Thursday, March 3, 2016

SSPX must seek an agreement with the Vatican based on rationality

Equally as certain, however, is the mission of the Society as described in Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1974 Declaration:
We hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council.
I am sorry to say it, but this is false. The Archbishop did not hold fast to all that was believed and practised in the faith, with reference to salvation and ecclesiolgy .Since Archbishop Lefebvre was not aware of the irrational observation which was the basis of the new theology expressed in the Baltimore Catechism, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and then Vatican Council II.
Without the irrational observation which is the basis of the new theology; the new ecclesiology- Vatican Council II upholds the traditional ecclesiology.It was there before their eyes but they could not see it because of the irrational inference used to first, change the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and then, to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with this tradtional interpretation.
Lefebvre’s 1974 statement in the face of any abuse of authority that puts at risk the future of the Society and the salvation of souls:
No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for nineteen centuries.
False again.I affirm the magisteriuim of the Catholic Church until before the Council of Trent. I accept the magisterium of the texts and the people ( Curia) before the Council of Trent and including the Council of Trent.I accept the present magisterium of the Church documents i.e  texts.They  include the text of Vatican Council II. I reject the magisterium, the interpretation of Vatican Council II by the present magisterium, which uses an irrational premise.The present magisterium is a break with the pre Council of Trent magisterium and is a break with the text of Vatican Council II, interpreted without the irrational inference.
So I am affirming the perennial magisterium of the Church including Vatican Council II.I interpret them all with Feeneyism i.e there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS.While the contemporary magisterium interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism i.e there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS.So Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) becomes a break with the dogma EENS. 
The present magisterium INFERS that being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire or blood, happens without the baptism of water and these cases are explicit, objectively seen, so now, though these cases are in Heaven they are exceptions on earth to the dogma EENS. In other words they can physically see or know persons in Heaven who are visible, seen in the flesh exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.This is irrational.It is magisterial nonsense. Their whole theology is based on this irrationality.So with this irrational theology the present magisterium interprets Vatican Council II as a break with the strict interpretation of EENS. Since this is irrational and heretical on the part of the Vatican Curia, I reject it.
The Argentinian prelate then voiced his reservations for a profound doctrinal reason: “They still wish above all to make us accept, if only vaguely, if only in principle, Vatican Council II and its errors.”
Yes! And this should be avoided.Do not in principle accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the false inference. There is a choice.There is a rational choice which is also traditional and does not contradict the 'rigorist interpretation' of EENS.
Vatican Council II can be accepted with  either Feeneyism or Cushingism. The SSPX should tell the Vatican that they reject Vatican Council II ( as usual) interpreted with Cushingism and they accept the Council interpreted with Feeneyism. They should ask Archbishop Pozzo, Cardinal Muller and Pope Francis to interpret the Council with rational Feeneyism, to avoid heretical conclusions.
And he added that this Roman desire can be seen on the practical level in the canonical proposal: “There is always, in one way or another, a submission to the Roman dicasteries or to the bishops.”
They all interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism. So they reject the dogma EENS.This means a rejection of the old ecclesiology based on EENS. It is a rejection also of the SSPX General Chapter Statement (2012) which affirmed EENS with no exceptions.
They offer the Novus Ordo and Traditional Latin Mass with the new ecclesiology based on the irrational inference.
Which leads him to declare that personally, he would refuse the Roman proposals: “For me, an agreement with today’s Rome is out of the question.”
An agreement with Rome is possible!
I repeat an agreement with Rome is possible with correct doctrine. They must seek an agreement. Once the Vatican is aware of their irrational interpretation of magisterial documents they can correct the error. This would mean for them, going back to the old ecclesiology.They will be on the defensive instead of the tradtionalists.The SSPX can insist on the Vatican accepting traditional and rational doctrine which does not use false premises and inferences to create a fantasy theology with non traditional, non Catholic results.
Presently the Vatican error is extended to the Nicene Creed which the cardinals use to make a Profession of Faith ,when they take a new office.
When Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J became the Secretary of the CDF, his Oath was full of confusion. To a discerning Catholic it was heretical.
He added that this is a prudential refusal, dictated by the circumstances – in the absence of the necessary warrantees for the life of the Society – and he was careful to distinguish himself from those who make this refusal an absolute.
“We do not refuse, you see, in an absolute and theoretical way the possibility of an agreement with Rome.
Lionel :
They must seek an agreement with Rome but Rome must return to Tradition and it can only do this by avoiding Cushingism in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
They simply have to say what  many religious(Bishop  have already said i.e there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, with or without the baptism of water, are not exceptions.There was a factual mistake made in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case. It was Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits who were in heresy with their 'explicit exceptions to traditional EENS'.It was the Holy Office which was in heresy for condoning it.This was magsiterial heresy which is still there in the Vatican Curia.
That is what distinguishes us from the ‘Resistance’. For them it is a principle. It is a doctrinal question: ‘You cannot admit the possibility of an agreement with Rome without being liberal.’
The Resistance is correct. It is a doctrinal issue. Do you interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism or Feeneyism, as a break with the dogma EENS or supporting the dogma EENS?
How do you interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992). Do you interpret CCC 1257 and 846 with Feeneyism( as I do) or with Cushingism( like Cardinal Ratzinger)?

Such is not our position. It is important to repeat it: it was not Archbishop Lefebvre’s position. He signed a protocol for an agreement with Rome. And at that time, even when he broke it off after the protocol, the Archbishop said: ‘it is because the necessary conditions for our protection, for our survival, are not there.’ Because they wish to deceive us, because they do not wish to give us Tradition, because they wish to bring us over to Vatican II.
Yes. They wanted Archbishop Lefebvre to accept Vatican Council II interpreted with Cushingism. This would be a break with Tradition.
It is because the conditions are not there. He said, ‘If they had granted me the conditions, the conditions I had requested, I would have signed.’
The traditionalists at that time should simply have said that hypothetical cases are not explicit for us in the present times. No  one in the past could have seen any one saved without the baptism of water.So there is no known salvation outside the Church.
There was a mistake made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when it was assumed that the baptism of desire etc were not hypothetical and invisible but real and visible.This was a mistake. The irrational conclusions of this mistake were transferred on to Vatican Council II.
Archbishop Lefebvre said that after the consecration of the bishops. And he explained, ‘If I signed a protocol for an agreement, it was because there was nothing against the faith.’ Neither in the contents, nor in the act of signing. This is obvious. So we continue along these lines.”
 If he signed an agreement he would have been approving Vatican Council II which is a break with Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc). The same thing will happen now if the SSPX does not clarify that they reject Vatican Council II interpreted with Cushingism.
I interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism and I have asked so many pro-SSPX bloggers and supporters if they can find any fault with what I believe.Not one of them has found any doctrinal mistake in my tradtional Catholic beliefs which differs from the Vatican Curia.
-Lionel Andrades