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
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
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!
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.
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
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
If Salza-Siscoe admit something obvious like the baptism of desire case is not visible in 2016 then it would mean Abp.Lefebvre and Bp.Fellay made a factual error
April 23-Sept.11,2014 - still no clarification from the SSPX
Posted by Catholic Mission at 9:23 AM
Labels: False reasoning from the Letter is all over Vatican Council II: Abp Lefebvre did not notice it -3, Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82