Monday, May 29, 2023
We are back to the old Church in the Catholic Church
Every Catholic is obliged to accept the
dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)
which was defined by two Church Councils, the Fourth Lateran Council
(1215) and the Council of Florence(1442).These Councils are not contradicted by
hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance.
So Vatican Council II (LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc) does not have any practical exception for EENS.
This was known to Fr. Leonard Feeney and
the St. Benedict Center of his time. So he said that there are no visible cases
of the baptism of desire. He meant that they do not exist in our reality. They
cannot be seen. They are invisible cases of people on earth.
So when Vatican Council II (LG 8, 14, 16
etc) does not contradict the dogma EENS there cannot be a New Evangelization,
New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology etc.
We are back to the old evangelization,
traditional mission based upon exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. We
return to the old 'ecumenism of return' to the Catholic Church. We are back to
the old theology which says outside the Church there is no salvation, there is
no known salvation. So we are back to the old Church in the Catholic Church.Rome has come back to the Faith. - Lionel Andrades
There is a split in the Society of St. Pius (SSPX). There are two doctrinal groups with two doctrinal positions.
There is a split in the Society of St. Pius
(SSPX) .There are two doctrinal groups with two doctrinal positions. One group
interprets Vatican Council II, extra ecclesiam nulla salus etc, with the
irrational premise to produce a break with the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).It
defined the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
The other group interprets the Council
rationally and supports the Fourth Lateran Council. They will be interpreting
all Magisterial Documents rationally and in harmony with Tradition. But there
will be a rupture Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on Vatican Council II, the Creeds,
Catechisms, EENS etc.
So there is a standoff now.
The group which wants to go along with
the irrational interpretation of Magisterial Documents is supported by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican and Pope Francis.
The traditionalist group which wants to interpret the baptism of desire etc rationally and so support the Fourth Lateran Council which did not mention any exceptions for EENS, went public in 2012.
They expressed themselves in the SSPX General Chapter Statement when
Bishop Bernard Fellay was the Superior General.1 The Statement of course was rejected
by the Jewish Left and so also the Vatican.
The Fellay group is not really a traditionalist group. Since they interpret the Nicene and Athanasius Creed
and the old Church Councils irrationally. They also do not deny that they are
interpreting Vatican Council II irrationally.
For example, the understanding of Church ( ecclesiology) of the Roman Missal of the 17th century is not contradicted by Vatican Council II ( rational) i.e. the Council with LG 8,14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc being only hypothetical, theoretical and speculative cases. So there are no exceptions for Feeneyite EENS.
There is no 'new magisterum' of Cardinal Arthur
Roche. But with Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally i.e. LG 8, 14, 16
etc are visible examples of salvation outside the Church and so practical exceptions
for EENS, there is a New Theology. The New Theology says outside the Catholic
Church there is known salvation. So now we have Pope Benedict’s New Ecumenism,
New Ecclesiology, New Evangelization, New Canon Law etc. It’s a new Church
within the Catholic Church.
Bishop Bernard Fellay refused to correct
this mistake. It was the same with Bishop Richard Williamson and the new
bishops he has ordained. He interprets the Council irrationally like the Fellay
group.So the issue is no more traditionalist and liberal but - is Vatican Council II, rational or irrational.
The SSPX has built a new church in Kansas
City, USA. This was possible since the SSPX interprets Vatican Council II like
the USCCB bishops.The SSPX leadership in the USA dare not tell the faithful to interpret Vatican Council II rationally. They are keeping this issue hidden.
For the SSPX and the USCCB, LG 8, LG 14,
G 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to practical exceptions for Feeneyite EENS.
So they imply that these are objective and visible cases. These are known non
Catholics saved outside the Church in the present times.
This is irrational. We cannot see people
saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire. They cannot be in
Heaven and on earth at the same time. We cannot see or meet invisible people on
earth.
So the norm for salvation is still faith
and baptism (AG 7) and LG 8 etc are not objective exceptions for LG 16 which is
cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) under the title Outside the
Church No Salvation.
In Rome, Fr. Federico Montani, who
offers Mass at the SSPX chapel is unable to say that outside the Catholic
Church is a dogma defined by two Church Councils in 1215 and 1442.He is also
unable to say that invisible cases of LG 8, 14, 16 etc mentioned in Vatican
Council II, are not exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since
the SSPX at Econe are divided on this issue.
