Abp. Lefebvre accepted the false premise and conclusion and so did Pope Paul VI : now without this error the ecclesiology of the Church is exclusivist at all liturgies and Rites

Comment on Gloria TV

Vatican II happened and its accepted as a church council, Archbishop Lefebvre was a father of the council. However he was against the modernists running pell mell in the church. Sad he was excommunicated when he stood against this current.

Lionel:

Let me try another approach.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney states:-

Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church as a member.- Letter of the Holy Office 1949

This was accepted by Archbishop Lefebvre and Pope Pius VI at Vatican Council II (1965).

Why, in order to obtain eternal salvation, it is not necessary always to be incorporated in the Church as a member?

It is not necessary because baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood (BOB), and invincible ignorance save (I.I) are exceptions, they reasoned.

And why are they exceptions and how are they exceptions?

They are exceptions because there are known people saved outside the Church,they reasoned.

There are people saved with visible to us BOD, BOB and I.I therefore there are exceptions.

So everyone does not need to enter the Church as a member they concluded.

The Letter of the Holy Office says, I repeat:

Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church as a member

This is what all the Catholic priests today believe.

They do not say that everyone in Italy, for example, must become members of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell and there are no exceptions.

There are exceptions for everyone.

So now the question is how can invisible for us baptism of desire (BOD), baptism of blood (BOB), and being saved in invincible ignorance be visible exceptions to all needing to enter the Church for salvation? It cannot.This is irrational.How can people in Heaven saved with BOD, BOB and I.I be visible exceptions to EENS? This is irrational.

Yet the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 has used this premise. It assumes invisible and unknown cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are known and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

How can BOD, BOB and I.I be practical exceptions to EENS? Where are the people in 2017 saved with BOD, BOB and I.I? There are none for us human beings.If they existed they would only be known to God.

So by assuming invisible people are visible the Letter states :-

Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church as a member

Archbishop Lefebvre accepted this false premise and conclusion and so did Pope Paul VI.So there had to be trouble at Vatican Council II. They were using the new theology which says there is known salvation outside the Church( with BOD, BOB and I.I being visible) so the dogma EENS has been rejected.In 1965 the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney was stll not lifted by Archbishop Cushing.

All this can be changed now (2017) if we ask ourself what if we can interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with invisible cases just being invisible ? What if BOD, BOB and I.I refer to only hypothetical and not explicit cases? What will be the conclusion?

The conclusion would be dramatic.

Firstly the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake.Invisible for us BOD, BOB and I.I are not exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and so there is no change in the Churc's old teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation.No change.

Secondly it means LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3 etc refer to hypothetical and not objective cases in 2017. So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the old interpretation of EENS.VC 2 does not contradict the missionaries of the 16th century on EENS.

So if the old interpretation of EENS is intact once again then it means there is no change in the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. There can be no change in ecumenism and all non Catholics and non Christians would need to be formal members of the Church to avoid Hell. Since outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.The proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King would be a priority with Feeneyite EENS.

Vatican Council II would no more be trouble for the SSPX. The Council is Traditional. It is in harmony with EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.The SSPX can ask for canonical status.

It means the ecclesiology of the Church is exclusivist at all liturgies and Rites.

Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger did not know all this since for them it was :

that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church as a member.

So it is the same Vatican Council II today but the interpretation is different for the SSPX and for me. For me those who accept the 1949 mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office are modernists.

The line in red above is heresy. It contradicts the dogma EENS as it was known to the magisterium in the 16th century and to the Church Councils which defined EENS.

Archbishop Lefebvre knew there was something wrong with the interpretation of the Council and he was correct here. He did not know the specific cause was mixing up what is invisible as being visible, what is unknown as being known and then drawing conclusions from this false premise.So his interpretation of the Council , and that of the magisterium at that time, had to be a rupture with Tradition and rationality.

-Lionel Andrades

AUGUST 30, 2017

Archbishop Lefebvre made major errors like the magisterium of his time

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/08/archbishop-lefebvre-made-major-errors.html