wrongly inferred that the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, referred to in the Boston Case of 1949, were explicit, objectively known and visible . So they became exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.This was irrational at that time. Since physically there were no such cases.
The issue was ecclesiology and not the missal or the liturgy of the Novus Ordo Mass.
But it was a dozen years later in 1988 when the SSPX achieved their greatest notoriety. In order to continue his project, Abp. Lefebvre ordained four bishops against the wishes of Pope St. John Paul II. Lefebvre and the four new bishops incurred automatic excommunication.
Ever since, negotiations between the SSPX and the Vatican have been deadlocked. In 2009, in a generous gesture, Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications on the four bishops (even though Lefebvre's excommunication remains in place), but the talks afterward stalled.
The talks stalled.Neither was the ex communication of Archbishop Lefebvre lifted.Since the Vatican wanted the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and inference, so making the Council a break with traditional ecclesiology.
It meant the Nicene Creed had to be changed, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus discarded, the Syllabus of Errors rejected and Vatican Council II interpreted with LG 16 being considered explicit instead of implicit. Archbishop Lefebvre correctly rejected this heresy. However he was not aware that LG 16 could be interpreted as being implicit instead of explicit. It was the duty of the Magisterium to point this out but they failed to do so.
CMTV still uses the same irrationality in the interpretation of Vatican Council II as does the Archdiocese of Detroit.
This unprecedented act of ecumenism from the Holy Father may bring the Society back to the negotiating table, and even if it comes to nothing, it is an undeniable gesture of goodwill. 
The Vatican has refused to discuss doctrine.Since by now many people know that the doctrinal error is being made by the magisterium. We have a  case of magisterial heresy.It is maintained by the political left.
It's to be hoped that Pope Francis will be the Pope who brings the SSPX back into full communion with the Church.
It is hoped that Pope Francis will interpret Vatican Council II without the irrationality and so then the entire Church can accept Vatican Council II along with the old ecclesiology and without any strange innovations in theology.
While this overture on Pope Francis' part may be the beginning of the end of a particularly bitter separation, there is still much work to be done. The SSPX still has no canonical status, and all marriages its clergy witness are still invalid.
Jursidiction does not decide the validity of a marriage. They have the faculties.
 Their Masses, baptisms, ordinations, last rites and confirmations remain illicit.
They are illicit but valid. 
They are illicit since they are being forced to accept a heretical, irrational, non traditional and ambigous version of Vatican Council II and they are correctly refusing to do so.

 The SSPX still needs to bring itself into full communion with the Church to be fully integrated in the life of the Church.
The Vatican can simply do this by announcing that there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.LG 16 is not an exception.
Certain doctrinal points still need to be hashed out,
An under statement when you consider that Pope Francis simply has to announce that there are no known exceptions in 2015 to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, so the Church's ecclesiology  has not changed, it is the same as the old ecclesiology of the SSPX.
 such as the role of Vatican II in the Church's timeless teaching, and the ordinary magisterium of recent popes. Previously, when asked to sign a doctrinal preamble, the current head of the SSPX, Bp. Bernard Fellay, balked. Coming up with a formula that both parties can shake hands on will be a difficult task.
He must continue to reject a Vatican Council II in which LG 16 is explicit for us.
He must instead accept a Vatican Council II in  which LG 16 is implicit for us and explicit only for God. Here lies the centre of the doctrinal confusion.
The remaining hurdles notwithstanding, this initiative is a major olive branch that will go a long way in repairing the relationship between the SSPX and the Church. This act could be seen as being even more significant than Benedict's lifting of the excommunications in 2009. And it opens the possibility of other sanctions against the SSPX being lifted, or even permanent faculties being granted.
Church Militant TV has missed the point.The doctrinal issue has still not be touched by Pope Francis.He is waiting for the SSPX to come into the Church accepting Vatican Council II as a break with the old ecclesiology.
The separation of the SSPX from the Church is lamentable, and we all should rejoice at this good news. Pray for reconciliation. During this crisis in the Church, they would be an invaluable ally.

-Lionel Andrades

High-ranking officials in the Church have acknowledged that SSPX priests have the faculty to absolve sins in Confession


I notice that my comment is pending
approval for moderation.
 If it is removed CMTV, I will
seriously consider withdrawing
my financial support of your
 Mr. Dwyer's comment  that
Society priests have NEVER
been able to absolve sins in
confession is FALSE.
Even high-ranking officials
 in the Church  have
acknowledged this to be true.
CMTV should publish a retraction
with comment respecting this
particular publication  pertaining
 to confession. It is slanderous.

Confession to priests to

 who teach that non

 Catholics are on the

 way to Hell


Confession to priests to who teach that non Catholics are on the way to Hell

Immagine correlata
From December the Catholic Church permits you to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation  from Catholic priests , who teach that all Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Pentecostals and other Christians are on the way to Hell.
The SSPX priests have appealed often to non Catholics to formally enter the Catholic Church to save their souls from non-stop suffering in the fires of Hell.
The SSPX priests do not give the Eucharist at Mass to non Catholics. Neither is it given to Catholics in short pants, tank tops and sleeveless and deep V cut blouses, as it is done in the mainline churches.The Eucharist is not given to those Catholics who are married to non Catholics and so are living in adultery.
Their consecration as priests and the Tridentine Mass they offer is valid.The Mass is the Sacrifice of Jesus. The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.Catholics can go to an SSPX priest even before December and have his or her sins forgiven.
They are not in schism according to Pope Francis who has encouraged Catholics to go to them for Confession from this December.
They never were in schism but had been opposing, knowingly or unknowingly, an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II in which the mainstream church, considers LG 16, LG 8 etc as being explicit instead of implicit, visible instead of invisible.They were not aware of this error which has been there with the SSPX since it was unknown to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
Archbishop Lefebvre did not know that there was an option in interpreting Vatican Council II.Vatican Council II can now be accepted with the old ecclesiology, the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).This was not known to the Archbishop.
Even so, the SSPX has been following the authentic ecclesiology of the Catholic Church by going back to the old sources and excluding the confusion with Vatican Council II.
Immagine correlataThey supported the rigorist interpretation of EENS in the General Chapter Statement of 2012.However their position is not as ambigous as Fr.John Zuhlsdorf who follows the new ecclesiology with a love for the vestments and liturgy of the Traditional Latin Mass.He does not affirm the dogma EENS. Instead he considers the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as exceptions to EENS, even though physically, there are no known such cases known to him.
The SSPX priests continue to oppose the sacrilege being proposed at the Synod next month.The pope and cardinals are already giving the Eucharist to active homosexuals, pro -abortion politicians, couples living in adultery and vulgarly dressed Catholics which is sacrilegious  communion , by the clergy in the mainline churches.
In December Confession will be heard as usual on Sunday mornings at the SSPX St.Catherine of Siena chapel in Rome, near the Cavour Metro Station.
-Lionel Andrades

How does Fr.Paul Kramer offer Holy Mass after changing the Nicene Creed ?

19 h
Father Kramer changes Nicene Creed in the Mass.
Michelle Maher31 ago
Where did you find this info. Please show me.

Question:Father Kramer changes Nicene Creed in the Mass ?
He has written an article which was posted on some traditionalist websites.1 I have responded to that article on my blog and on those forums 2
Fr.Paul Kramer:
Dear Feeneyite,

You argue as one who has passed through Alice's looking glass into the irrational realm of the fairies. You stubbornly insist that doctrine of Baptism of Desire & Baptism of Blood is a "common error",

Yes, when it is inferred that the baptism of desire is objectively visible to us and then assumed to be an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is a common error.

No,when it is reasoned that the baptism of desire is not objectively visible to us.Since there are no known cases it cannot be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It does not contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Fr.Paul Kramer:
and "heresy", that it offends against the dogma of nulla salus extra Ecclesiam (EENS), and has been infallibly condemned by the Council of Trent.

To infer that there are known exceptions to the thrice defined dogma is heresy.
Then to infer that these cases, invisible for us, are visible, is irrational and a falsehood.
Fr.Paul Kramer:
If that were indeed the case, then what would be the source of this heresy? The source of this "heresy" would be the writings of the Fathers & Doctors of the Church!
None of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church have said that the baptism of desire is explicit for us. Reason tells us that it is subjective, theoretical, accepted in principle or faith, only.
No Father or Doctor of the Church has said that the baptism of desire is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is a possibility but not an exception to the dogma.
Fr.Paul Kramer:
The worst propagators of this heresy would be the Doctors of the Church, -- and the popes who have either, 1) taught it explicitly, 2) formally approved of it by declaring the authors of this heresy to be Doctors of the Church, 3) by authorizing this heresy to be officially taught by the ordinary & universal magisterium throughout the world (especially in the catechisms and the sacred liturgy), and 4) by never having issued any explicit condennation of it...
They have not said that the baptism of desire is explicit.
When Fr.Paul Kramer suggests that these cases are exceptions to the dogma he implies that they are explicit to be exceptions. So a defined dogma whose text does not mention any exceptions, has exceptions for him.The  meaning of the dogma has been changed with these alleged exceptions which are unknown to him in personal life.A  defined dogma has been rejected and those who still support the traditional interpretation are pejoratively referred to as Feeneyites, as if the popes and saints were not Feeneyites too.
Then not only has he rejected the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict he has also rejected the Nicene Creed in which we say 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin'.For him there are three baptisms, water, desire and blood.
The baptism of water is visible and repeatable and known. Where are the baptism of desire and blood cases, without the baptism of water, which are known to him personally?
Not only has he changed the Nicene Creed with new baptisms of persons unknown to him, he uses the same irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II.For him Vatican Council II has changed the old ecclesiology since LG 16 etc refer to explicit cases , without the baptism of water.So Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old ecclesiology.Obviously if in your premise, implicit cases are explicit, invisible cases are considered visible, then Vatican Council II would be a break with the old ecclesiology and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Are those saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16), elements of sanctification and truth(LG 8), seeds of the Word(AG 11) etc are known to us in the present times ? They are explicit for us or implicit for us?For him they are explicit since they are exceptions to the old ecclesiology which he thinks has been changed by Vatican Council II.
Where in the writings of the Fathers & Doctors of the Church do they say that implicit cases are explicit for us ? This has to be wrongly inferred. Since they were not irrational.
The other sedevacantists, Bishops Pirvanus, Bishop Sanborn and Fr.Anthony Cekada, use the same irrational reasoning.
-Lionel Andrades

Fr. Paul Kramer infers cases of the baptism of desire are visible for us.So they are exceptions to the dogma for him