Monday, August 1, 2016

Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops have made a mistake.It is a magisterial error approved by Cardinal Ratzinger as CDF Prefect and now as Pope Benedict XVI

Comments from the blog The Eponymous Flower

susanAugust 1, 2016 at 6:10 AM
your gymnastics are breathtaking.

Lionel:
Susan,
Tancred(The Eponymous Flower) and Prof.Phillip Blosser, professor of Philosophy at the Sacred Heart Seminary Detroit and owner of the blog Musings of a Pertinacious Papist - agree with me.
Even Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson, Fr.S.Visintin osb, Dean of the Theology at the Pontifical University of St.Anselm, Rome and John Martignoni, the apologist at EWTN agree with me. I am not saying anything new or personal.It is obvious that there are no physically known cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.
It is a given that hypothetical cases of being saved in invincible ignorance( LG 16) etc cannot be explicit and objectively known in 2016. So they cannot be relevant or exceptions to all needing faith and baptism; all needing to be formal members of the Church for salvation.



This was a mistake Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops have made.It is a magisterial error approved by Cardinal Ratzinger as CDF Prefect and now as Pope Benedict XVI.

Tancred    August 1, 2016 at 3:59 AM
He's right about this.

APRIL 6, 2016

Yes! I am glad you have understood what I have been saying! Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.The issue comes down to our having no known cases of known salvation outside formal membership in the RCC
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/yes-i-am-glad-you-have-understood-what.html

MARCH 29, 2016
"Thanks for providing this! God bless the Society!", " I agree with much of what Lionel says" http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/thanks-for-providing-this-god-bless.html
http://www.onepeterfive.com/in-his-own-words-cardinal-schonborn-on-exhortations-deepest-concerns/
-Lionel Andrades

Archbishop Lefebvre was correct. Vatican Council II ( with known BOD and I.I) is a rupture with Tradition : He used the premise which was an innovation in salvation theology, in the Fr. Leonard Feeney Boston Case

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/archbishop-lefebvre-was-correct-that.html



https://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2016/07/statements-of-competent-archbishop.html?showComment=1470075372864#c9199240567143615953

Archbishop Lefebvre was correct. Vatican Council II ( with known BOD and I.I) is a rupture with Tradition : He used the premise which was an innovation in salvation theology, in the Fr. Leonard Feeney Boston Case

Comments from the blog The Eponymous Flower : Archbishop Pozzo: Bishop Fellay to Accept Personal Prelature Arrangement


Lionel:
Susan,what's your response to this?

There is no denial from traditionalists and pro SSPX bloggers.Archbishop Lefebvre made a doctrinal mistake.It was an objective mistake.He contradicted common sense and the Principle of Non Contradiction 

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/there-is-no-denial-from-pro-sspx.html
Lionel....read the book.

Lionel:
Susan,
I have read the book.
His reasoning his correct but it is based on the premise of LG 14( known catechumen saved without the baptism of water) and LG 16 ( known person in invincible ignorance saved without the baptism of water).
The key to understanding this is the word 'known'.
Without the word 'known' LG 14, LG 16, LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 etc would not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the Syllabus of Errors on non Christian and non Catholic religions.
With 'known' cases of the baptism of desire etc the doctrine on salvation was changed in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Then the same reasoning was used in Vatican Council II.
I was in communication last week with two lay members of the SSPX, speakers and writers.They agreed that we cannot see the soul of any one in 2016.This is something obvious.They agreed there there were no baptism of desire cases in 2016.
So I asked them if I could quote them saying this, which is obvious to about every one.
They both said NO!
They understand!
In Rome a priest cannot be incardinated who says there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire etc.
Rome Vicariate understands!
A priest who offered the Latin Mass for the Militia Christ at the church San Giuseppe a Capo le Case Rome, said just this and I quoted him on my blog.
He was not there for Mass the next week.He got a phone call from Bishop Matteo Zuppi who also them visited the church.
The next time I met that priest he was reticient.
All he said that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire and blood or being saved in invincible ignorance( with or without the baptism of water) in the present times.
Archbishop Lefebvre innocenly overlooked this.
It was the responsibility of Cardinal Rztinger and the CDF to have informed him.
Archbishop Lefebvre was correct that Vatican Council II ( with known BOD and I.I) is a rupture with Tradition and he expresses this view in this book.
He used the premise which was an innovation in salvation theology, in the Fr. Leonard Feeney Boston Case.
-Lionel Andrades

There is no denial from traditionalists and pro SSPX bloggers.Archbishop Lefebvre made a doctrinal mistake.It was an objective mistake.He contradicted common sense and the Principle of Non Contradiction

There is no denial from traditionalists and pro SSPX bloggers.Archbishop Lefebvre made a doctrinal mistake.It was an objective mistake.He contradicted common sense and the Principle of Non Contradiction.
 
Archbishop Lefebvre's Open Letter to Confused Catholics posted on the blog Vox Cantoris did not know of an alternative interpretation to Vatican Council II which had the hermeneutic of continuity and no ambiguity.1
 
He interpreted Vatican Council II with an  irrational premise and conclusion.This is modernism.The same error is repeated by Bishop Bernard Fellay, Bishop Richard Williamson.It is the same with other bishops and many priests.There is no denial from them too.They acknowledge that there is an irrational  premise( there are known cases of the baptism of desire etc) and non traditional conclusion ( physically visible BOD is an explicit exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus). With this innovation, this new premise and conclusion, a new theology was created by the liberals.It is with this new theology that Vatican Council II is interpreted by the SSPX as a break with Tradition, in particular the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.This was overlooked by Archbishop Lefebvre.Traditionalists are still using this modernist theology to interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with the old ecclesiology.
The same irrational reasoning can be seen clearly in Bishop Bernard Fellay's Letter to Friends and Benefactors no.82. 2
-Lionel Andrades
 
 
1.



 
July 31, 2016

Archbishop Lefebvre's Letter to Confused Catholics indicates he did not know of an alternative interpretation of Vatican Council II which had the hermeneutic of continuity and no ambiguity

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/archbishop-lefebvres-letter-to-confused.html
 
 
 Picture
2.