All these years the SSPX have been saying that there are exceptions for the dogma EENS and they also have been saying that there are no exceptions. They have been running with the hares and hunting with the hounds.
https://johnjburnslibrary.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/outside-bc-there-was-leonard-feeney-father-keleher-the-fired-four-and-the-boston-heresy-case/
The SSPX priests are unable to issue a
statement on this issue nor speak with me in Rome.The SSPX today is interpreting the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance like the liberals at Boston College, who dismissed Catholic college professors and Fr. Leonard Feeney.2 - Lionel Andrades
1
https://sspx.org/en/sspx-2012-general-chapter-statement
2
SEPTEMBER 14, 2014
Their father was removed from Boston College when the President Fr.Keleher used an irrationality to interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus
BRO.FRANCIS (DR.MALUF) WAS DISMISSED AS A PROFESSOR AT BOSTON COLLEGE SINCE THE PRESIDENT WAS IN HERESY AND WANTED ALL PROFESSORS TO ACCEPT AN IRRATIONALITY IN IN INTERPRETATION OF EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS, NOW KNOWN AS THE CUSHINGISM VERSION.
None of them at that time knew of any exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus yet Dr.Maluf was being forced to say that there were exceptions to keep his job. In other words he had to say that he knew of cases saved with the baptism of desire i.e deceased were visible exceptions to all needing to enter the Church for salvation. These deceased who are dead and invisible for us on earth were supposed to be exceptions.This was the new doctrine at Boston College.
This was heresy.It was also some new fantasy.
Bro.Francis' daughters are religious with the community Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Richmond,N.H,USA. They reject the Cushingism version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Cushingism has now been incorporated in magisterial documents and is used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. So a Vatican Council II which is pastoral is in conflict with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla slaus.
Cushingism has now been incorporated in magisterial documents and is used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. So a Vatican Council II which is pastoral is in conflict with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla slaus.
-Lionel Andrades
SEPTEMBER 13, 2014
Boston College used an irrational premise to remove Catholic professors including Dr.Maluf whose daughters are American religious sisters
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/boston-college-used-irrational-premise.html
http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-116.html
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2014/09/their-father-was-removed-from-boston.html
__________________________________________________
SEPTEMBER 15, 2014
Vatican Council II itself supports the SSPX General Chapter Statement- no one is discussing this point
It has been quite a few years that I have been writing on the same thing.The Jewish left would object to my interpretation of Vatican Council II as they objected to the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews.Now they want the SSPX to sign a Doctrinal Preamble and accept Vatican Council II interpreted always with the irrational premise. In the SSPX General Chapter Statement 1 it was said that the SSPX would accept extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions.
This statement would not be acceptable to the Chief Rabbi in Rome.
But it is Vatican Council II itself which affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions. No one is discussing this point.
It is Vatican Council II (AG 7) which is in agreement with the passage:
For this reason it seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation- SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012
It is important for the SSPX, to announce at the Muller-Fellay meeting, that Vatican Council II and all magisterial documents can be affirmed keeping in mind the principle that we human beings cannot see the deceased now saved in Heaven and these deceased are not living exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
LG 16 DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE SSPX GENERAL CHAPTER STATEMENT
So when Cardinal Muller cites Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water) as an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the SSPX must respond 'We humans cannot see the deceased saved in invincible ignorance and these persons are not living exceptions in 2014 to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.' Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict the General Chapter Statement on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This could be clarified before signing a Doctrinal Preamble.2.
Likewise if Archbishop Augustine di Noia says that those saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth' (LG 8) are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus the SSPX must respond that they accept LG 8,LG 16 etc .They accept them as being invisible for us,hypothethical probabilities,known only to God. For the SSPX they are not objective, seen in the flesh cases. Hypothetical cases cannot be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So they are not exceptions in 2014 to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
In this way the SSPX can affirm Vatican Council II and the General Chapter Statement and the Vatican cannot object by saying that the SSPX muist accept Vatican Council II.
VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE PREMISE IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL
This will not be acceptable to the Jewish Left but at least they cannot say that the SSPX does not accept Vatican Council II. The SSPX can announce that they accept Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
AD Gentes 7 is in agreement with the General Chapter Statement on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. LG 8,LG 16 ,NA 2,UR 3 etc are not exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 since we cannot see the dead on earth. The deceased-saved cannot be living exceptions on earth to all needing the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation.This is common knowledge.
This has to be clarified in public preferably before the Muller-Fellay meeting.Otherwise it will be said that the SSPX is not accepting Vatican Council II and so penalties must follow.
SHOW MULLER A NEW INTERPRETATION
The SSPX must show Cardinal Muller that there is an interpretation of Vatican Council II compatible with tradition and that they will always reject Cardinal Muller and the Jewish Left interpretation of Vatican Council II with the premise of the dead in Heaven being visible exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is only with this irrationality that the Council is a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The fundamental issue is : are there invisible or visible for us cases mentioned in Vatcican Council II, who could be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
VATICAN-SSPX DOCTRINAL TALKS
This is something that the SSPX's Fr.J.M Gleize and Fr. Francois Laisney never understood.So the last doctrinal talks were a failure.Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and Bishop Charles Morerod O.P presented Vatican Council II with the irrational premise and Fr.J.M Gleize did not object.
Whatever be your position on Fr.Leonard Feeney, NA 2, LG 16,LG 8 etc do not contradict AG 7 and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Vatican Council II without the premise is pro-Tradition.
-Lionel Andrades
1
2.
OCTOBER 4, 2017
Secret of SSPX General Chapter Statement unknown to bishops : there are no possibile exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II
The SSPX bishops still do not realize that when the General Chapter Statement affirmed outside the Church there is no salvation with no possible exceptions the Statement was saying that there are no possibile exceptions to Feeneyite EENS in Vatican Council II.
Here it is:
we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation 1
Here lies the SSPX's strong point, nay,clinching point in any negotiations with the Vatican, for canonical status.But the SSPX bishops do not know about this.
Probably only the prayers of the faithful will bring the grace to allow this point to 'sink in'.
The General Chapter Statement affirmed Feeneyite EENS.Bishop Fellay does not!
He affirms EENS according to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
When Bishop Fellay affirms EENS according to the General Chapter Statement 2012 he will not be affirming EENS according to the 1949 Holy Office or Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston at that time.
When Bishop Fellay affirms EENS according to the General Chapter Statement he will not be affirming Vatican Council II according to Cardinals Kasper and Koch and the two popes.
He will be obliging Cardinal Burke to affirm Vatican Council II without LG 16 etc referring to a visible and known exception to Feeneyite EENS. Presently for Cardinal Burke, LG 16,UR 3 etc are a rupture with EENS.
For him the Council is a rupture with Tradition.There is a break with EENS according to the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century.There is a rupture with the past ecclesiology which had its foundation in EENS(Feeneyite/16th century).
Now when the SSPX agrees formally that they affirm EENS according to the General Chapter Statement which says there are no possibile exceptions to salvation outside the Church they would have changed their perspective.They would be saying the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I), past or present, refer to theoretical speculation, possibilities known only to God.They are not actual people in the present times saved outside the Church.There is no rupture with Tradition.
So when the Catechism of Pope Pius X mentions invincible ignorance it is not a rupture with Feeneyite EENS.
When the Baltimore Catechism mentions the baptism of desire it is not a rupture with Feeneyite EENS. Even though for the CDF/Ecclesia Dei it is !
The Vatican(CDF/Ecclesia Dei) has rejected the SSPX General Chapter Statement and will continue to do so.But in that statement lies a secret.
The secret, I repeat, is : there are no exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II, since probabilities cannot be practical exceptions to the dogma EENS which says there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
So the SSPX Statement 2012 affirms outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation.There are none men mentioned in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(19949.For liberals who understand what I am saying, this could be frightening.Those who discern would understand the implications.
It's a complete somersault on Vatican Council II.
The game has changed.The rules have changed.-Lionel Andrades
1.
http://archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/2012_general_chapter/2012_general_chapter_statement_7-19-2012.htm
__________________________________
October 3, 2017
Simple way for the SSPX to show Card.Burke that they are not in schism
MONDAY, JULY 30, 2018
Repost : SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 contradicts the Letter of the Holy Office 1949
SEPTEMBER 30, 2014
SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 contradicts the Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and those whom he represents, will not accept Vatican Council II interpreted according to the General Chapter Statement i.e Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) will not be an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, since there are no exceptions.
The SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 contradicts the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The General Chapter Statement tells us that defacto there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so this is the position of the SSPX in talks with the Vatican .The Letter of the Holy Office on the contrary says there are exceptions and all do not need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.
'we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation', says the SSPX in 2012 and the Holy Office in 1949 says'Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.'
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and those whom he represents, will not accept Vatican Council II interpreted according to the General Chapter Statement i.e Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) will not be an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, since there are no exceptions.
-Lionel Andrades
Will the SSPX have to sign a Doctrinal Preamble contradicting the General Chapter Statement of 2012 and accept the Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J version of Vatican Council II?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/will-sspx-have-to-sign-doctrinal.html
This singer and song should be accompanied by a choir
MAY 28, 2023
St. John of the Cross
1.On a dark night, Kindled in love with yearnings—oh, happy chance!—
I went forth without being observed, My house being now at rest.
2. In darkness and secure, By the secret ladder, disguised—oh, happy chance!—
In darkness and in concealment, My house being now at rest.
3. In the happy night, In secret, when none saw me,
Nor I beheld aught, Without light or guide, save that which burned in my heart.
4. This light guided me More surely than the light of noonday
To the place where he (well I knew who!) was awaiting me— A place where none appeared.
5. Oh, night that guided me, Oh, night more lovely than the dawn,
Oh, night that joined Beloved with lover, Lover transformed in the Beloved!
6. Upon my flowery breast, Kept wholly for himself alone,
There he stayed sleeping, and I caressed him, And the fanning of the cedars made a breeze.
7. The breeze blew from the turret As I parted his locks;
With his gentle hand he wounded my neck And caused all my senses to be suspended.
8. I remained, lost in oblivion; My face I reclined on the Beloved.
All ceased and I abandoned myself, Leaving my cares forgotten among the lilies.
-St.John of the Cross, Dark Night of the Soul (poem).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
