Imagine my surprise, then, when after we’d posted a video called PRESUMED GUILTY: Open Season on Catholic Priests lamenting the fact that the Society of St. Pius X had been falsely accused of becoming a safe haven for predator priests, a number of allegedly conservative Catholic commentators responded by insisting that, nevertheless, the SSPX is to be avoided like the plague because they are in “schism”. To which I say:Schism from what, exactly? The Great Apostasy?
Lionel : They are in schism with the popes before Pius XII.
They interpret the baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) as being known people saved outside the Church. Since they are known non Catholics saved outside the Church they are objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.
So the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation is rejected with these exceptions. This is heresy. It is also schism with the past popes.
The Nicene Creed is changed with visible cases BOD, BOB and I.I. This is first class heresy. It is also schism with the past popes on EENS.This is the interpretation of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops.The past popes before Pius XII affirmed the strict interpret of EENS with hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I. They did not reject BOD, BOB and I.I as theoretical cases. The popes from Paul VI interpreted BOD,BOB and I.I as non hypothetical and practical exceptions to EENS. Archbishop Lefebvre followed this mistake of the popes from Paul VI.
I could give other examples of schism.The SSPX probably agrees with me since I have been saying the same thing for the last few years and no one can contradict me.Basically I am saying that BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8, UR 3,GS 22 etc refer to hypothetical case. They are not literal cases of non Catholics known in the present times.This means there are no practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS, the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church and an ecumenism of return.
I think the SSPX knows that they are in heresy and schism but the alternative is to hard. The would have to accept extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the 16th century Magisterium.This would be Anti Semitic. So no one comments .They pretend doctrine is important for them.
_______________________________
Quite honestly, friends, our patience with this has run out. The Mystical Body of Christ is being scourged and crowned before our eyes, her human element in a state of emergency such as the world has never witnessed in the past -- and yet faithful Catholics are still fretting that Archbishop Lefebvre might have gone too far in resisting the Modernist infiltrators. They say the SSPX is not in full communion with the Vatican of Pope Francis, to which I say: And? Pope Francis is not in full communion with the vast majority of his own predecessors. What are we to do with that!?
Lionel: The SSPX can ask Pope Francis to please interpret all magisterial documents without the false premise. Do not assume hypothetical possibilities, which can only be known to God, are practical exceptions to the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, past ecclesiology etc.Theology will then come back in line in the Church.
The SSPX can also interpret all magisterial documents rationally and the Remant could write and talk about this subject, finally.
___________________________________
If some among us cannot in good conscience support the SSPX, fine. I get it. This is not a simple question. But let us at least acknowledge the downright Luciferian circumstances which created this division in the first place.
Lionel: The division was caused with the use of a false premise to interpret magisterial documents. The liberals accept the conclusion and the traditionalists reject it.Both use the same false premse.
____________________________________
Lefebvre's choice was simple: Novelty, or Tradition. He chose Tradition, and suffered every imaginable insult for his trouble. But ever since then, the Vatican he resisted to the face has been in doctrinal, liturgical and moral chaos. Black is white, white is black, and the shepherds have abandoned the flock.
Lefebvre just might have been onto something. Don't you think?
Lionel: No. He did not know that Vatican Council II could be interpreted without the false premise and the conclusion would be traditional.
_____________________________________
In the meantime, we need to stay together. The traditionalist priestly orders have strategic differences, yes; but they are doing the best they can to save souls and to help us all find our way through this darkest hour in human history. Thank God for every last one of them!
Given the betrayal of Christ by the human element of the Church since Vatican II, it is more than merely probable that History will absolve those Catholics who regarded Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre as the Athanasius of the Church in their time.
Lionel: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre took the Church back to Tradition while rejecting the heretical, Cushingite interpretation of Vatican Council II, with the false premise.But he could not tell the popes that the Council could be interpreted without the false premise.The conclusion would then be traditional on salvation, ecclesiology, mission, ecumenism etc.
He did not know.
The SSPX bishops and priests still do not know ?
