SSPX on 'Heresy Open Letter': "A Radical Approach Doomed to Failure"
We post it here for the record of events of this tumultuous pontificate.
Regarding the Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic ChurchMAY 17, 2019On Tuesday, April 30, 2019, twenty or so Catholic theologians and university professors published an Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church, inviting them to intervene with Pope Francis, to ask him to renounce the heresies of which he is accused. In case he persists, the canonical crime of heresy would be established, and the pope would then be “subject to the canonical consequences.” The summary published by the authors explains this last point: if Francis obstinately refuses to renounce his heresies, the bishop will then be asked to declare “that he is freely divested of the papacy.”
This summary also explains that this Letter is the third step of a process that began in the summer of 2016. The first consisted of a private letter with 45 signatories, addressed to all the cardinals and eastern patriarchs and denouncing the heresies or grave errors held or supported by the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. The second step presented a text titled Correctio filialis (Filial Correction), signed by 250 participants, made public in September 2017 and supported by a petition signed by 14,000 persons. It asked the pope to take a position on the grave deviations produced by his writings and his declarations. Finally, the present Open Letter, claims that Pope Francis is guilty of the crime of heresy and endeavors to prove it, because Pope Francis’ words and actions constitute a profound rejection of Catholic teaching on marriage, moral law, grace, and the forgiveness of sins. Already more than 5,000 people have signed the petition put online by the authors.This initiative reveals the growing irritation and exasperation of many Catholics in the face of the writings and acts of the current Sovereign Pontiff. And certainly, there is good reason to worry when faced with Pope Francis’ teaching in moral matters. Moreover, there is a greater disturbance in Catholic opinion today over an error in this domain, than duplicity against the Faith. But the pope’s teaching is also deviant—if not more so—in matters of Faith.
Lionel : Yes on the issue of faith and salvation there is enough proof that both the popes have rejected ex cathedra teachings of the past and even changed the Creeds and Catechisms. The proof is there on line.But the error could be one of ignorance. Since the Cushingite mistake is common in the Church.Even the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) is guilty.
_________________________
Faced with an apparently unprecedented situation—although Church history, unfortunately, offers examples of time periods that were singularly troubled and close enough to ours—the temptation to resort to extreme measures can be easily understood. The situation of Catholicism is today so tragic, that only with difficulty could one condemn Catholics who try the impossible by reacting to and calling out the pastors to whom the flock is entrusted.The Fruits of the CouncilNevertheless, it must first be noted that the trouble did not start yesterday. It began with the “third world war” that was, according to Archbishop Lefebvre, the Second Vatican Council.
Lionel: Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism and the conclusion is different. Cushingism causes the hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition. Archbishop Lefebvre like the SSPX bishops was a Cushingite.
We now know that if the SSPX leadership interprets Vatican Council II with Feeneyism the Council will be traditional on EENS, the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return. So the fault finally does not lie with Vatican Council II but with their irrational premise and inference the SSPX uses to interpret the Council .
Catholics have confirmed that there are no exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II, unless a false premise and inference is used to interpret the Council .There is no comment from the SSPX over the last few years.
__________________________
That Council, through its reforms, provoked “the auto-destruction of the Church” (Paul VI), by sowing ruin and desolation in the areas of faith, morals, discipline, priestly and religious life, the liturgy, catechism, and the entirety of Catholic life. But few observers really realize that. Even more rare still are those who will confront this universal destruction in a determined and effective way.
Lionel: Pope Paul VI like Archbishop Lefebvre interpreted the Council with Cushingism. No one told them that a rational alternative existed. No one still seems to know about it at the SSPX Headquarters.
_____________________________
In fact, what we are witnessing with Pope Francis is only the ripening of the fruit. The poisoned fruit of a plant whose seed was developed in the progressive and modernist theological laboratories of the 1950s, like a GMO (genetically modified organism), a type of impossible interbreeding between Catholic doctrine and the liberal spirit. What is appearing today is no worse than Vatican II's novelties, but it is now a more visible and more complete manifestation. Just as the Assisi meeting under John Paul II in 1986 was only the fruit of the seeds of ecumenical and interfaith dialogue deposited at the Council, likewise the present pontificate illustrates the inevitable outcomes of the Second Vatican Council.
Lionel: This is the outcome of Vatican Council II( Cushingite). Since with Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) there is no theological bases for the new ecumenism, new theology, new ecclesiology etc.
The Council supports Feeneyite EENS. The SSPX wants to reject Feeneyite EENS for whatever reason.
_______________________________
A Radical Approach Doomed to Failure
Lionel: Bishop Bernard Fellay, former Superior of the SSPX was a signatory of one of these petitions.The second observation focuses on the modus operandi. Given the radical way in which the successors of the apostles are called out, we have to question what results are expected from such an action. Is this way of doing things prudent? Does it have a chance to succeed?
_______________________________
Let's ask about the recipients. Who are they? What formation have they received? What theology has been taught to them? How were they chosen? Given the way in which the incriminating texts have been received by the various episcopates in the world, it is highly probable, even certain, that the vast majority of bishops will not react. With a few exceptions, all of them seem to be prisoners of their corrupt formation and of a paralyzing collegiality if, by chance, one or the other wanted to be different.
Lionel: They have the same Cushingite formation as is being given at the SSPX seminaries.They interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with Cushingism.This is standard in the secular and pontifical universities in Rome.The SSPX seminaries are producing standard Cushingites.
They are taught that invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to EENS. They all swallow this.
They are also taught that unknown cases of LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are known exceptions to EENS. They all nod in unison.
____________________________
And if they remain silent? What will happen then? What must be done? If this is not to note the failure of such an initiative that might ridicule the authors and their cause. This Open Letter is a waste of time—an action producing little effect, the fruit of a legitimate indignation but which falls into excess, at the risk of lessening its good influence.Moreover, the danger of this approach may be in inducing its authors to deviate from the ongoing fight. We risk being captivated by the present evil, forgetting that it has roots, that it is a logical result of a tainted process at its origin. Like a pendulum, some believe they can magnify the recent past to better denounce the present, including counting on the magisterium of the popes of the Council—from Paul VI to Benedict XVI—to oppose Francis. This is the position of many conservatives, who forget that Pope Francis is only drawing out the consequences of the teachings of the Council and his predecessors. We cannot uproot an evil tree by only cutting off the last branch …
Lionel: He is only drawing on Cushingism.The SSPX does the same.
______________________________
The Example of Archbishop Lefebvre
“What to do?”, some ask. Without parochialism or misplaced pride, we can say there is an example to follow, that of the Athanasius of modern times—Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
Lionel: He made an objective error on EENS and Vatican Council II.He was a Cushingite.
Cushingism is irrational, non traditional and it creates heresy.
Cushingism is irrational, non traditional and it creates heresy.
________________________________________
Indeed, he spoke firmly against the direction taken by the modern popes. But in his fight for the Faith, he avoided falling into excess and never claimed to want to resolve all the problems inflicted on Catholic conscience by the crisis the Church that has been going on for more than half a century. He never lost the respect due to legitimate authority, but he knew how to correct firmly without allowing himself to judge it as if he were superior to it, while leaving to the Church of the future the task of resolving a presently insoluble question.
Lionel : He could point out the effects of Cushingism. But he was not aware of Cushingism being the precise cause of the bad effects he noticed e.g new ecumenism etc.
__________________________________________
Archbishop Lefebvre fought on the doctrinal front, first at the Council, then with his many writings and conferences to combat the liberal and modernist hydra.
Lionel: He lost on the doctrinal front. He was not aware of the doctrinal error of the SSPX caused by Cushingism. Cushingism is an irrational philosophy and theology. He did not seem to have a clue to it.
_____________________________________________
He fought on the front of tradition, both liturgical and disciplinary, to preserve the Church's ancient and august Sacrifice, by assuring the formation of priests chosen to perpetuate this essential action for the continuity of the Church.He fought on the Roman front, calling out the ecclesiastical authorities on the excesses of Peter's barque, without ever getting tired or hardening, always in the light of a wonderful prudence drawn from prayer and strengthened by the examples and the teachings of 20 centuries of the papacy.The results have proven that this was the right manner, the right way,
Lionel : It has failed.
Rome has not come back to the faith. Since the SSPX has not come back to the faith due to Cushingism.
________________________
as St. Paul said: “Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine” (II Tim 4:2). May the Virgin, our Queen, terrible as an army arrayed in battle, help us to “labor until our last breath for the restoration of all things in Christ, for the spreading of His Kingdom, and for the preparation of the glorious triumph of [her] Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart” (Consecration of the Society of Saint Pius X).(Source : FSSPX/MG [Maison générale -General House] - 05/17/2019)
Lionel: May be the SSPX in good faith can respond to this report or the many reports earlier on the same subject.The SSPX priests here in Italy are to afraid to discuss this. They do not want to displease Econe and create personal problems for themselves. How can they say that Archbishop Lefebvre made an objective mistake? How can they say that they were wrong about Vatican Council II these 50 years? How can they say that they were wrong on EENS too since there are no known cases of the baptism of desire etc in our human reality for them to be exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.How can they say that Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct and the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake ? The SSPX is part of the doctrinal problem in the Catholic Church. -Lionel Andrades
Links from the right hand bar. Click to access
- SSPX Admits Mistake (1)
- SSPX - heresy and sacrilege.No denial(1)
- SSPX - interprets Magisterial documents as a rupture with Tradition (1)
- SSPX -Vatican reconciliation (4)
- SSPX Admits Mistake (10)
- SSPX and Catechism of the Catholic Church (1)
- SSPX Bishops misinterpret Vatican Council II and EENS (1)
- SSPX cannot accept Vatican Council II because of the restrictions placed by the Jewish Left (1)
- SSPX Communique on Pope Paul VI Beatification (1)
- SSPX condones Vatican Council II Cushingite (1)
- SSPX considers hypothetical cases as being explicit (5)
- SSPX divided on doctrine and theology (3)
- SSPX does not affirm traditional Catholic theology on other religions and Christian communities (1)
- SSPX does not ask Rome to come back to EENS and Vatican Council II Feeneyite (1)
- SSPX does not proclaim the Faith any more (2)
- SSPX fails on tradition (1)
- SSPX General Chapter Statement (6)
- SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 (5)
- SSPX Great Britain (1)
- SSPX has been misleading Catholics(1)
- SSPX heresy (1)
- SSPX Holy Cows (1)
- SSPX in a crisis (2)
- SSPX Italy (10)
- SSPX Mass (1)
- SSPX Mass has an impediment (1)
- SSPX New Superior's Oath Against Modernism is meaningless. (1)
- SSPX ordians seminarians after changing doctrine (1)
- SSPX priests in France and Canada are not proclaiming Catholic doctrine on Vatican Council II (1)
- SSPX proclaim the Catholic Faith (3)
- SSPX seminarians (2)
- SSPX silent (1)
- SSPX still clueless (1)
- SSPX still in a doctrinal crisis (1)
- SSPX theology-big gaps (1)
- SSPX website obsolete (2)
- SSPX- Mixing metaphysics with laws of physics. (3)
- SSPX- the new liberals (1)
- SSPX-doctrine (12)
- SSPX. extra ecclesiam nulla salus (1)
- SSPX. John Vennari (1)
- https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/05/sspx-on-heresy-open-letter-radical.html
Posts
