Sunday, August 14, 2016

The way to make Rome come back to the Faith, the only way possible at this time, is to ask Rome to choose another theology in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS): It is all done by replacing the present Cushingite theology with Feeneyite theology


This is, put in rather blunt terms, the reason why the SSPX is now apparently working on the “clarification” of some points. Points which – you can bet your last shirt on it – pivot around who controls the order and its assets, and in which way.
As they (almost) say, reconciliation is nothing without control. No amount of pretended “autonomy” is worth anything, if this autonomy can be taken away at a moment's notice. No “guarantees” are worth anything, if the Pope retains the factual ability to renege on them. No terms of reconciliation can be accepted, which leave the SSPX in any way, shape or form unable to protect itself from, well, the spider.
The SSPX must keep control of its own hierarchy and of its own assets. It must keep self-regulation independently from a Pope's ukase. Most importantly, it must keep control of its assets in a way unassailable by the Vatican hierarchy.
If these conditions are met, of course the SSPX will obey the Pope. They already do, actually...- Mundabor 1
The SSPX would want control of its assets and hierarchy only because Rome has not come back to the Faith doctrinally.If for Rome, there was no salvation outside the Chuch and all needed to be formal members, if there was only an ecumenism of return, if there was the non separation of Church and State and Rome would affirm the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political leigislation- then Rome would not be a threat to the SSPX assets and hierarchy.Rome would have come back to the Faith under these doctrinal conditions.The ecclesiology of pre and post Vatican Council II times would be the same.
The way to make Rome come back to the Faith, the only way possible at this time, is to ask Rome to choose another theology in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
Ask Rome to interpret these two magisterial documents by assuming hypothetical cases are just hypothetical and they are not objectively visible in the present times(2016).I call this theology Feeneyism.( there are no known exceptions past or present to the dogma EENS.No explicit cases).
With Feeneyite Vatican Council II and EENS Rome would be saying there is no known salvation outside the Church.There is known salvation outside the Church, as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.There will be an automatic return to the old theology, the old ecclesiology.Since the new premise and inference will have been avoided.There would be no innovation in theology. Non Christians and non Catholics having to formally convert into the Church for salvation is covered here.So two important points in the doctrinal dispute are eliminated.Based on the traditional interpretation of EENS, the Feeneyite version- religious liberty is proclaimed in a secular or  Catholic confessional state.2 The third point in dispute is also addressed here.It is all done by replacing the present Cushingite theology with Feeneyite theology.
So the SSPX simply has to ask the Vatican to affirm Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.The rational conclusion would be a return to traditional teachings on other religions, ecumenism  and religious liberty.Make this a condition to accept Vatican Council II which must only be Feeneyite to avoid being ambigous.
Ask Rome to reject the present Cushingite theology in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS.
Image result for Photo of SSPX General Chapter Meeting  members
The SSPX would be following their  General Chapter Statement (2012) which doctrinally affirmed EENS with no exception and this has not been accepted by Rome.3.
So the real doctrinal issue is not a vague and general Vatican Council II. It is : will Rome and the SSPX interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with Feeneyism or Cushingism?
If Rome agrees to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with Feeneyism the SSPX could hand over control of its assets like other religious communities.Rome would have come back to Tradition.
-Lionel Andrades

1.
SSPX: Reconciliation Is Nothing Without Control.
https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/sspx-reconciliation-is-nothing-without-control/

2.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/traditionalists-reviewed-dignitatis.html

Franciscans of the Immaculate (FFI) interpret all documents of Vatican Council II with the defacto-dejure, objective-subjective, in fact-in theory distinction
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/franciscans-of-immaculate-ffi-interpret.html

3.
Society of St. Pius X General Chapter Statement
http://www.dici.org/en/news/society-of-st-pius-x-general-chapter-statement/


TERMS
Feeneyism ( there are no known exceptions past or present to the dogma EENS.No explicit cases).
Cushingism ( there are known exceptions past and present to the dogma EENS.The baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known)
Baptism of  Desire. The hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it is not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Invincible Ignorance. This refers to the hypothetical case of someone saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church since he was in ignorance.
Council of Florence.One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS and did not mention any exceptions.
Liberal theologians.They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as referring to objective cases known in the present times.

_______________________________


August 13, 2016


If the SSPX is unilaterally accepted by the Vatican it still means that the SSPX is condoning a heretical and non traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II, as is being done by Fr. Z

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/if-sspx-is-unilaterally-accepted-by_13.html
 

No comments: