SSPX should expose the secret of the visible dead theory in the Vatican-SSPX talks

Bishop Richard Williamson says Bishop Bernard Fellay should not have allowed the doctrinal talks to be confidential.He thinks the doctrinal talks were secret because Rome had a lot to hide.

On the video SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome Part 7 the English bishop said that when it comes down to doctrine the Society is in the driving seat and not Rome. He said Bishop Bernard Fellay should not have allowed the discussions to be confidential.

"Normally Rome is in the driving seat since it is the Supreme Authority but if you have the truth and Rome does not have the the truth, the truth is in the driving seat." ( 31:57)

I agree the discussions should have been made public but the Vatican side would simply cite Vatican Council II and assume the dead are visible and then provide citations from the Council. The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) would assume this is the teaching of Vatican Council II and then go back to rejecting the Council.

The SSPX would repeat  that this is not the traditional teaching of the Church and not point the error of the visible dead, the source of this non traditional interpretation.

We can see this on the videos in which Bishop Williamson says Vatican Council II is modernist, confused and it rejects the traditional teaching of the popes. He is correct this interpretation  of Vatican Council II is modernist and heretical. So what the SSPX bishop says is rational and correct.

However if he used a different premise, then the interpretation of the Council would change. His view would still be rational and correct.

The wrong principle he is using in this analysis on the videos is that of knowing the dead, he assumes that the dead are visible.

This was the premise used by the Vatican team ,Cardinal Luiz Ladaria and Bishop Charles Morerod , in the doctrinal talks.

Bishop Bernard Fellay could  expose the doctrinal errors in the Vatican-SSPX talks and point out that we do not know a single person who is saved implicitly and who is an exception to the dogma  outside the church there is no salvation mentioned in the SSPX communique (July 19, 2012).

e.g THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

We cannot have a theology of religions since Vatican Council II says outside the church there is no salvation. Vatican Council II does not cite any explicit exception.There is  no known case of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience (LG 16) or elements of sanctification (LG 8). So LG 16 and LG 8 cannot be cited as an exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation.

If Bishop Richard Williams would use the premise  that we cannot see the dead saved Vatican Council II would open up before him as a traditional Council, just like Trent.However hard to believe, it is simple. He just has to try it.

This error originated in the 1940's in Boston and it should have been corrected at that time.It's the Richard Cushing heresy of the visible baptism of desire.-Lionel Andrades

WHEN WILL THE BISHOPS OF THE WORLD REALIZE THAT WE DO NOT KNOW ANY VISIBLE DEAD SO VATICAN COUNCIL II IS A PRO SSPX TRADITIONAL DOCUMENT ?

There is no dead person visible who has been saved with the baptism desire. So if the Holy Office in 1949 assumed there were, it was a mistake. It was a factual mistake since we cannot see such a person.

Do all the bishops in the world agree that we cannot see the dead saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, imperfect communion with the Church, seeds of the Word and a good conscience ?

So if we cannot see all these deceased then there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.If nothing in Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma outside the church there is  no salvation then we are back to exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.

If Vatican Council II says outside the church there is no salvation (Ad Gentes says all need Catholic Faith) then the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) have a traditional Vatican Council II before them. There are traditional Conciliar  values on other religions and ecumenism. The  ecclesiology is once again traditional.

The bishops through out the world  must realize that it is the traditionalists who are affirming Vatican Council II and it is Bishop Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia who are denying the traditional interpretation. They are denying it because they assume that Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to the dogma and to Ad Gentes 7. And why do they assume that ? Since for them, we can see the dead-visible. They can see the deceased saved in invincible ignorance etc who are exceptions to the dogma!.

Can the bishops see all this?

Can they state in public that Vatican Council II is a traditional document in agreement with the SSPX communique (July 19, 2012) affirming that outside the Church there is no salvation and endorsing the uninterrupted magisterium of the Catholic Church.

This is not just an SSPX issue. It  is a problem, all the bishops must face. Firstly we do not know the deceased who are saved and are alive and who could be exceptions to the dogma. Secondly, since there are no exceptions Vatican Council II (AG 7) affirms the dogma outside the church there is  no salvation.Thirdly, we still have the traditional ecclesiology , ecumenism, evangelisation etc. These SSPX values are pro-Vatican Council II.

So when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Prefect says the SSPX must accept Vatican Council II the answer is "Yes , they have! But what about you Bishop Muller ?".

That three SSPX bishops also do not know all this is part of the problem.-Lionel Andrades

1.

 

APPEAL TO BISHOP MULLER TO ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/appeal-to-bishop-muller-to-accept.html


CAN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON AND WASHINGTON SUPPORT THE SSPX BY SAYING VATICAN COUNCIL II IS A TRADITIONAL DOCUMENT WITH TRADITIONAL VALUES?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/can-archdiocese-of-boston-and.html

NUMBER OF PRIESTS NOT ANSWERING THE TWO QUESTIONS INCREASES

Fr. Tim Finigan (Southwark, England), Fr. John George (Sydney), Fr.Joe Jenkins (Washington) will not respond to the two questions(1).

They will not answer these two questions on their blog while they are willing to discuss the Society of St.Pius  X issue.

They will say the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 said that the baptism of desire was an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma. When asked if the baptism of desire can be an exception to the dogma they don’t answer. Was the baptism of desire irrelevant to the dogma? No answer. Can you name someone saved with the baptism of desire? No answer.Did the Holy Office make a mistake? No answer.

 If the Vatican spokesman would clarify that there is no baptism of desire that we know of we are back to the literal interpretation of  extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Vatican Council II does not contradict the SSPX communiqué on outside the church there is no salvation.-Lionel Andrades

1.

1) Do we personally know the dead saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc ?

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

CAN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON AND WASHINGTON SUPPORT THE SSPX BY SAYING VATICAN COUNCIL II IS A TRADITIONAL DOCUMENT WITH TRADITIONAL VALUES?

The SSPX communiqué indicates they are willing to accept a Vatican Council II in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and traditional values arising from this doctrinal position.

Cardinal Sean O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston and personnel at his office will not answer two basic questions of the Catholic Faith. Their Vicar Generals, Catechetical Office and Office of Communications will not respond to these two questions.

If they answered those two questions then the Archbishop’s position on a traditional Vatican Council II would be the same as the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX). They would be supporting the SSPX by saying Vatican Council II is a traditional document with traditional values on ecclesiology etc.

Similarly a priest of the Archdiocese of Washington is not answering these two questions on his blog.

The Archdiocese of Boston and Washington will not support the SSPX and instead will assume that Vatican Council II is a non traditional, irrational document and with no citations from the Council to support the liberal interpretations of the dioceses of Boston and Washington.

Meanwhile the Vatican Curia will also not say that Vatican Council II is a traditional document but instead will claim, irrationally, that we know the dead-saved (LG 16) and the dead-saved (LG 16) contradict Ad Gentes 7 (all need Catholic Faith) . So Vatican Council II is contradictory irrational document and the SSPX has to accept this version for canonical status.

Similarly religious communities and thousands of priests who offer Mass in the vernacular accept this irregular situation. They do not protest with the Vatican that we do not know the dead; there is no visible dead. There are no known contradictions to the dogma and there is no change in church ecclesiology. The Catholic Church still teaches exclusive ecclesiocentrism, through Vatican Council II. So traditional values on other religions, ecumenism etc have not changed.

Superiors of religious communities and hundreds of bishops should say that there is no visible dead and so they support the SSPX‘s interpretation of Vatican Council II according to their communique, which is rational and traditional

-Lionel Andrades

__________________________________________________

APPEAL TO BISHOP MULLER TO ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL II

We must appeal to Bishop Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican (CDF) to please accept Vatican Council II and so end the tension with the Society of St.Pius X ( SSPX).

There must be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with reference texts, in accord with Tradition and without irrational theories. There cannot be a Vatican Council II which claims the dead are visible and saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience .Neither can there be a Council which throws away a centuries old teaching which Pope Pius XII called ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible’ teaching  (Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949).

