Lionel, where does Abp Lefebvre or Bp Fellay have said that there are physically known cases of BOD for those who were not yet canonized by the Church. Show me where these two bishops identified these living BOD people.
Lionel:
For Bishop Fellay and Archbishop Lefebvre hypothetical cases are not hypothetical, invisible people are not visible this is the new theology which they have accepted. It is magisterial and they use it to interpret EENS and Vatican Council II.
On the SSPX website (Three Errors of the Feeneyites/Feeneyism) they matter of factly assume BOD is an exception to EENS. They criticize the Feeneyites for not accepting BOD as an exception and maintaining the strict interpretation of EENS.
They also praise Pope Pius XII and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church, which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949". - Bishop Bernard Fellay (April 13, 2014 ) Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82
Bishop Bernard Fellay says:
The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities.(Lionel: Hullo? Where does it recognise them? Where are they? Where can they be found? What are their names? Who was saved outside the Church? No one for me. So why am I reading LG 8 differently?
For me LG 8 refers to invisible people and so it is not relevant to the dogma EENS,So why did Bishop Fellay mention it and suggest that there were salvific elements outside the Church. For there to be salvifict elements ourside the Church there would have to exist. They would have to be there. They would have to be visible....
______
The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)
Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church, which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949".-Bishop Bernard Fellay
Lionel: Why are they not reconcilable with the Letter of the Holy Office since the Letter also mentions exceptions?
But anyway this is another issue
UR 3 is not an exception to EENS since it refers to hypothetical cases(imperfect communion with the Church(Churches used as a means of salvation etc).
But it is an exception for Bishop Fellay.Otherwise why would he mention it with reference to EENS? They are visible people saved outside the Church.Do you see the indirect inference?
______________________________
The dogma “Outside the Church there is no salvation” has been changed surreptitiously by confused ideas, to the point of altering the statement that the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are identical.
Cardinal Walter Kasper, then-President of the Council for Promoting Christian Unity, saw the new definition of the Church (subsistit in; “subsists in”) as the thing that quite simply made possible the ecumenism that has been promoted since the Council. Coming from a figure like that, this is a fitting admission that should be taken seriously- Bishop Bernard Fellay
Lionel: Subsist it it is not an exception to the dogma EENS for me since it refers to a theoretical situation. There are no cases of people saved as such outside the Church.
For Cardinal Kasper there would be such persons.For him there are known cases of people saved outside the Church.For me these persons would be physically invisible.
So why has Bishop Fellay mentioned this? You know the answer...
He has not corrected Cardinal Kasper and told him that LG 8 does not mention any exceptions to EENS,
_____________________
These are two examples, I could provide you with numerous others. They are all there on my blog.
The next thing I would look out for is the mistake in the book Is Feeneyism Catholic by Fr.Francois Laisnery of the SSPX. It is sold by the Angelus Press of the SSPX.For Fr.Laisney there are exceptions to EENS, BOD is an exception. So if it is an exception, the inference is that it is a physically visible case. Since an invisible person cannot be an exception to EENS.
Then I would look out for the same mistake on the SSPX official website.See the subject Feeneyism. It is there on my blog.I have reviewed it.
Then I would look out for the book written by Fr. Jean Marie Gleize, the professor of Ecclesiology at Econe who has written a book in Italian, on Vatican Council II and has made the same mistake. It is there on my blog.
There are so many examples!!!!
Archbishop Lefebvre accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 so he accepted the same error.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment