Thursday, November 26, 2015

Simple way for the SSPX to help Rome return to the Faith

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre has said that the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) will return to the Church when Rome returns  to the Faith.Bishop Richard Williamson has said the same.
The only way Rome and the SSPX can return to the Faith is this way.
The SSPX and the Vatican must announce that the reference in the Council of Trent to implicit desire ( or the desire thereof )  1 refers to a hypothetical case.It could not be a reference to a formally known case, someone personally known who has been saved as such.Since if someone was saved as such he would be in Heaven and we  humans would not know about it.This is common sense. It is common knowledge.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith/ Ecclesia Dei needs to confirm this objective statement. They need to confirsm this common sense.Since many people even after being explained all this, cannot accept it or do not still understand what  I  am saying.They  have for scores of years being interpreting what is implicit as being explicit.They have mixed up what is invisible as being visible, objective with subjective. The irrationality is used also in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.Popes and cardinals have overlooked this error.
The SSPX and the Vatican must announce that the baptism of desire (BOD) and baptism of blood (BOB)  mentioned in the Baltimore Catechism and the Catechism of Pope Pius X also refer to hypothetical cases.
3. The SSPX and the Vatican  must agree in public that BOD and BOB being hypothetical for us could not be an exception to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).Since they are hypothetical cases they cannot be relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston  and the  St.Benedict Center.Hypothetical cases cannot be objective exceptions in 2015 to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation.The Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing made an objective error.Objectively there cannot be any case of BOD or BOB.
4.The SSPX and the Vatican must announce that BOD, BOB and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I)  refer to salvation in Heaven of hypothetical cases . Similarly Lumen Gentium 16, Lumen Gentium 8, Unitatitis Redintigratio 3 and Nostra Aetate 2 in Vatican Council II refer to salvation in Heaven known only to God. Salvation in Heaven not visible to us cannot be an explicit exception to all needing to formally enter the Church in 2015.All need faith and baptism for salvation and we cannot see , know or meet an exception on planet earth.So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.
There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict all needing faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7, LG 14).The reference to BOD and BOB in Vatican Council II are to possibilities known only to God and always unknown to us.They would also be followed by the baptism of water since this is the dogmatic teaching of EENS.
There are no exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II, since hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions, so the Catholic Church's traditional ecclesiology has not changed.There is no change in the Church's traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism.Since ecclesiology has not changed the Church's teachings on religious liberty and the Social Kingship of Christ the King over all political systems has not changed in the text of Vatican Council II.
The magisterium ( teaching)  of the Church , according to the documents ( and not the persons) is still the same before and after Vatican Council II.

When the SSPX at least, if not Rome, understands and affirms these four points, then the Jewish Left cannot say that the SSPX is in schism and should be excommunicated.Since now the SSPX will be affirming Vatican Council II with Feeneyism ( there are no exceptions to the dogma EENS) and will be still rejecting Vatican Council  according to Cushingism ( there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS).
The SSPX would then be a position to ask the pope and the Vatican Curia to affirm Vatican Council II as they do and to come back to the old ecclesiology .They would be able to ask  Rome to give up its irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Now in a concrete way the SSPX will be asking Rome to come back to Tradition.The way is precise. Reinterpret Vatican Council II in harmony with Tradition. Reinterpret it with Feeneyism and not the present Cushinghism. 
They would also be asking the Vatican to re-interpret the writings of the saints and Doctors of the Church ,including the Council of Trent, according to Feeneyism and not Cushingism,as is being done now.
Finally they would have to accept the first part of the  Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is pro-Feeneyism ( there are no exceptions to the dogma EENS, the traditional interpretation)  and reject the second part which is irrational Cushingism (it suggests BOD and BOB are exceptions to EENS).
The SSPX may discover that the Vatican Curia will not accept Vatican Council II. This has been my experience.Cardinal Napier, Cardinal Pell, Cardinal Muller, Cardinal Ladaria S.J  and Cardinal Malcolm Ranjit among others will not respond to two simple questions I ask them. They know the answer.This should not discourage the SSPX.
If the SSPX bishops and priests  understand the basic principle ( Cushingism is irrational , non traditional and heretical and is the common way the contemporary magisterium interprets Church documents)  they can avoid it.They can then ask the Vatican Curia to do the same.
-Lionel Andrades

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.
Canon IV-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema."-Council of Trent

Related links

The Council of Trent text does not say that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma EENS, it has to be wrongly inferred

No text in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore or the Council of Trent says there are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

The Council of Trent does not state that these cases are physically or personally known to us to be exceptions to the dogma.This has to be wrongly inferred.

The Council of Trent, Mystici Corporis no where says that these cases are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Rome made a mistake in 1949

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are not answering the question: Do we know any one on earth saved with the baptism of desire?
Saturday, September 8, 2012



The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) General Chapter Statement (July 19,2012) shows that they can accept Vatican Council with the hermeneutic of continuity.