Friday, May 20, 2016

SSPX is in doctrinal error like the contemporary magisterium Steve Skojec

Steve Skojec in his podcast says (24:00) Pope Benedict has said that the problem with the SSPX is doctrinal..What doctrine do they hold which that Church does not hold over the course of its existence...?

Here is a sample
The SSPX has developed the teaching on Vatican Council II.
The SSPX has developed the Nicene Creed.
The SSPX has developed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades


Here are excerpts ffrom the blog Eucharistandmission

The SSPX is rejecting Vatican Council II since they interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism as a theology. So the Council emerges as a break with Tradition, in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. 
Instead if they interpreted Vatican Council II with Feeneyism i.e there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Council would be traditional and they would not have to reject it.


As expected there is no clarification or denial from Archbishop Guido Pozzo or the Vatican to these blog posts.Vatican Council II is not the issue.They are faking it.It never was the issue.The CDF/Ecclesia Dei wanted the SSPX to compromise with error. They wanted the SSPX to interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational inference.Then they wanted the SSPX to accept the non traditional conclusion.This would be a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This would be a  rupture with Tradition.This hermeneutic of discontinuity is approved by Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis.
Summorum Pontificum was probably a bait for the SSPX to approve Vatican Council II interpreted  with a new theology, based on irrational Cushingism.


Bishop Williamson is correct. Rome must come back to the Faith  before there can be an agreement.There cannot be an agreement with liberals who do not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions ( SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012).No agreement please, with magisterial heresy.

So Vatican Council II is no more an issue after we have discovered the factual error in Vatican Council II.
SSPX has simply to announce that they accept Vatican Council II with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism, with no known exceptions to the dogma EENS instead of known exceptions, with no known salvation outside the Church instead of known salvation.

Vatican Council II is no more an issue.We have found the factual error in the Council and it is linked to the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston.
The 1949 Letter assumed hypothetical cases were explicit i.e objectively visible.Then this error in reasoning has been placed all over Vatican Council II.
If we read Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases being just that - hypothetical, the Council changes. It is then not in contradiction but in accord with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Feeneyite version. So then there are no exceptions to the old ecclesiology. This is the ecclesiology which the SSPX can support. Since it means there is no change in the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church and all non Catholics need to formally convert into the Church to avoid Hell.

Similarly they (SSPX)  need to announce that they reject Vatican Council II with Cushingism, with the irrational premise and inference used to interpret the Council. So they can ask the contemporary magisterium, to stop interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism, which is irrational, non traditional and heretical.

Cushingism cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake, nor contradict the magisterium of the Church before the Council of Trent.
The Council interpreted with Feeneyism changes the discussion between the SSPX and the Vatican. It is the Vatican Curia which will now be on the defensive. The SSPX simply has to ask the CDF/Ecclesia Dei to affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite version)
-Lionel Andrades

SSPX (USA) repeats the error in the Letter of the Holy Office : contradicts the dogma defined three times and also Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7)

Why cannot you say that the SSPX made a doctrinal mistake ?


If the Bishops of Argentine and Albano cannot accept Vatican Council II without the irrational inference, then it is a doctrinal issue

SSPX two groups divided on doctrine

JANUARY 12, 2016

Doctrinal error within the SSPX too ?

There is no comment from the SSPX Canada to this blog post which I sent them after the statement was issued by the District Superior, Canada.
Fr. Daniel Couture, the District Superior of Canada issues a controversial statement critical of the Vatican Document on the Jews

Neither has the SSPX Italy over the last few years issued a denial.
Image result for Photo of Fr. Pier Paolo Petrucci
If the SSPX bishops and Fr.Pierpaulo Petrucci would admit that the baptism of desire refers to invisible cases in 2016, the entire interpretation of Vatican Council changes : error in the article

Factual mistakes in Vatican Council II are not noted on the SSPX website

Fr.Francois Laisney and the SSPX website make the same error as Amoris Laetitia

SSPX District Superior Italy makes the same factual error as Muller, Ladaria, Di Noi, Pozzo, Kaspar and Koch

No denial from Archbishop Pozzo : CDF/Ecclesia Dei will not interpret Vatican Council II with the Feeneyite theology

FSSP priests in Rome not allowed to affirm Vatican Council II, extra ecclesiam nulla salus without three irrational points: no denial from religious community

March 20, 2015 
Without the three points we get a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus but this is not understood by the SSPX.

If the Holy See chooses to interpret Vatican Council without the false premise there can be a reconciliation.The announcement has first to be made by the Holy See

The two hermeneutics depend on the use or omission of the irrational premise from Marchetti's letter

If you consider the Holy Office or Fr.Leonard Feeney in heresy determines how you interpret Vatican Council II

No comments: