Tuesday, 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.

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

Nor is there any denial from the SSPX , USA

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


Image result for Photo of Fr. Pier Paolo Petrucci

On page 8 of the article 'Il concilio Vaticano II e la salvezza delle anime' La Tradizione Cattolica ( N.4(97) 2015) Fr.Pierpaulo Petrucci, Superior General, SSPX ,Italy refers to Lumen Gentium 8 :

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.-Lumen Gentium 8 ( emphasis mine)

For Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci, Vatican Council II is saying there are explicit, personally known cases of persons saved with 'elements of sanctification and of truth' outside the visible boundaries of the the Church i.e  without faith and baptism. Since these cases are explicit they become exceptions to the old ecclesiology and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). So he complains. He criticizes Vatican Council II.Since for him these indicated in Lumen Gentium 8 are objective exceptions to the dogma EENS. These persons are found(for him) among the Protestants and other Christians.So he rejects Vatican Council II since LG 8 contradicts the dogma EENS and the old ecclesiology. Protestants and Orthodox Christians need to convert into the Church formally for salvation, according to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and here Vatican Council II is saying,for him, that  there are exceptions.

VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH FEENEYISM
I read this same passage and for me LG 8 does not refer to any known case saved with 'elements of sanctification and of truth'.These cases are invisible for us.They are accepted in theory. They can only be accepted in theory. In practical life there cannot be any such case known to us and if there is no such known case, there is no exception. Hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions.

If a saint in the past allegedly went to Heaven with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of blood how could any human know this? Similarly if St. Emerentiana or St.Victor is supposed to be one of these cases, how could any one know and how could they be explicit exceptions to the dogma in 2016? It would be irrational to assume that someone who died in the past and whom we cannot see physically today can be an exception to the dogma in the present times.

Similarly I do not know where the Catholic Church subsists among the Protestants. If it does subsist somewhere, it would only be known to God.So it would be invisible for us. Invisible cases cannot be relevant to the dogma EENS in 2016.They cannot be exceptions.

So for me there is no exception to the dogma EENS mentioned in Lumen Gentium 8.

This confusion in Vatican Council II comes from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. For Fr.Petrucci and the SSPX bishops being saved with the baptism of desire and blood and in invincible ignorance, refer to known cases. So the baptism of desire etc become explicit exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma.They are exceptions to St. Francis Xavier and St.Robert Bellarmine's interpretation of the dogma.
Here lies the problem.
If the SSPX bishops and Fr.Pierpaulo Petrucci would admit that the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to invisible cases for us in 2016, the entire interpretation of the Council changes.The baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance would no more be an exception to St. Francis Xavier's understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Fr.Petrucci has quoted St. Francis Xavier and his missionary spirit in the article.On page 29 he suggests that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to all needing to be baptised with water and considers this the traditional teaching of the Church.
-Lionel Andrades




Fr. Pier Paolo Petrucci, Superior General,SSPX ,Italy makes the familiar SSPX error http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/fr-pier-paolo-petrucci-superior.html



Fr. Pierpaolo Petrucci, Superior General,SSPX , Italy makes the familiar SSPX error

Image result for Photo of Fr. Pier Paolo PetrucciIn the recent issue of La Tradizione Cattolica ( N.4(97) 2015) published by the SSPX, Italy ( Fraternita Sacerdotale San Pio X) Albano, Fr. Pierpaolo Petrucci, the Superior General continues to assume Vatican Council II has referred to known explicit cases, of persons saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, who are explicit exceptions to the old ecclesiology. The old ecclesiology is Feeneyite and is based on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

He has written an article 'Il concilio Vaticano II e la salvezza delle anime' in this issue.The explicit-implicit, visible-invisible mix up is there through most of the article.-Lionel Andrades
http://www.sanpiox.it/public/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=88:tradizione-cattolica-archivio&catid=39&Itemid=96


Convegno 2014

 JULY 20, 2015


No response from Fraternita Sacerdotale San Pio X (SSPX Italy) : doctrinal mess

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/no-response-from-fraternita-sacerdotale.html

LINDA GIBBONS: On trial, this Wednesday, January 13 in Toronto

LINDA GIBBONS: On trial, this Wednesday, January 13 in Toronto. Come and support her!
A reminder to all those who support the Gospel of Life. Linda Gibbons will stand trial for violating an abortion zone "bubble law" this coming Wednesday, 13th of January, at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 509 at the College Park Courts (intersection of College and Yonge).



It is imperative that as many people attend the trial in support as possible The authorities must see that these are not the actions of an isolated person, but an heroic act of witness for Christ and the Truth. This is real resistance and witness for truth against evil. Linda has been in prison for over four months, following her arrest on the second of September outside an abortion killing factory in Toronto's east end.

Mary Wagner, who is presently being held - as Linda is - at the Vanier Centre for Women for her own trail scheduled for March 10th wrote these words about Linda last April, in her Open Letter:
Linda and I, (as others), go to love – to strive to love – these little ones who only have minutes to live; they are scheduled to be killed today. We may not succeed in protecting the babies; but we strive to be faithful and to do the best we can while relying and trusting in God “who works all things together for the good...” (Rom 8:28), not stopping at a legal boundary unjustly imposed...
...If we appeal to the government or to the public in general, let's always keep the focus on the responsibility we have to assure the establishment of the most basic justice. What is a more basic duty of a government than to assume protection – the right to live – of each human being?
Linda and I are happy to embrace this cross (which is not too heavy) and strive to receive it as a normal result of wanting to be faithful to Christ and to love Him in “the least of these” (Mt 25:40). We do not want to focus on ourselves. We are in jail willingly and we hope that others would be encouraged to stand strongly in faith. We ask you to pray not so much that this cross be removed but for the strength to carry it and to grow in trust in God, to the point where we love the cross. Of course, however, we look forward to the day we hope will come when we are no longer being imprisoned – only if this means that the killing has ended and all of us are permitted to live – and to live freely as dedicated Christians.
Mary is correct, the way of the Christian is the Way of the Cross. The way to defeating evil in this country will be the taking up of the Cross by Christians as the persecution increases.

CANADA 2016
THE PRIME MINISTER & CABINET
100 % PRO-DEATH

Video Medjugorje Documental - apparition site a 'biblical moment'


Fr. Svetozar Krajlevie, here in Medjugorje there is that grace of God, a touch there is a bibical moment a very special intervention of the providence of the love of God for humanity...

In this way we undo the damage done by Fr.Karl Rahner and others who did not make the explicit-implicit, visible-invisible distinction.

Comment on the Vox Cantoris blog post Rome's blasphemy confirmed by Pope Leo XIII
 
My dear father would not approve of the supposition behind this headline. the idea that we need to look at what some Pope from the late nineteenth century said about ecclesiology or soteriology is an idea that represents a hardening of awareness vis a vis the developments in theology that have occurred since the New Pentecost. Did you get that?
Lionel:
The 'development' in ecclesiology and soteriology came into the Church with the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is now magisterial and accepted by also the traditionalists. If we avoid this objective error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, for example, then the Council emerges traditional in ecclesiology and soteriology. It's as simple as that! Try it!.
Without the error from the Letter (1949) we are back to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which is the basis of the old ecclesiology, soteriology and ecumenism.
Image result for Photo of Fr.Karl  Rahner S.J
Fr.Karl Rahner S.J did not know this.
1.He assumed that the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance referred to explicit cases, seen in the flesh.
2.He assumed that Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance), LG 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth), Ad Gentes 11 ( seeds of the Word), Unitatis Redintigratio 3 ( imperfect communion with the Church) and Nostra Aetate 2 ( good and holy things in other religions leading to salvation) referred to visible cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II contradicted the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS and the old ecclesiology and soteriology based on this thrice defined dogma.
We have a rational and traditional alternative.We can assume ( and this is common sense) that 1 and 2 above refer to invisible for us cases, known only to God. So we accept them in principle, in theory as hypothetical cases. We do not reject them as theoretical cases but we do reject them as being practically known in the present times.
In this way we undo the damage done by Fr.Karl Rahner and others who did not make the explicit-implicit, visible-invisible distinction.
-Lionel Andrades

Pope Pius XII, Cardinals Ottaviani, Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre were factually wrong

From the SSPX website : Feeneyism






http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm

His teaching was then condemned by the Holy Office in 1949, and he himself was excommunicated in 1953.
Lionel:
Yes the Holy Office was saying that the baptism of desire was explicit and visible. We now know they were wrong.
The Holy Office was inferring that these 'visible cases' of the BOD were explicit exceptions to Fr. Leonard Feeney's understanding of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. We now know that BOD is not relevant to the dogma in any way.It cannot be physically seen.
The Holy Office was implying that someone at that time could see and know people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. We now know that their position was irrational.A speculative case cannot be an exception to all needing to enter the Church in the present times.
The Holy Office was saying that only those who know about Jesus and the Church need to enter to avoid Hell, implying that those in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the dogma. This is a new doctrine based on the irrationality of seeing and knowing people saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water.There are no known cases of someone saved in invincible ignorance.
______________________
Image result for Photos they got it wrong 
It should be sufficient to recall that this happened under the pontificate of the saintly Pope Pius XII, and that the letter of the Holy Office was signed by Cardinal Ottaviani, who was not a liberal either. However, certain good Catholics still try to exculpate Fr. Feeney by saying that the Holy See was misinformed, etc.
Lionel:
Any one who infers that we can see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water is wrong. One does not even have to know theology or be a Catholic to know that this is not objectively true.
Pope Pius XII, Cardinals Ottaviani, Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre were factually wrong.
It is a fact of life that we cannot see people in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water. So there are no known exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma on which is based Catholic exclusivist ecclesiology.
-Lionel Andrades