Jimmy Akin the chief apologist at Catholic Answers and the American sedevacantists Peter and Michael Dimond, interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X, for example, as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism of return.This Catechism would be saying for them that there are known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church ( which they reject) and so these non Catholics could be objective exceptions to the traditional teaching on an ecumenism of return(Syllabus of Errors).
It would mean being saved in invincible ignorance in the Catechism of Pope Pius X, is also an exception to the Council of Trent which supports the old ecclesiology of the Church.1
Then the Council of Trent refers to the case of the catechumen saved with the desire for the baptism of water.The Council of Trent does not state that this is a known person saved outside the Church.It can only be a hypothetical case for us humans.But for Jimmy Akin and the apologists at Catholic Answers and for Peter and Michael Dimond, this case of the catechumen is a known person saved outside the Church.
So the Council of Trent ( baptism of desire) would be a rupture with the old ecclesiology, which says all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.The Council of Trent would also be a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors which supports the past ecclesiology.
They still see the case of the catechumen and the theoretical case of the non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance, as objective people. If they were not objective they would not be an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.
Since they are objective, the Catechism of Pius X contradicts the Syllabus of Errors while the Catechism of the Council of Trent contradicts the past teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and all needing to be members for salvation.
The liberal Jimmy Akin is using the same irrational reasoning as the traditionalists Peter and Michael Dimond.
For me Peter and Michael Dimond are orthodox on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) while Catholic Answers is heretical. Their apologists use an irrational premise to reject the traditional interpretation of EENS. In this way there is a rupture with Tradition( EENS, Syllabus of Errors).
For me BOD, BOB and I.I refer to invisible and hypothetical cases,theoretical speculation with good will and so they are not relevant or exceptions to EENS as it was known to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century. So BOD, BOB and I.I mentioned in the Catechisms( Pius X, Trent etc) do not contradict the Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism of return and neither no salvation outside the Church in other religions.
For Akin and the Dimond brothers, LG 14 ( case of the catechumen) and Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) would be explicit and so are exceptions to EENS and the Syllabus of errors. So the Dimonds reject Vatican Council II and go into sedevacantism while Akins affirms a non traditional and heretical conclusion of Vatican Council II and EENS. He is in schism with the past popes and would be heretical according to the Magisterium of the 16th century.He also ignores Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise.The conclusion would in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS according to Peter and Michael Dimond.
I have e-mailed Jimmy Akin many times about this issue over the last few years but he does not respond.
I do not have to reject Vatican Council II since LG 8, LG14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are hypothetical cases only.Always.
So for me Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. It says all need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7).While the references to hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II(LG 8, G 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc) are not practical exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 or EENS.They can only be hypothetical.In reality they cannot be practical exceptions to EENS since they do not exist in our reality.
Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the Catechisms of Pope Pius X, the Catechism of the Council of Trent or the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX( Quanta Cura) for me.
I mentioned yesterday that sedevacantists Bishops Donald Sanborn and Mark Pivarunas and Fr. Anthony Cekada make the same mistake as Peter and Michael Dimond. They interpret the Catechisms of Pius X and Trent as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. So the Catechisms mentioned on the website Whispers of Restoration would be out of step with the Syllabus of Errors for all of them.I e-mailed these blog posts to Peter and Michael at the MHFM but have received no reply.Neither is there any comment from Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr.Anthony Cekada or Fr. Benedict Hughes the apologist with Bishop Mark Pivarunas' sedevacantist CMRI Catholic religious community.
There is no denial from Peter and Michael Dimond.May be they will now give up sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II and affirm the Council in harmony with extra ecclesia nulla salus.
There is no denial too from Bishop Donald Sanborn and the other sedevacantists.Otherwise they are quick to correct someone with whom they disagree.
It seems as if they agree that they made this mistake.
The sedevacantists like Jimmy Akin and the Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j and ecclesiastics at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, still see the theoretical case of the unknown catechumen and the theoretical case of the non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance, as objective people. If they were not objective they would not be an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.
So since they are objective, the Catechism of Pius X contradicts the Syllabus of Errors while the Catechism of the Council of Trent contradicts the past teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and all needing to be members for salvation.
For the sedevancantists and traditionalists like Chris Ferrara,Louie Verrecchio etc LG 14( case of the catechumen) and Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) would be explicit and so are exceptions to EENS and the Syllabus of errors. So they reject Vatican Council II.There is no denial from the traditionalists too.They agree with me.
They all, traditionalists and liberals, violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.If someone is saved with the baptism of desire, with or without the baptism of water, he cannot be seen on earth and also be in Heaven at the same time.He cannot be at two places.
SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X MISINTERPRETS CATECHISM OF PIUS X
SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X MISINTERPRETS CATECHISM OF PIUS X
The Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) misinterprets the Catechism of Pope Pius X too I mentioned in a blog post 3 and there is no denial from any one in the Society.
Numbers 24 Q and 27Q in the Catechism are Feeneyite.They affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) as it was interpreted by the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.Confusion arises with 29Q which can be interpreted as beingvisible or invisible.The SSPX interprets 29 Q as referring to visible and known non Catholics saved outside the Church. From here the problem in doctrine and theology begins for them with this Catechism which they often quote.
For me 29Q refers to an invisible case.So it is not an exception to 24Q and 27Q.So the Catechism of Pope Pius X is Feeneyite and not Cushingite for me.
24 Q. To be saved, is it enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church?
A. No, to be saved it is not enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church; it is necessary to be a living member.
A. No, to be saved it is not enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church; it is necessary to be a living member.
27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church
A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church
29 Q. But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation. - Catechism of Pope Pius X
A. If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation. - Catechism of Pope Pius X
The SSPX today can choose to re-interpret29Q. It can be re-interpreted as referring to an invisible person.
If 29Q refers to visible cases in 2018, people personally known, who are saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, then 29Q contradicts 24Q and 27Q.Then 29 Q contradicts the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.I call this Cushingism or the Cushingite interpretation of EENS.
Jimmy Akin makes the same mistake as the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX).-Lionel Andrades
1
AUGUST 24, 2018
Peter and Michael Dimond are interpreting the Catechisms of Pope X and the Council of Trent as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/peter-and-michael-dimond-are.html
2.
AUGUST 25, 2018
No denial from sedevacantists : they made a mistake all these years : will they return? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/no-denial-from-sedevacantists-they-made.html
3
AUGUST 21, 2018
Society of St. Pius X misinterprets the Catechism of Pope Pius X : feast day today
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/society-of-st-pius-x-misinterprets.html
Posts
