Monday, June 13, 2016

The doctrinal position of Bishop Bernard Fellay is heretical. He also contradicts the SSPX doctrinal General Chapter Statement 2012 which affirmed EENS with NO exceptions.

Is Bishop Fellay in heresy? In the comments section of some blogs people are ready to say that Cardinal Muller or Archbishop Fernandes are in heresy - but, what about Bishop Fellay? It is unthinkable or un-sayable for them.
Christopher Ferrara has commented on an article in the Remnant Newspaper by Kelly Michaels titled On Using the "H" Word ( it all depends on what this 'this' is).1
Kelly Michaels lists some of the things Pope Francis has said which would qualify for the H (heresy) category.But what about Bishop Fellay?

The link from my blog has probably been removed by the Remnant editor since doctrinal criticism of Bishop Fellay would not be tolerated.But Christopher Ferrara and Michael Matt interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II with exceptions.The Catechism also mentions exceptions(846,1257). The exceptions are there based on hypothetical cases being objective in 2016.This is heretical.Yet this is their reasoning when they say there are exceptions in salvation theology, relative to EENS.Mentioning this in the Catechism was a mistake.It was a mistake made by Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Schonborn.They assumed there were exceptions, in other words, explicit cases of the baptism of desire etc.
If Christopher Ferrara and Michael Matt were directly asked : 'Are hypothetical cases objective in 2016, are there objective cases of the baptism of desire for example?'.They would answer 'NO'.
Yet like Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the SSPX, they assume there are exceptions to EENS and  Vatican Council II.They infer hypothetical cases are  exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation.To be an exception something has to be visible or known in the present times.If something does not exist it cannot be an exception.
This is the mistake they all make.Since, they have all, like Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Schonborn, accepted the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. It made an objective error. It assumed the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance,referred to explicit cases, known cases of persons, who were saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.The Letter is magisterial, but irrational and heretical.
Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Joseph Augustine Di Noia (Adjunct) Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Bishop Bernard Fellay,Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) have clearly interpreted Vatican Council II with exceptions.This is an innovation.The result has to be heretical.
It is a rupture with the pre-Council of Trent magisterium which also accepted the baptism of desire(BOD) and blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) - but as referring to implicit cases, and not explicit, known people.
Instead today BOD, BOB and being saved in I.I are considered objective cases, so they become exceptions to the dogma EENS.
This is the difference between pre-Council of Trent and post Council of Trent times.
For me BOD, BOB and I.I are implicit. They refer to invisible cases.So they are not relevant or exceptions to the dogma EENS.
So the contemporary magisterium is in heresy for rejecting the dogma EENS with explicit exceptions and rejecting Vatican Council II with explicit exceptions as compared to my interpretation without any explicit exception.
The contemporary magisterium is in heresy for intepretating the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846, 1257) as referring to explicit exceptions to EENS.For me when CCC 846, says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church, it  refers to invisible cases. Similarly when CCC 1257 says God is not limited to the Sacraments it again refers to theoretical, hypothetical cases.It is not a personally known case for us human beings.So for me, unlike for Muller, Di Noia and Fellay, there are no exceptions to the dogma EENS or to the Nicene Creed's teaching on 'I believe in one baptism(known) for the forgiveness of sin'.
So the doctrinal position of Bishop Bernard Fellay is heretical. He also contradicts the SSPX doctrinal General Chapter Statement 2012.It affirmed EENS with NO exceptions.
-Lionel Andrades


No comments: