Friday, June 29, 2018

Repost : More nonsense on Rorate Caeili

JANUARY 20, 2014

More nonsense on Rorate Caeili

From  Rorate Caeili with comments.
Ecce quam bonum et quam iucundum...
The division of the Traditional Catholic world was a master stroke by the enemies of the 1962 Missal and of the Roman Catechism. They have managed to sow discord between friends and to establish fratricidal hatred among priests who used to march together hand in hand. The first group began to treat their brothers as radicals, the second called the others sellouts. The former were convinced that those who remained under Abp. Lefebvre would soon fall in total schism, and the latter thought with certitude that their former brothers would abandon both Mass and Catechism.

What can we say more than a quarter-century later? That, on both sides, these judgments were, in great measure, overreactions.

On its own side, for all its known problems, the Society of Saint Pius X did not become schismatic or a parallel "church". It has always kept contacts with Rome and has made what it considered necessary in order to regularize its situation with the successive popes, even if, for reasons that its superiors considers prudential (and with which we ourselves may prudentially disagree), regularization has not been achieved for the moment. On the other side, the Ecclesia Dei communities never abandoned the Traditional Mass, nor traditional Catechesis.
Lionel: Vatican Council II is in perfect agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors and New Catholic at Rorate Caeili is not permitted to discuss this issue by the Jewish Left.He received a phone call from the Reformed Rabbi who teaches Ecumenism at the  University of St.Thomas Aquinas, Rome. New Catholic is permitted to say that Vatican Council II is a break with the past. This is the liberal,left position.He is not permitted to say that Vatican Council II supports  the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.So he does not discuss this subject.
Rorate reports the same nonsense about  Vatican Council II being a break with the past. Obviously it would be a break with the past if you assume all salvation mentioned in the Council are visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.If you can see the dead in Heaven, and on earth, who are now saved in invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word, imperfect communion with the Church and good and holy things in other religions, then the Council will be a break with the dogma and the past.
So 'the traditional Catechesis' is 'never  abandoned' by Rorate  except with reference to Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949.

 It must be said in all honesty: on the side of the SSPX, recognition of the Pope remains, and the desire for its work to be recognized is still sought, according to different measures that vary from person to person. On the side of the Ecclesia Dei communities, there remains a disapproval of the new Mass (regardless of the fact that it is considered both valid and legitimate) and of the alteration of traditional doctrine, both of which are also expressed differently from person to person. The exceptions within these groups confirm the rule in both communities.
Lionel: 'the alteration of traditional doctrine'
It is Rorate Caeili which alters traditional doctrine when it assumes all references to salvation in Church texts are visible to us. So the baptism of desire etc is a visible exception to the traditional catechesis.
A problem has been that, throughout the years, some religious authorities, while the situation remained by itself already quite confusing, proclaimed fatwas, dogmatizing attitudes that would require a certain pliancy and lots of understanding. We heard, for instance: "Visiting the SSPXers? Don't even think about it, or you'll be excommunicated!" Or still: "Go to a Mass with those sellouts? You'll lose your faith there!"
Lionel:  Which of the following two interpretations is  sell out for New Catholic ?
1. If you say Vatican Council II does contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition on the issue of other religions and Christian communities and churches, it means you consider all salvation, referred to in Vatican Council II as beingvisible to usexplicit on earth and Heaven. It is true the Council does contradict the dogma.The Council would contradict the dogma when this irrational premise is used!
2.If you say Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition on the issue of other religions and Christian communities and churches, it means you consider all salvation, referred to in Vatican Council II as beinginvisible to us, on earth.They are hypothetical cases, possibilities, known only to God. It is true Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma.The Council would not contradict the dogma when the irrational premise is not used!
Obviously the first interpretation is a sell out and this is the one held by the SSPX and Rorate Caeili. It is also the one held by the Vatican Curia but we will not have the SSPX pointing it out since they are making the same error.
The irrational interpretation is also heresy.

In the documentary on the life of Abp. Lefebvre which was recently released in America, a famous professor and journalist, Jean Madiran, who had distanced himself from the SSPX in 1988, made nonetheless this brave declaration regarding the Lefebvre consecrations: "It is hard for me to say today that he was mistaken." Since he passed away in 2013, it is, at least in a small way, his testament. That the most famous French layman of the Traditionalist struggle is willing to affirm this soon before dying should make us ponder. Many faithful in the young generation refuse this mutual demonization whose only motivation seems to be the fear of having some sheep escape to the neighboring pasture.

Now, is this text an appeal to mix everything up? Absolutely not. May each one continue to advance in one's own post. The scenario that has come up in the past few decades, even more so after the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of Benedict XVI, is the worst thing that the Progressives could have imagined considering the very dire circumstances of the 1969-1988 period:
Lionel: The Progressives like the SSPX use the irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and both sides seem unaware of it. Among those who are aware, there are Catholics who do not want to affirm in public the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So they are not going to say Vatican Council II is in harmony with Fr.Leonard Feeney. and there is no contradiction.
 a Society of Saint Pius X that remains somewhat strong, and that keeps presenting to Rome its doctrinal misgivings;
Lionel: The 'doctrinal misgivings' are part of the Society of St.Pius X position as it is that of Rome. In the Vatican-SSPX talks neither did Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J nor Fr.Jean Marie Gleize (SSPX) mention that salvation referred to in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II are not known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation. Neither has Rorate Caeilicorrespondents have ever referred to this.They will not even discuss it.
 and Ecclesia Dei communities that spreaded out throughout the world, slowly but surely, and with great determination, making clear to the bishops every single day what the Church has always willed and stood for, especially in liturgical matters.
Lionel: In liturgical matters the Church does not say there is any Church- document which contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Rorate implies Vatican Council II does just this.Vatican Council II does not state that there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Are not both in a way the heirs of Marcel Lefebvre, who unfailingly asked for the "experience of Tradition" to be allowed?
Lionel: It is not part of 'the experience of tradition' before the 1940's to claim that those saved with the baptism of desire are explicit, objectively known, visible in the flesh and not hypothetical cases.
Now then, what is to be done in the future? The forceful proclamation of the faith!
Lionel: One first has to have it! Something foreign, something new has been added to the faith since the 1940's in Boston. It was the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits there who were part of the Boston Heresy. They suggested there were known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
And to work cum et sub Petro without complaining!
Lionel: Rorate could inform Petro that all salvation referred to in Vatican Council II is implicit, hypothetical, accepted in theory. They are possibilities but not defacto known, visible on earth and explicit for us. So Vatican Council II is traditional on the issue of other religions and Christian communities (AG 7) unless one uses irrationality in the interpretation; unless one claims that the dead now in Heaven are visible to us.
 May the fans of the Ecclesia Dei and Summorum Pontificumcommunities not be afraid of the first response.
Lionel: Odds are that those fans like New Catholic imply they can see the dead in Heaven.
 And may those of the Society of Saint Pius X not shy away from the second. In times of troubled waters and unknown obstacles, the unity of all like minded traditional Catholics is essential, with mutual tolerance and acceptance.
Lionel:  Catholic doctrine does not change. There cannot be unity with irrationality like a visible to us baptism of desire, or explicitly known cases in 2014 saved in invincible ignorance, who are supposed to be 'known' exceptions to Tradition.
The SSPX (N.America) has published a book by the Angelus Press, which says Pope Pius XII condemned Fr.Leonard Feeney for not accepting the baptism of desire etc as an exception to the dogma.
In spite of being informed many times, the book written by Fr.Francois Laisney has not been pulled down. We just have to accept it  that this is the SSPX ( N.America District) and Rorate Caeli's political position. O.K. Pope Pius XII made an objective mistake according to the SSPX and New Catholic. He assumed there were cases of people saved with the baptism of desire, who are now in Heaven and visible to us on earth. They would have to be visible on earth to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Dr.John Rao who participated in the last Angelus Press Conference (N.America)  was asked two simple questions(1). He refused to answer since he did not want to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Instead he along with John Vennari  kept repeating  the same nonsence about Vatican Council II, which supposes that the dead-saved are visible to us and so the Council is a break with the past.
They are publicly 'respecting' the views of the Jewish Left.
-Lionel Andrades


1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2013 ? Answer: NO

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Answer: THERE ARE NONE.

If Rome is asleep then it is the traditionalists job to get Rome to wake up- John Rao


No comments: