Saturday, June 24, 2017

Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong


[At this point in the original French article, Father Gleize interrupts his reasoning and carries out a long and detailed analysis of the main litigious points of Vatican II – religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism – as well as the Conciliar and Post-Conciliar magisterium, the Novus Ordo Missae and the New Code of Canon Law. He then resumes:]
Lionel: Fr.Jean Marie Gleize the SSPX professor of Ecclesiology at Econe, Switzerland like his counterparts at the Pontifical Universities in Rome has been interpreting Vatican Council II as a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite) since he only understands Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) and doesn't seem to have a clue to Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite). This was the same problem with Archbishop Lefebvre.
So I do not see how theologically he will change his interpretation of Vatican Council II even after he has been informed numerous times about his error. He has no response.
The public profession of the Faith is more important than canonical normality. “ What interests us first of all is to maintain the Catholic Faith. That is our combat. So the canonical question, which is purely exterior and public in the Church, is secondary. What is important is to remain in the Church... in the Church, that is to say in the Catholic Faith of all time and in the true priesthood, and in the true Mass, and in the true sacraments, in the Catechism of all time, with the Bible of all time. That is what interests us. That is what the Church is. To be recognized publicly, that is secondary. So, we mustn't seek secondary things by losing what is fundamental, what is the primary object of our combat ”.
Lionel: He refers to the public profession of the faith in which he will assume invisible for us baptism of desire is a visible exception to the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.Like Pope Benedict XVI he will not affirm Vatican Council II (Feeneyite).

The question can be summed up by asking if it is prudent to place oneself under the authority of the members of the Hierarchy of the Church such as they are in the present situation, that is to say (for the most part) still imbued with false principles which are contrary to the Catholic Faith.
Lionel: He still does not know what are those false principles. Since he like members of the Hierarchy at the Vatican and leaders of the SSPX at Econe, interpret magisterial documents with a false premise.

 The religious liberty of Dignitatis Humanae and the positive secularism of Gaudium et Spes are condemned by Quanta Cura of Pius IX.

Lionel: False. DH is not a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite) and so it is not a break with the past ecclesiocentrism, upon which was based the non separation of Church and State and the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation.
Since there is known salvation outside the Church, as it is for Pope Benedict,DH would be a rupture with EENS (Feeneyite) and the past ecclesiology of the Church.He is a liberal on this issue, without knowing it.It is his irrational theology which creates new doctrine. It is approved by the magisterium.
 The new ecumenical ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium is condemned by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis and Humani Generis because of the absolutely false principle which would like to establish a real distinction between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church.
Lionel: With Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) Lumen Gentium 16,14 and 8 does not contradict Mystici Corporis etc. So there is  no change in the ecclesiology of the Church before and after Vatican Council II.
Since Fr.Gleize only knows of Vatican Council II( Cushingite)there is a rupture with Tradition.

 The ecumenism of Unitatis Redintegratio is condemned by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos.
Lionel: No.It is not condemned with Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).UR 3 is hypothetical and so it is not an explicit exception, or relevant, to the dogma EENS.
Fr.Gleize needs to switch to Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and then his perspective will change.

The collegiality of Lumen Gentium, in that it denies the unicity of the subject of the Primacy, falls under the condemnation of Vatican I.
Lionel: This is his Cushingite interpretation. If there is unity of doctrine and theology with Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite), collegiality is not a problem.There will only be unity when Vatican Council II and EENS is interpreted without invisible cases confused as being visible.

What should our conclusion be? We would simply say that the “Society of Saint Pius X does not have to negotiate a charitable recognition which would save it from a supposed schism. It has the immense honor, after forty years of exclusion, to be able to witness in favor of the Catholic Faith in the Vatican [5]”  ...while we wait for Rome to finally decide to expel the perfidious Conciliar errors from the midst of the faithful .
Lionel:The SSPX like the Vatican has to expel the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the false premise and the Council will change before their eyes.They simply have to try it.There a few thousand reports on the Internet which show the SSPX its 'perfidious Conciliar error'.
Bishop Fellay in a recent comment on extra ecclesiam nulla salus must be suspecting that his theologians do not have it right on the dogma EENS and Vatican Council II. 
An official statement is still awaited.
-Lionel Andrades
VaticanoII un dibattito aperto
October 1, 2013

No comments: