SSPX was excommunicated because Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops were not aware of the Richard Cushing error

EXCOMMUNICATION OF ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE A MISTAKE

Updated since October 9, 2012 

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/the-sspx-was-excommunicated-because.html

_____________________________

According to Chris Ferrara there are no practical exceptions to the dogma EENS.

According to John Martignoni zero cases of something cannot be exceptions to the dogma EENS.

According to Fr. Stefano Visintinosb,Vice Rector of the PontificalUniversity of St.Anselm, Rome,BOD and I.I are not exceptions to EENS.

So who was in heresy, Fr. Leonard Feeney or the Archbishop and Jesuits in Boston?

Mons. Ignacio Barreiro has said that there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS in the present times.This is common knowledge. 

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) was excommunicated because Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger did not mention an error in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case which spread throughout the Church. It resulted in the interpretation of the Council which was heretical. It denied the dogma on salvation. He did not know that as Chris Ferrar says that there are no practical exceptions to the dogma EENS.

Pope John Paul II, Archbishop Lefebvre and the four SSPX bishops did not as John Martignoni says, that zero cases of something cannot be exceptions to the dogma EENS.

Even Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI did not know like Fr. Stefano Visintin osb says that the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance are not exceptions to EENS since there are no known cases for them to be exceptions.

The whole process can now be rectified since the problem is in the interpretation and not in the actual texts of Vatican Council II. From the text one can make wrong or correct inferences depending on one of two premises. The premises are 1. The dead for us now saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church  are visible to us 2. the dead for us now saved allegedly without the baptism of water are not visible to us. 

If Cardinal Ratzinger had realized that the problem originated with Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston in the 1940’s, he could have prevented the formation of the SSPX. It was Cardinal Richard Cushing who broke with tradition and created the new doctrine of the explicitly known (formerly implicit) baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. What rationally and traditionally was always considered implicit and known only to God, he posited it as being known to us and so an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma.1

The popes and cardinals at the Vatican supported Cardinal Richard Cushing–from the 1940’s until today. Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith also accepted that the baptism of desire is an explicit exception to the traditional understanding of the dogma, worse still, that we can see the dead alive.

May be he did not realize it, since superficially the baptism of desire seems like an exception to the dogma. Many Catholics make this innocent mistake. I also did so at one time.

If the error was identified at the time of the SSPX split, Vatican Council II could be projected as a traditional Council with no known cases of the visible dead who are saved and who are exceptions to the dogma according to St. Francis Xavier, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Robert Bellarmine, St.Maximillian Kolbe, St. Anthony Mary Claret…

When the ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is ecclesiolcentric, as in the past centuries, then its values on other religions, ecumenism an religious liberty is traditional and according to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

At the time of the SSPX excommunication they could not identify the visible-dead virus which was the cause of liberalism and dissent.

With the visible-dead theory accepted, there remained only one interpretation of Vatican Council II which was a break from tradition. It was rejected by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvere.

Fr.Aldo Rossi, Prior, of the SSPX, Albano, Italy has said has said that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So who was in heresy, Fr. Leonard Feeney or the Archbishop and Jesuits in Boston and the Holy Office in 1949 ?

So  when Archbishop Guido Pozzo Vatican Council II will not be interpreted as a break with Tradition. This is false. In principle the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith can only accept Vatican Council II with Cushingism.So there is no continuity with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), Syllabus of Errors etc. So with this deception he is really justifying the unjust excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre by Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II.Archbishop Lefebvre was correct. Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) does not have a continuity with the past, notwithstanding what Archbishop Pozzo says today.

Archbishop Pozzo could clarify that the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre, since he did not accept Vatican Council II and ordained four new bishops in opposition to the Cushingite Council, was a mistake.

-Lionel Andrades

1.

The SSPX was excommunicated because Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops were not aware of the Richard Cushing error http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/the-sspx-was-excommunicated-because.html