Or do they not want to offend the Left and so do not affirm the Faith ? When the Vatican produced the Document on the Jews, they kept silent.When Pope Benedict said extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century, they kept quiet. When Cardinal Ladaria at the Placuet Deo Press Conference said that Lumen Gentium 8 was an exception to the past exclusive ecclesiology of the Church, they looked the other way.They have not affirmed the Social Reign of Christ the King and supported Catholic political parties.They are prudent and quite comfortable like the priests who offer Mass in the vernacular here.
So what is so special about the SSPX? They offer the old Mass with the new ecclesiology.The Novus Ordo priests also offer Mass in the vernacular with the same new ecclesiology. The SSPX priests interpret magisterial documents with the New Theology and the priests who offer Mass here in Italian do the same.
The SSPX is still part of the problem.
_________________________________
But, they tell us, Lefebvre was "disobedient"! Do you smell a rat? Me, too!
Lionel: May be he was just ignorant. He did not know that BOD, BOB and I.I could be interpreted with Feeneyism instead of his familiar Cushingism. He did not know that Vatican Council II could be interpreted without the false premise, instead of with it.
________________________________
Today among the spiritual sons of Archbishop Lefebvre should be counted all traditionalist priests—inside the SSPX and out—who follow his lead in standing strong for the Latin Mass, the traditional teachings of the Church, the rights of God, the Queenship of Mary and the Kingship of Christ.
Lionel: They do not support the traditional teachings of the Church when they interpret them with Cushingite BOD, BOB and I.I. The conclusion is false. It is non traditional, irrational and heretical. They create a schism with the popes before Pius XII.
_________________________________
There is no time left for politics and games. We all need to stand together.
Lionel: The Remnant could set the pace. Affirm Vatican Council II with Feeneyism( hypothetical cases are just hypothetical).Affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus also with Feeneyism( hypothetical cases are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church in 2019).Reject the irrationality of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO).Avoid its false premise. Then interpret the Creeds and Catechisms without the irrationality of LOHO.
Without Feeneyism philosophy( invisible cases are not objective) and theology( outside the Church there is no salvation) Catholics have lost their identity, like the present traditionalists.It is with Feeneyism that Catholics have an identity.-Lionel Andrades
In his Letter to Friends and Benefactors (April 13,2014)1 he considers UR 3,LG 8 and NA 2 exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
OCTOBER 27, 2018
Archbishop Lefebvre was a modernist : some examples https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/10/archbishop-lefebvre-was-modernist-some.html
___________________________
Bishop Bernard Fellay made a factual mistake in Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82 : we cannot see the dead.
Bishop Bernard Fellay Superior General of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) refers to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He says it is contradicted by Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Lumen Gentium 8 and Nostra Aetate 2 in Vatican Council II which refer to salvation for non Catholics.
In his Letter to Friends and Benefactors (April 13,2014)1 he considers UR 3,LG 8 and NA 2 exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
It may be clarified by me that the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church, defined by three Church Councils and which Pope Pius XII called an infallible teaching (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) says every one needs to be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation. The text does not mention any exceptions.This has been the traditional interpretation for centuries.
For Bishop Fellay UR 3, LG 8 and NA 2 are exceptions to this teaching and so he rejects Vatican Council II as did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
The dogma “Outside the Church there is no salvation” has been changed surreptitiously by confused ideas wrote Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX).1 He does not realize that it is he, who is confused between Cushingism and Feeneyism in the interpretation of the dogma. That same confusion he extends to Vatican Council II.He then makes the same error in the interpretation of the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1995).
Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reaoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma EENS.There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.
So when he interprets invincible ignorance in the Catechism of Pope Pius X he assumes it refers to a visible case and so is an exception to outside the Church no salvation ( Feeneyite).
When I interpret invincible ignorance for example, in the Catechism of Pope Pius X it refers to an invisible case.
Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reaoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma EENS.There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.
So when he interprets invincible ignorance in the Catechism of Pope Pius X he assumes it refers to a visible case and so is an exception to outside the Church no salvation ( Feeneyite).
When I interpret invincible ignorance for example, in the Catechism of Pope Pius X it refers to an invisible case.
Posts
