Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was correct. Vatican Council II(Cushingite) was a rupture with Tradition. It was heretical.He was right to reject it.
The SSPX bishops were also correct to reject Vatican Council II which was commonly interpreted with an irrational premise.
VATICAN COUNCIL II HAS CHANGED DOGMA ACCORDING TO POPE BENEDICT XVI
This would seem obvious, for example, when it refers to being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) which would mean there is salvation outside the Church. So as Pope Benedict XVI confirmed last year, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the missionaries of the 16th century. Vatican Council II is a rupture with the magisterium of the 16th century.So Vatican Council II is not a pastoral Council it has changed dogma.
ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE WAS CORRECT TO REJECT ALL THIS
Since LG 16 is an exception to the dogma EENS it means that the old ecclesiology of the Church has been done away with. Now with salvation outside the Church there can be the Anonymous Christian saved in his religion. This was the foundation for the new ecumenism. So it was said that a non Christian does not necessily have to enter the Church for salvation.Since he could be saved in invincible ignorance. He could be saved with the baptism of desire. He could be saved with 'seeds of the Word' all without 'faith and baptism'.Archbishop Lefebvre was correct to reject all this.
So this was a grand rupture with Tradition.Doctrine has been changed. I repeat - Vatican Council II was not a pastoral Council as some of the traditionalists like to believe. Archbishop Lefebvre rejected this interpretation of Vatican Council II and the popes did not.
They all made a mistake.
There was an obvious mistake and it was overlooked.
It got pass every one.
Reason it out.
If LG 16 is an exception to the dogma EENS then it would have to be known.An unknown person cannot be an exception.If there is a box of oranges and there is an apple in the box the apple is an exception because it is different but also becuase it is there in that box.
Someone has to exist and be visible to be an exception to the teaching on all needing to be members of the Church for salvation (Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441).
This person would have to live in our reality. We would have to know his name and surname.
So this was the inference.
It is upon this inference that we have the New Theology of Vatican Council II accepted by the popes and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
And there is no such person. There cannot be any such person.
No one in our life time.
How can we humans know of someone saved outside the Church? He would be in Heaven. How can we see people in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water? This would be known only to God.
For us humans this is ' a zero case' as John Martignoni, the apologist puts it.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma EENS said Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson.
Fr.Stefano Visintin osb, the new Benedictine Rector at the Pontifical University of St. Anselm, Rome agrees with him.
MYSTICI CORPORIS REFERS TO A HYPOTHETICAL CASE
So LG 16 was really a hypothetical case. It was speculative and theoretical and not an exception to the dogma EENS.
It never was an exception even in the past.Mystici Corporis is referring to a hypothetical case. The Catechism of the Council of Trent is referring to an unknown person. When the Catechism of Pope Pius X mentions invincible ignorance it was not an exception to EENS at that time.St.Thomas Aquinas was not saying there was a known case of a catechumen who desired the baptism of water and died before he received and so was now in Heaven.This had to be wrongly inferred by the liberal theologians.
The Holy Office 1949, Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits made a mistake.
Cardinal Cushing imposed the leftist excommunication on Fr. Leonard Feeney for over 19 years.So it gave him time to place the mistake in Vatican Council. The excommunication was political and supported by the Jewish Left.
There are now superflous references to being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I), baptism of desire(BOD) and baptism of blood (BOB) in Vatican Council II.
They are not a rupture with Tradition.Non existing cases on earth do not contradict EENS ( Feeneyite) or the Syllabus of Errors.
Archbishop Lefebvre did not know this.
Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger did not tell him about it.
He kept writing books criticizing Vatican Council II in which he interpreted LG 16 as being an exception to Tradition.When Archbishop Marcel Lefbvre wrote J'accuse le Concile and Letter to Confused Catholics he did not know about Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).
Even now after some 50 years the SSPX bishops still interpret LG 16 as referring to a visible case.
ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE'S WRITINGS DO NOT APPLY TO VATICAN COUNCIL II (FEENEYITE)
When LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, AG 7, AG 14, GS 22,NA 2 etc are seen only as hypothetical cases in 2017 they are not a rupture with Tradition.We get a new interpretation of the Council which is traditional.
So it makes the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre obsolete.
They no more apply to Vatican Council II(Feeneyite). We now know that there cannot be a new ecumenism when the ecclesiology of the Church has not changed.So with a rational and traditional theology there can only be an ecumenism of return.
There cannot be salvation outside the Church for Jews etc when there is no known salvation outside the Church in 2017 to contradict traditional EENS as the missionareis in the 16th century knew it.Mission is still based on the old understanding of non Catholic religions and salvation.
We need to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State since there is absolutely no salvation outside the Church.
Collegiality is not a problem when there is unity on doctrine. If all the bishops and popes are willing to affirm LG 16 as referring to invisible cases we are united on Vatican Council II(Feeneyite).
Religious liberty was never an issue in the past when the ecclesiology of the Church and State was exclusivist. The papal states allowed the Jews and other non Catholics to follow their religion.The religion of the state however taught outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation based on John 3:5 and Mark 16:16. Enter through the narrow gate for the road to Hell is wide and most people take it.(Matt.7:13).All this was unknown to Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops since their premise was wrong. They accepted the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.SSPX bishops and priests are still interpreting Vatican Council II with the irrational inference.
Here is Bishop Fellay making the mistake.
MISTAKES BY BISHOP FELLAY AND FR. PIER PAOLO PETRUCCI
The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)
Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church, which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949". -Bishop Bernard Fellay (April 13, 2014 ) Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82 2
The same mistake was made by Father Pier Paulo Petrucci the present Superior of the SSPX at Albano, Italy. 3
ROME CAN COME BACK TO THE FAITH WITH VATICAN COUNCIL II (FEENEYITE)
When they accept or proclaim Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite, with LG 16 referring to an invisible case ) they are not rejecting Vatican Council II and neither are they rejecting Tradition.Instead as Archbishop Lefebvre suggested they can ask Rome to come back to the faith.IThey can do this in a simple way.They can choose a rational and traditional interpretation of the Council .It has an obvious continuity with the past and no ambiguity within it.
So it is meaningless to read the books of the good Archbishop. They belong to another time.He was correct that Vatican Council II (Cushingite- with LG referring to a visible case) was a rupture with Tradition and the SSPX should continue to reject it as their founder did.
WRONG TO EXCOMMUNICATE HIM
They were wrong to excommunicate him since the magisterium's interpretation of Vatican Council II was rupture with the past and was heretical. Instead there should be an apology.
It was a leftist excommunication as in the case of Fr. Leonard Feeney who was not teaching any thing new. We now know that invisIble for us being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire never ever was an exception to his interpretation of the dogma EENS.
-Lionel Andrades
1.
AUGUST 4, 2017
SSPX Italy is not affirming Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) for political reasons
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/08/sspx-italy-is-not-affirming-vatican.html
2.
Bishop Bernard Fellay interprets Vatican Council II with the irrational premise and conclusion : there is an option, a rational conclusion of which he is unaware of http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/bishop-bernard-fellay-interprets.html
3.
Fr. Pierpaolo Petrucci, Superior General,SSPX , Italy makes the familiar SSPX error http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/fr-pier-paolo-petrucci-superior.html
________________________________________
JUNE 14, 2014
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/even-if-non-catholic-was-saved-in-his.html
APRIL 28, 2017
Posts
