Wednesday, August 30, 2017

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

Image result for Photo of Pope Paul VI at Mass
Marcel-Lefebvre













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?
Image result for Photo of Traditional Latin Mass

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.
Image result for Photo of Catholic byzantine Greek MassImage result for Photo of Catholic byzantine Greek Mass
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.
Image result for Photo of modernists Catholic churchImage result for Photo of modernists Catholic church
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

Archbishop Lefebvre made major errors like the magisterium of his time

Comment on Gloria TV

Marcel-Lefebvre
Dr.Stuart Reiss, I sympthaze with what is said here.However the hard truth still remaims. Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake when he assumed invisible for us baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) which he rejected and which the magisterium and the SSPX bishops still do today. He was wrong on this point.
2 Then he was wrong in assuming Vatican Council II was a rupture with Tradition since for him LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, AG 11 , AG 7 etc referred to visible persons saved outside the Church even though there were no such people.He was wrong in his interpretation of Vatican Council II.
3.Then he was also wrong, due to ignorance, in not  accepting Vatican Council II and the dogma EENS interpreted without the invisible-visible mix up and so the Council would be in harmony with Tradition.This would have made it easy for the SSPX today to ask for canonical status based on a Council which is not a rupture with Tradition.Also there would have been no reason for his excommunication based on Vatican Council II. The Council would not be an issue.
These are major errors that he let pass through and so Bugini and the others could claim that there was a new spirit in Vatican Council II which was a rupture with the past when really a false premise was being used to change theology, ecclesiology, doctrines and dogma.
So today the SSPX offers the Traditional Latin Mass but with the new theology, the new ecclesiology and new doctrines(For example Lumen Gentium 14 is accepted and so is Cushingite EENS ) which are a rupture with the dogma EENS as it was known when the Tridentine Mass was offered for example , in the 16th century.
It is also a rupture with the ecclesiology of the Greek Byzantine Mass which was offered in the Church before the Tridentine Latin Mass.
I receive the Eucharist on my tongue and I think Bugini should not have made this change approved by ecclesiastical Masonary. I kneel and receive the Eucharist at Mass in Italian.For me there is no known salvation outside the Church, so the ecclesiology of the Church has not changed. I do not use the New Theology and so there is no change in doctrines. The dogma EENS is affirmed by me in the same way as it was done in the 16th century.
So whatever is the liturgy or Rite, which I attend, during Mass there is no rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church, for me. This cannot be said by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf ,Bishop Schneider, Cardinal Burke or Bishop Fellay.It has changed for all of them.-Lionel Andrades

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2017/08/eyewitness-account-of-struggle-over-post-conciliar-liturgical-reform-which-reversed-centuries/