Latin Mass Society of England and Wales and the SSPX have changed theology and doctrine on salvation Joseph Shaw agrees

I mentioned in a post on this blog (May 6,2018)1 that the Latin Mass Society(LMS) of England and Wales 2 and specifically the Chairman of the LMS Dr. Joseph Shaw, professor of philosophy at Oxford has changed the teachings of the Catholic Church on salvation in doctrine and practice and have accepted it since it is magisterial for the present two liberal popes.So today there is a rupture with the ecclesiology of their Latin Mass and that of the Tridentine Rite Mass in for example, in the 16th century. The rubrics/rituals may be the same but the theology and doctrines are the same as those at the Novus Ordo Mass in 2018.

I don't expect them to answer since I have said the same thing before and received no reply. It is the same with the SSPX.This is also the theological and doctrinal position of Una Voce.

I recall some years back Louis Tofari at the SSPX, USA Public Relations office saying confidently that the SSPX rejects Feeneyism and so he has nothing more to say.The same is said by the liberals.They tell me 'the Church' has rejected Feeneyism and the traditionalists are on the same wavelength as them.

 So for all of them Fr.  Leonard Feeney of Boston would  be heretical and the Letter of  the Holy Office 1949, orthodox.This was also the theology of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger when he was the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. This seemed the theology of Pope Pius XII and it was also supported by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.So it would be rational for all of them to assume invisible cases of the baptism of desire etc are visible exceptions to traditional EENS. This is the common view in the Church even today.

Since the LMS and SSPX reject Feeneyism they imply that there are known people saved outside the Church.Otherwise how could there be exceptions to dogma outside the Church there is no salvation? So this is the common inference.This is the understanding of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 i.e invisible cases of the baptism of desire etc are visible exceptions to Feeneyite and traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus. 

There is no denial from Dr. Joseph Shaw.He is not a Feeneyite and so invisible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 14) are visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for him. 
But not for me. LG 14 does not contradict EENS for me.References to hypothetical cases are not concrete and defacto known, in the present times.
Here is our understanding of the Catholic faith.

1) Invisible- for- Shaw baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known for example to the missionaries and Magisterium in the 16th century.

1) I Lionel, affirm invisible for me BOD, BOB and I.I and so they are not exceptions or relevant to  EENS for me. So I can attend the Latin Mass with the same ecclesiology as the Mass in the 16th century, but the LMS and the SSPX do not have permission to do the same.I also attend the Novus Ordo Mass with the same ecclesiology as Mass in the 16th century.

2) Similarly invisible for him LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, etc are visible exceptions to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So Vatican Council II is a rupture with EENS as it was known to the Jesuits in the Middle Ages. Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition for the LMS and SSPX. Since there is known salvation outside the Church for them the old exclusivist ecclesiology is obsolete. Upon this old ecclesiology depended the ecumenism of return. So the Syllabus of Errors has also been made obsolete.

2) For me invisible and unknown cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2 etc are not visible and known in particular cases. So Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the old ecclesiology of the Church.There is no known salvation outside the Catholic Church, for us humans, in 2018.There are no exceptions to EENS or the Syllabus of Errors for me. The traditional ecclesiology of the Church before and after Vatican Council II is the same. However the LMS is not permitted to affirm this.

So there is a change in theology and doctrine on salvation for the LMS, SSPX and cardinals and bishops in Britain. 

There is no denial from them.

This is interesting since Joseph Shaw was the spokesman for the Correctio Filialis, 3 which was concerned about a change in moral theology and the rejection of the doctrines of the Catholic Church by Pope Francis.

-Lionel Andrades

1.

MAY 6, 2018

Latin Mass Society Press Release : The LMS denies the Faith on salvation, in principle and in doctrine, in practice and pastorally

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/05/excommunication-of-sspx-faithful-lms.html

2.

https://lms.org.uk/

3.

Saturday, September 23, 2017

With profound grief... A filial correction.

St Catherine of Siena before Pope Gregory XI

Update: to add your name (the public list will be moderated, i.e. we are looking especially for signatories with academic qualifications etc.) please email

info@correctiofilialis.org

or go to Change.org to support the petition.

With profound grief, but moved by fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ, by love for the Church and for the papacy, and by filial devotion toward yourself, we are compelled to address a correction to Your Holiness on account of the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia and by other words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness.

We are permitted to issue this correction by natural law, by the law of Christ, and by the law of the Church, which three things Your Holiness has been appointed by divine providence to guard.

By natural law: for as subjects have by nature a duty to obey their superiors in all lawful things, so they have a right to be governed according to law, and therefore to insist, where need be, that their superiors so govern. 

By the law of Christ: for His Spirit inspired the apostle Paul to rebuke Peter in public when the latter did not act according to the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2). St Thomas Aquinas notes that this public rebuke from a subject to a superior was licit on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith (Summa Theologiae 2a 2ae, 33, 4 ad 2), and ‘the gloss of St Augustine’ adds that on this occasion, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects” (ibid.). 

The law of the Church also constrains us, since it states that “Christ’s faithful . . . have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence, and position, to manifest to the sacred pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church” (Code of Canon Law 212:2-3; Code of Canons of Oriental Churches 15:3).

I am a signatory of the document which begins with these words, and also its spokesman. You can read the full text on Rorate Caeli, and on a specially made website, http://correctiofilialis.org/ [corrected]. See also 1Peter5's commentary.

http://www.lmschairman.org/2017/09/with-profound-grief-filial-correction.html