This is the Vatican Council II unfortunately of Bishop Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Di Noia who are rejecting the Vatican Council II of the SSPX , which according to the SSPX communique (July 19) is traditional, in accord with the ‘uninterrupted magisterium’, without novelties and reaffirming the dogma outside the church no salvation.

The ‘uninterrupted magisterium’ is different from the present day magisterium of Bishop Muller and the Vatican Curia which teaches errors like 1) Jews do not have to convert (this is contrary to the Bible especially the Gospel of John) and that 2) we can see people dead in Heaven who are now on earth and are exceptions to the dogma on salvation. This is irrational. This has not been the teaching of the ‘constant magisterium’.Neither is it the teaching of Vatican Council II interpreted traditionally -interpreted according to the SSPX .

The SSPX has accepted Vatican Council II in accord with Tradition and has rejected the liberal version

The SSPX has accepted Vatican Council II in accord with the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam (1) in harmony with Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II. They have endorsed Vatican Council II according to Sacred Tradition. They can also cite reference texts for their doctrinal position from Vatican Council II.

They have rejected, as in the past, the liberal version of Vatican Council (2) whose adherents cannot cite any texts to support their interpretation which is a break, a rupture with tradition and other magisterial documents.

The SSPX is finally in a position to point out to their adversaries that there can be only interpretation of the Council which can be supported by tradition.In this one interpretation AG 7 supports the dogma on exclusive salvation and LG 16 and LG 8 etc are not known exceptions to the dogma.

The SSPX has stated clearly that they affirm ‘ faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the only Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation and no possibility of finding the means that lead to it’.

There is no salvation outside the Church (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, Vatican Council II (AG 7) etc) and that outside the Church there is even ‘no possibility of finding the means that lead to it’ i.e those saved in invincible ignorance , a good conscience are accepted as possibilities known only to God and not possibilities which contradict the dogma on salvation.Since these possibilities are not explicit for us. They are unknown to us humans.

As for the liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II which is a rupture from the past the SSPX rejects ‘ all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council that remain tainted with errors’ e.g theology of religions etc which are opposed by Vatican Council II (AG 7).

They accept the Council and ‘the Society can only continue to abide by the statements and teachings of the 'constant magisteriumof the Church;’ which is in agreement with the Council in accord with Tradition and the hermeneutic of continuity. The SSPX ‘ finds its guide in this uninterrupted Magisterium which, by its act of teaching, transmits the revealed deposit in perfect harmony with all that the whole Church has always believed, in every place’ and which is in agreement with Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades

1.
This is why its seems to us opportune to reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the only Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation and no possibility of finding the means that lead to it; in its monarchical constitution, willed by Our Lord, which means that the supreme power of governance over the whole Church belongs to the pope alone, the Vicar of Christ on earth; in the universal kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the creator of the natural and supernatural order, to whom every human being and all society must submit. -SSPX Communique July 19,2012 (emphasis added)

2.

As for all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council that remain tainted with errors, and as for the reforms that have resulted from them, the Society can only continue to abide by the statements and teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church; it finds its guide in this uninterrupted Magisterium which, by its act of teaching, transmits the revealed deposit in perfect harmony with all that the whole Church has always believed, in every place. -SSPX Communique July 19, 2012

SSPX NEEDS PEGS ON WHICH TO SHOW THE MEDIA THAT VATICAN COUNCIL II IS A TRADITIONAL DOCUMENT AND THEY ACCEPT IT

Here are some pegs.

FR.FRANCOIS LAISNEY'S BOOK
1. Fr. Francois Laisney’s book critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney should be pulled down by the SSPX. It contradicts the SSPX communique (July 19). The ‘uninterrupted magisterium’ (1)  did not consider those saved in invincible ignorance and with implicit desire as explicit possibilities. With LG 16, LG 8 always implicit Vatican Council II (AG 7) affirms the dogma on exclusive salvation. So we have a traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II with the dogma on exclusive salvation supporting  traditional values on other religions, ecclesiology, ecumenism, etc.

The SSPX endorses this interpretation of Vatican Council II according to its communique. Vatican Council II is accepted here.

RESPONDING TO ARCHBSIHOP AUSGUSTINE DI NOIA IN FUTURE

 2. When Archbishop Augustine Di Noia in his next media interview says the SSPX has to accept Vatican Council II and that Jews do not have to convert, cite texts from Vatican Council II which say they do  have to convert (AG 7, NA 4).This interpretation is in line with Tradition and without ‘novelties’.(2)

 It is different from the Vatican Curia‘s interpretation which is a break from tradition. They considered LG 16, LG 8 as implicit. So there  are known dogmatic exceptions for teh Curia.

RESPONDING TO BISHOP MULLER IN FUTURE

3. Recently the CDF Prefect gave an interview to the L'Osservatore Romano and the SSPX just let it pass without responding . The impression people have is that the SSPX rejects Vatican Council II and there is only one interpretation of the Council.

People do not know that the SSPX rejects only the liberal  interpretation of Vatican Council II with ‘novelties’ and which is a break from the ‘uninterrupted magisterium’. It can accept a Vatican Council  II which has the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.

The Vatican Curia wants the SSPX to come out clearly and say they accept the liberal interpretation (with the visible-dead theory). If they do not compromise there will be an ‘ecclesial rupture’.

The SSPX should counter this propaganda of the Curia and state that they accept Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of continuity with the ‘uninterrupted magisteriam’. This is in accord with 'the Roman Catholic Church, the only Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation and no possibility of finding the means that lead to it‘(3)

So the SSPX communique is not a negation of Vatican Council II  according to tradition and it is not an affirmation of Vatican Council II with novelties and irrationality (visible -dead).

Communication must bring out the point: ‘We have said yes to Vatican Council II in line with Tradition and we will continue to criticize the non traditional version which has no rational reference texts from the Council (LG 16, LG 8 are ‘visible dead’ ,irrational non applicable citations).

So when Bishop Gerhard Muller keeps saying that the SSPX must accept Vatican Council II asks for a clarification.Is Bishop Muller saying the SSPX must accept Vatican Council with AG 7 in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with Lumen Gentium 16 and Lumen Gentium 8 not being exceptions? This is a Vatican Council II to which the SSPX is open to.

Does Bishop Muller accept Vatican Council II (traditional interpretation)?

The SSPX must find a system to respond to media reports. Vatican Council II and traditional doctrine is on their side.

-Lionel Andrades

 

1.

The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, and also in regard to the reforms issued from it. We find our sure guide in this uninterrupted Magisterium which, by its teaching authority, transmits the revealed Deposit of Faith in perfect harmony with the truths that the entire Church has professed, always and everywhere.

2.
The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors


3.
 This is why its seems to us opportune to reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the only Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation and no possibility of finding the means that lead to it; in its monarchical constitution, willed by Our Lord, which means that the supreme power of governance over the whole Church belongs to the pope alone, the Vicar of Christ on earth; in the universal kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the creator of the natural and supernatural order, to whom every human being and all society must submit. - SSPX Communique July 19, 2012(emphasis added). 

PRIESTS IN WASHINGTON AND SYDNEY REFUSE TO SAY THAT THE DEAD-SAVED IN HEAVEN ARE NOT VISIBLE TO US

Threat to the Archbishops of Washington and Sydney's theological 'novelties'.

A Catholic priest in Sydney and Washington are resisting the Catholic Church going back to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and are refusing to say that we do not know the dead-saved. They are refusing to say on their blogs that in general we cannot see the dead, now in Heaven. They are not visible to us is something  we take for a fact but not Fr. Joe Jenkins pastor of Holy Family Church, Mitchellville, MD in the Archdiocese of Washington, DC and Fr.John George a retired priest in the Archdiocese of Sydney who writes on the blog True Catholic.

If they say they obvious, that we cannot see in heaven those who have died naturally, there are theological implications so they don't want to take a chance.

