Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a mistake after Vatican Council II. He was still interpreting the Council with the false premise like Pope Paul VI.Without the false premise there could not be the Vatican Council II New Theology.Vatican Council II without the New Theology is not modernism.
He had also made a mistake in 1949 when he interpreted the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) with the false premise.So the baptism of desire (LG 14) and invincible ignorance(LG 16) became exceptions to the traditional strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
Today in general the bishops and priests of the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with this error and do not deny. So they have changed the traditional interpretation of the Creeds and Catechisms.
They are following the new politically correct, theology and ecclesiology and new doctrines.They still call themselves traditionalists.
It is the same new theology and doctrines of the liberals, created with the false premise. -Lionel Andrades
JUNE 22, 2013
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was in perfect agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney without the Richard Cushing Error
So much of the SSPX writings on Vatican Council II are now obsolete with this new finding.
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2013/06/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-was-in.html
NOVEMBER 8, 2018
SSPX Rector at St. Thonas Aquinas seminary USA seems to agree that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, interpreted the Catechism of Pope Pius X as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors.
Fr. Yves le Roux is the Rector, of the Society of St.Pius X's, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary and he seems to agree, at least with his silence, that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, interpreted the Catechism of Pope Pius X as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors. 1
He agrees that since invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were considered 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.The SSPX seminarians are also taught to reject Feeneyite EENS.They must accept the liberal interpretation of EENS, which is, BOD, BOB and I.I are exeptions to EENS.So in other words they are objective and known cases, people personally known, who have been saved outside the Church. Otherwise how could they be exceptions?
So like Archbishop Lefebvre the Rector would be 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 Archbishop Lefebvre 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.
It was clear for Archbishop Lefebvre, that Protestants and non Christians needed to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.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.
This would also be the reasoning of the Rector of the SSPX seminary in the USA and so he has no comments. He also does not defend Archbishop Lefebvre.
The Catechism of Pope Pius X refers those saved in invincible ignorance.Being saved in invincible ignorance is an exception to the dogma EENS for Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX.
But the Syllabus of Errors affirms EENS and does not mention any exceptions. Similarly the three Church Councils mention EENS and does not cite any exceptions.
The Syllabus of Errors also affirms an ecumenism of return and 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 by Archbishop Lefebvre and the liberals, 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.So those whom the SSPX pejoratively call 'Feeneyites', make the same mistake as Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops and priests.So the error is not restricted to only the SSPX.
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.
There is no comment from any of the seminary rectors or Econe and neither from the rector at the seminary in the USA.-Lionel Andrades
1
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/sspx-priests-at-albano-italy-do-not.html
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2018
SSPX priests at Albano, Italy do not deny it. Like Archbishop Lefebvre they interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors..The liberals do the same
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
NOVEMBER 5, 2018
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2018
For Archbishop Lefebvre the Catechism of Pope Pius X was a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX : clarification from the SSPX needed
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.
Today the SSPX can reverse this whole cycle of error. They have to assume that BOD, BOB and I.I refer to hypothetical cases only. They refer to invisible people in our reality.This is common sense. So BOD, BOB and I.I never were exceptions to the strict interpretation of EENS. There are no practical exceptions to EENS.
They would then be confirming the General Chapter Statement on Doctrine of the SSPX(2012) which supported EENS(Feeneyite) with BOD, BOB and I.I not being exceptions.But there was no doctrinal support from the CDF/Ecclesia Dei on this point.
Then the SSPX must announce that Vatican Council II ( UR 3, LG 8,LG 14, LG 16, NA 2, GS 22 etc) is not a rupture with EENS and the past ecclesiology of the Church.So theologically there can only be an ecumenism of return with outside the Church there being no salvation.
So the Catechism of Pope Pius X when it mentioned invincible ignorance, would not contradict the Syllabus of Errors on ecumenism and no salvation in non Christian religions.
EENS is also the basis for proclaiming the Social Reign of Christ the King and the non separation of Church and State.
So the past ecclesiology of the Catholic Church would then be the same today.It is the same before and after Vatican Council II at the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass.
There is no rupture with Tradition when this rational interpretation is used i.e invisible people are invisible,hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB ad I.I and LG 8, LG 16, UR 3 etc are just hypothetical.This is something obvious which the SSPX could affirm. -Lionel Andrades
EENS is also the basis for proclaiming the Social Reign of Christ the King and the non separation of Church and State.
So the past ecclesiology of the Catholic Church would then be the same today.It is the same before and after Vatican Council II at the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass.
There is no rupture with Tradition when this rational interpretation is used i.e invisible people are invisible,hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB ad I.I and LG 8, LG 16, UR 3 etc are just hypothetical.This is something obvious which the SSPX could affirm. -Lionel Andrades
NOVEMBER 4, 2018
Archbishop Lefebvre was a modernist (Graphics)
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/archbishop-lefebvre-was-modernist.html
NOVEMBER 4, 2018
Was Vatican Council II Magisterial ? : there is an objective error in the text and on this point at least the Council could not be guided by the Holy Spirit
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/was-vatican-council-ii-magisterial.html
____________
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment