There is denial from the SSPX priests at Albano, Italy.
They make the same error as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
They interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
I had mentioned in a previous blog post that :
Since invisible cases of the 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) for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, he rejected Feeneyite EENS.
So he was saying that everyone needs to enter the Church as a member for salvation except for those saved outside the Church with BOD,BOB and I.I.The popes and the liberals say the same.
Since hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I were exceptions to EENS he used the same reasoning to interpret Vatican Council II as was common in 1965.
Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) etc were exceptions to EENS.But here instead of accepting Unitatis Redintigratio 3 etc as being a break with EENS and an ecumenism of return( as he had accepted BOD, BOB and I.I) he criticizes UR 3 etc, for being a rupture with an ecumenism of return.Bishop Fellay does the same today.
Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) etc were exceptions to EENS.But here instead of accepting Unitatis Redintigratio 3 etc as being a break with EENS and an ecumenism of return( as he had accepted BOD, BOB and I.I) he criticizes UR 3 etc, for being a rupture with an ecumenism of return.Bishop Fellay does the same today.
It was clear for Archbishop Lefebvre Protestants and non Christians needed to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.But he accepted cases of BOD, BOB and I.I with reference to EENS but he could not accept hypothetical cases of UR 3 etc in Vatican Council II with reference to an ecumenism of return.
Hypothetical cases ( UR 3, LG 16 etc) were non hypothetical for him.He must have been confused, though obedient to the popes, like the rest of the Church.
But hypothetical cases of invincible ignorance for example, mentioned in the Catechism of Pope Pius X would be an exception to the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX on an ecumenism of return and no salvation outside the Church.
The Catechism of Pope Pius X would contradict the Syllabus for Archbishop Lefebvre.Also this Catechism would contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. Since for him BOD, BOB and I.I were already exceptions to EENS.
This is also how the SSPX priests in Italy interpret Vatican Council II. It would be the same for the new Superior General Davide Pagliarani who is also from Italy.
I have mentioned in answer to a question :
The Catechism refers those saved in invincible ignorance.
Being saved in invincible ignorance is an exception to the dogma EENS for Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX.
The Syllabus of Errors affirms EENS.
The Syllabus of Errors also affirms an ecumenism of return.
The Syllabus of Errors also affirms the past exlusivist ecclesiology upon which was based the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King.
So when invincible ignorance is assumed to be known people saved outside the Church it would be an exception to the Syllabus of Errors on EENS.
So the Catechism of Pope Pius X would contradict the Syllabus of Errors for Archbishop Lefebvre.
The Catechism of Pope Pius X would also contradict itself for the Archbishop. Since this Catechism says all need to be members of the Church for salvation. It does not state that invincible ignorance is an exception to all needing to be members of the Church.But this is how Archbishop Lefebvre and the present SSPX and liberal Cushingites would interpret it.It would be the same for the St.Benedict Center who interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS.
For the SSPX in the Catechism of the Catholic Church n.1257( The Necessity of Baptism) would also contradict itself. Since it says the Church knows of no means to eternal beatiude other than the baptism of water and also says God is not limited to the Sacraments.
So the SSPX have to admit that they have made a mistake in the interpretation of the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the Syllabus of Errors. The same mistake they made in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment