The Remant Newspaper has removed the following links sent as a comment on Christopher A. Ferrara's article In Defence of Francis. 1 Since it is permitted to criticize Pope Francis ( they will even pay you for it) but Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay are holy cows.
- Archbishop Lefebvre was a modernist too Christopher Ferrara must concede this http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/archbishop-lefbevre-was-modernist-too.html
- FULL CIRCLE: it is important to reject the SSPX doctrinal interpretation of Vatican Council II based on ' a known catechumen'.The SSPX misleads Catholics http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/full-circle.html
I have e-mailed Chris Ferrara the two links so he knows what I am saying.He cannot refute it.He cannot say that the case of the catechumen is known personally.He cannot say the catechumen is physically visible somewhere without the baptism of water and is saved.
So he is stuck in his helpless position of knowing that Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake. He was a modernist too. His theology, the new theology, was based upon a known case of a catechumen who was saved without the baptism of water and instead was saved with the baptism of desire.The new theology rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is done with the irrational theory of the known catechumen saved without the baptism of water.A hypothetical case is considered objective in the present times.
So we should take much of what Christopher Ferrara says about Vatican Council II , with a pinch of salt.He is correct. Vatican Council II is break with Tradition but only when 'the catechumen' is considered a real, objective case in the present times(2016).
Without the visible catechumen theory Vatican Council II affirms the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The famous case of the catechumen was never ever an exception to the Catholic dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church, in the first place.-Lionel Andrades