Sunday, July 17, 2016

SSPX announce that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism and Rome can do the same and so come back to Tradition

Statement of SSPX Superior-general Bp. Fellay 

Communiqué from the Superior General to All Members of the Society of Saint Pius X at the conclusion of the meeting of major superiors in Anzère (Valais), June 28 2016
[Made public on July 16,2016]

For the glory of God,
for the honor of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Most Holy Mother,
for our salvation.

In the present grave state of necessity in the Church, which gives it the right to administer spiritual aid to the souls that turn to it, the Society of Saint Pius X does not seek above all a canonical recognition, to which it has a right because it is Catholic.
Lionel: It does not accept Vatican Council II, Cushingite, interpreted with an irrational premise; interpreted with hypothetical cases being objectively visible in 2016, for them to be objective and real exceptions, to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation.
Neither does it acknowledge or accept Vatican Council II, Feeneyite, interpreted without the irrational premise; interpreted with hypothetical cases being invisible in 2016 for them to be objective exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation.
It is with this doctrinal confusion, doctrinal heresy, that it sought canonical status.It is making the same doctrinal error as the contemporary magisterium and is not aware of it.

 The solution is not simply juridical. It depends on a doctrinal position that it is imperative to express.
Lionel: The solution depends on a doctrinal position that it is imperative to express,agreed!

When Saint Pius X condemned modernism, he traced the whole argument of the encyclical Pascendi back to one initial principle: independence. Now the world makes all its efforts to change the axis around which it must turn. And it is obvious to Catholics, as it is to those who are not, that the Cross is no longer that axis. Paul VI said it very well: man is (See Closing Speech of Vatican II, December 7, 1965).

Today the world turns around this, according to him, definitively established axis: human dignity, man’s conscience and freedom. Modern man exists for his own sake. Man is the king of the universe. He has dethroned Christ. Man exalts his autonomous, independent conscience, to the point of dissolving even the very foundations of the family and marriage.
Lionel: The SSPX's new theology, based on the irrational premise,does the same. Theologically it rejects the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation( since there are exceptions), it changes the Nicene Creed(with the exceptions of the baptism of desire etc),it  rejects the Athanasius Creed since it rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which does not mention any exceptions.It interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism and is not aware of the rational choice of a Vatican Council II interpreted with traditional Feeneyism.

The Society of Saint Pius X has always opposed this project of deconstruction of the universe, both the political society, and the Church.

To remedy this universal disorder, the Good Lord raised up a man, a Christian, a priest, a bishop. What did he do? He founded a society—a hierarchical society—the principle and end of which are just the antidote to this universal disorder: The Sacrament of Holy Orders. The purpose of the Society of Saint Pius X continues to be not only the actual remedy of the crisis but also thereby the salvation of all who cooperate in it. The Society is determined to keep doctrinal, theological and social rectitude, founded on the Cross of Jesus Christ, on His Kingship, on His sacrifice, and on His priesthood, the principle of all order and of all grace. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre fought his whole life long for the triumph of these fundamental truths. It is incumbent on us at the present hour to redouble our efforts and to intensify the same fight on the same principles.
Lionel: Archbishop Lefebvre in an oversight interpreted Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the theology of Cushingism instead of Feeneyism. This is modernism.
Even the community of Fr.Leonard Feeney, in the USA, the St. Benedict Centers, who are criticized by SSPX and FSSP priests, interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism.However the St.Benedict Centers, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary interpret the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, with Feeneyism.
So the SSPX, the SBC, the sedevacantists  and the contemporary magisterium are making the same error on Vatican Council II.They are not interpreting the Council with rational Feeneyism.

We are not “conciliarists”: for they deny that Christ’s cross is the world’s axis; neither are we dissenters who reject the social nature of the Church. We are a Society of priests of Jesus Christ, of the Catholic Church.
Lionel:This is a society which interprets magisterial documents with an objective error.Even after repeatedly pointing it out to them there is no comment.

Is this truly the moment for the general restoration of the Church?
Lionel: Yes.It could be the moment when the SSPX, SBC, sedevacantists, cardinals and bishops affirm Vatican Council II and EENS with rational Feeneyism i.e there are no  explicit cases of the baptism of desire etc, hypothetical cases cannot be explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS and there are no known cases of persons now in Heaven saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since no one could have humanly known of these cases.

 Divine Providence does not abandon its Church, the head of which is the Pope, the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
Lionel: Divine Providence has not abandoned the Church but is waiting for the SSPX Superior General to catch up with the doctrinal error being made and to humbly correct it.
 This is why an indisputable sign of this restoration will be the express desire will of the Supreme Pontiff to grant the means with which to reestablish the order of the priesthood, of the faith, and of Tradition, sign which will moreover be the guarantee of the necessary unity of the family of Tradition.
Lionel: If the Holy Father recognises the SSPX with canonical status it will be because the SSPX like the Holy Father is interpreting Vatican Council II with irrational, non traditional and heretical Cushingism. The SSPX could announce that they accept Vatican Council II interpreted with Feeneyism and they should ask Rome to do the same and so come back to the true Faith.-Lionel Andrades

Christus regnat,
Christus imperat,
Deo gratias,

+ Bernard Fellay
Anzère, 28 June 2016
on the vigil of the Apostles Peter and Paul

[Source: SSPX news agency DICI]

When the Council is interpreted with the new theology, which is based on an irrational premise, there are dogmatic and doctrinal changes.It is a break with the pre-Council of Trent magisterium of the Catholic Church.

From Louie Verrecchio's blog:

Una Voce Reflection on Vatican II

Vatican II Image
Una Voce Miami has produced a reflection on the Second Vatican Council entitled, Vatican Council II: A bridge that unites or a wedge that divides?  ...
Lionel: For Una Voce and Louie Verrecchio, Vatican Council II divides Catholics.Since they both use an irrational premise to interpret the Council as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They produce a new ecclesiology,based on the irrational premise which is part of the new theology,  and then they wrongly condemn Vatican Council II for it.

Below I will include portions of the Reflection in bold, with my suggestions as to how the statement might be better worded in italics.
The council did not define or reformulate any question of faith or of revealed truth; it merely proposed pastoral suggestions relying, when it came to doctrinal matters, almost entirely on the perennial Magisterium of the Church.
Lionel: When the Council is interpreted with the new theology, which is based on an irrational premise, there are dogmatic and doctrinal changes.It is  a break with the pre-Council of Trent magisterium of the Catholic Church.
While it is true that the Council did not formally define or reformulate doctrine (indeed, it neither had nor claimed the authority to do so), it most certainly did set forth propositions that amount to a reformulation of the faith such as it had perennially been taught and understood to that point; e.g., with respect to the salvific nature of the heretical communities, the Church’s relationship with the Jews, the right to religious freedom, etc.
Lionel: These are changes in doctrine.By avoiding the irrational premise and the new theology, which is used by the SSPX, I can interpret Vatican Council II in line with the old ecclesiology.The old ecclesiology is  based on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus having no exceptions.
So now we have two faiths in the Catholic Church. Those who interpret Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents with an irrationality have created a new faith.The fault is not there with Vatican Council II once you are aware of the irrational premise.Re-interpret the Council without it.-Lionel Andrades

Their faith and my faith : Sacred Heart Seminary, Detroit

I have e-mailed the faculty at the Sacred Heart Seminary, Detroit posts from this blog on the debate between Bishop Sanborn and Dr.Robert Fastiggi, professor of theology.I invited their comments.This is quite some time back. I had also sent reports to the Rector of the Seminary. Also to Ralph Martin who is on the faculty.
Ralph Martin's book was displayed by Christine Niles on a Download program.But that book has a flaw.
It assumes that hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and blood, and being saved in invncible ignorance refer to objective cases in the present times. Then it is further assumed that these cases exclude the baptism of water.Then it is concluded by Ralph Martin that these hypothetical cases are exceptions to the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
So Ralph Martin does not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus nor Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 which says all need faith and baptism for salavtion.
This is the understanding of 'Church' for the rest of the faculty and also the Archbishop of Detroit.
How can we know of someone saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church in 2016 ?. How could any one in the past also know of someone saved without the baptism of water, who would be an exception to EENS, in the present times. For example how could Cardinal Francesco Marchetti who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assume that the baptism of desire as a known case, explicitly visible without the baptism of water, for it to be an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS?. He could not know!If there was such a case it would only be known to God.
Similarly the faculty of the Catholic seminary in Detroit cannot know of an excepton to the dogma EENS in 2016.So this was the flaw in Martin's book.
The book was praised by the Archbishop Augustine Di Noia at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Ecclesia Dei. Di Noia when asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus, by Edward Pentin, in an interview, said he knows of some Protestants/Anglicans who will be going to Heaven outside the Church.How is this possible? How can he know someone who will not commit a mortal sin before death,Catholic or Protestant?. How can we judge the soul of someone and say he will be going to Heaven without entering the Catholic Church or he has gone to Heaven without being a Catholic ?
So it was understandable that Di Noia would read Martin's books since both of them were using philosophical subjectivism.They were judging invisible cases of the baptism of desire which is impossible. Then then  conclude that these cases are known in real life and would be exceptions to traditional EENS.
This is their ecclesiology at Mass and it is a break with the pre- Council of Trent ecclesiology since they use this irrationality.
So now we have two faiths at Holy Mass.We have Archbishop Di Noia, Ralph Martin, Dr. Fastiggi and the Rector of the seminary attending Holy Mass assuming there are exceptions to EENS, while I attend Mass knowng there are no explicit exceptions to EENS. These are examples of two different belief systems. Differences in doctrine. Differences in Catholic faith at the same Mass.
Then they all assume that Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) is a break with the dogma EENS while I assume it is not.Again we see differences in doctrine. It is the same liturgy that we can both attend but our faith is different.
They interpret EENS and Vatican Council II with the premise of hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire being explicit in 2016 while I avoid this premise.
So is it the same Catholic faith? No.
Their position reflects the innovation in the Church, from the second part of the Letter(1949) which has been accepted by the contemporary magisterium.My position reflects the first part of the Letter ( 1949) which is a continuation of the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS, according to the pre-Council of Trent magisterium.
If they avoid the premise and the non traditional conclusion they could attend Mass with the old faith, with my faith.
-Lionel Andrades