It is difficult for them to accept the traditional teaching that all non Catholics are oriented to Hell and there no known exceptions. So they will not say in communication on the Internet that we cannot see the deceased who are saved in invincible ignorance etc.

Fr.Joe Jenkins on a blog post of the BLOGGER PRIEST mentions that not all non Catholics are definitely oriented to Hell but only 'those who know'. Those who who do not know about Jesus and the Church are oriented to Heaven. Yes of course - but he and I do not know who these cases are. It is God who will judge and make a distinction. The de fide teaching is that all are oriented to Hell with Original Sin and mortal sins and with no access to the Sacraments.They need to enter the Church to benefit from Jesus' Sacrifice for them.(Dominus Iesus 20).If we knew any case on earth; any visible case, then we could say that not all need to enter the church but only those who know.

There may not be a single case in 2012 saved in invincible ignorance but we accept in principle that it is possible ,known to God, that there could be people saved in invincible ignorance.This is not contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction since the dejure(implicit) knowing that there can be exceptions does not contradict with the defacto(explicit) knowing that there are not any and we cannot know of any.

If Fr.Jenkins claims to know who is saved , who 'knows' then there is a contradiction with  the dogma on exclusive salvation and also Ad Gentes 7 which states all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.So he suggests that we know these cases, visible to him.

Then Fr.Jenkins says that the Holy Office 1949 condemned Fr.Leonard Feeney for rejecting the baptism of desire. It is not a de fide teaching that the baptism of desire is visible to us and that these these cases are known to us in some way. Pope Benedict XVI could announce that we do not know any person saved with implicit desire and so this is not an exception to Fr. Leonard Feeney. The misunderstanding would be removed for all Catholics. He could correct the error.

 Fr.Joe Jenkins and Fr.John George would then hopefully say that we do not know cases saved with the baptism of desire, people who are dead but allegedly visible to us.-Lionel Andrades

BISHOP RICHARD WILLIAMSON IS READY TO JOIN ROME 'if the pope was in line with Tradition'.

Situation is hopeful after the SSPX communique July 19, 2012 (1)

The ball is in the Vatican court. Can they acknowledge that we do not know the dead-saved so Vatican Council Ii is a traditional document with traditional values on other religions, ecumenism, ecclesiology, evangelization etc ?

After the July 19 communique for the first time ever the Society of St.Pius X is able to say that there is one rational interpretation of Vatican Council II for all Catholics including the SSPX and which can be supported with citations from the Council texts.

If the Vatican Curia does not want to accept it they cannot expect the SSPX and all Catholics to believe that we know the dead saved who are supposed to be explicit, known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation and to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.(2)

The next move is that of Bishop Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, President and Vice President of Ecclesia Dei.

During this summer Catholics should write to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asking them to clarify :-

1) Do we know  people dead and now saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience?

2) So how can they be explicit exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

3) Is there anything in Vatican Council which contradicts the dogma on outside the church no salvation ?

4) Does not the SSPX affirm Vatican Council II according to Tradition and the dogma through their communique?

Why cannot the Franciscans, Carmelities and Salesians affirm Vatican Council II according toTradition and the dogma?

The Vatican Curia is up against a wall trying to disprove that Vatican Council II is not in accord with the literal interpretation of the dogma and the SSPX communique.

To apear rational and sane,over the we-can-see-the-dead- issue, Rome, the Vatican, has to choose the traditional path once again. Since Catholics in general are not going to accept this non-sense of seeing ghosts saved with implicit desire and a good conscience.

The ball is now in the Vatican court. In case they don't know, Catholics should give them a reminder.

 

On the video SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre and Rome Part 3 Bishop Richard Williams has said that he is willing to join Rome if Pope Benedict was in line with Tradition. (18:23). He said that "we are right because we are line with the Church of the centuries and not the SSPX' .(13:20) .(http://youtu.be/qgRj6qj45BY )
 

If the issue of the dead-but-visible people is sorted out, Vatican Council II becomes once again a traditonal document and there is the hope of Bishop Richard Williamson entering the Church and being satisfied with doctrine.-Lionel Andrades

1.
This is why its seems to us opportune to reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the only Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation and no possibility of finding the means that lead to it; in its monarchical constitution, willed by Our Lord, which means that the supreme power of governance over the whole Church belongs to the pope alone, the Vicar of Christ on earth; in the universal kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the creator of the natural and supernatural order, to whom every human being and all society must submit. - SSPX Communique July 19, 2012(emphasis added).

2.

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II

SSPX MUST ASK THE VATICAN TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT

Once the announcement is made every one will realize that we can all, SSPX and non SSPX, hold the traditional, rational interpretation of Vatican Council II.

On the blog THE BLOGGER PRIEST Fr. Joe Jenkins (1) is not admitting that we do not know people dead and saved in Heaven and that we cannot see those saved in invincible ignorance. Perhaps if he admits he agrees with me on this factual observation he thinks  it will contradict some of the teachings of the Church.

Priests do not want to admit the obvious in public and so it is not likely that the Vatican will concede an error.It  is important for the SSPX to ask the Vatican cardinals and bishops if we can see the dead-saved and if they are  explicit exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma on outside the church there is no salvation.

________________________________

A journalist could put the question this way.

NCR/ LifeSites (for example):

Your Eminence /Excellency,

Some of the supporters of the SSPX are saying that Vatican Council II is a traditional document with traditional values on other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty. Would you agree?

Bishop Gerhard Muller, Archbishop Augustine Di Noia or Cardinal Kurt Loch could respond: No.It is not.

Catholic National Register or Life Sites.com: Thy say an error was made in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case which has influenced our interpretation of Vatican Council II.

Vatican Curia: What is the error specifically?

NCR/Life Sites: That we don’t know the dead saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire. Since we do not know these cases they are not explicit exceptions to the actual interpretation of the dogma. They are irrelevant to the dogma.

Vatican Curia: So what has this to do with Vatican Council II?

Journalist: So those saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience (Lumen Gentium 16), elements of sanctification (Lumen Gentium 8), seeds of the Word are not explicit exceptions to the dogma outside the church no salvation.

You would agree that we do not know these cases?

Vatican Curia: Yes.

Journalist: So could the Vatican make an announcement that we do know these cases of the dead-saved. Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Vatican Curia: Yes. It is an objective fact. It cannot be denied.

Journalist: So once the announcement is made every one will realize that we can all, SSPX and non SSPX, hold the traditional, rational interpretation f Vatican Council II?

Vatican Curia:Yes. Honesty demands it.

________________________________

This single interpretation of Vatican Council II will be difficult for many to accept. Fr. Jenkns has even deleted the quotation from Ad Gentes 7.(2)

-Lionl Andrades

1.
http://bloggerpriest.com/2012/07/19/dim-prospects-for-the-society-of-pius-x/

2.

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II

THEOLOGIANS IN THE VATICAN-SSPX TALKS WERE USING THE VISIBLE TO US BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND BOTH SIDES DID NOT KNOW IT: NEITHER DOES BISHOP RICHARD WILLIAMSON RECOGNIZE IT NOW

On the video SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 4 Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of St.Pius X( SSPX) mentions speaking to an SSPX theologian who participated in the Vatican-SSPX talks in which there were four theologians from both sides who met and heard each other out.

The SSPX theologian I realize did not know that that there was one single source for the Vatican (Ladaria-Morerod) error.If he knew the error he would have corrected the Vatican side in public.

The SSPX now realizes it . So in their communique (July 19,2012) it is said 'the Roman Catholic Church, the only Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation and no possibility of finding the means that lead to it''

_________________________________

If they knew the Vatican error at the time of the SSPX-Vatican talks the conversation would be like this:

SSPX: What is the basis for your 'theology of relgions' and ' ecclesiology of communion'.

Ladaria-Morerod (Vatican side) : There is theological basis in Vatican Council II.

SSPX: Could you identify it?

Ladaria-Morerod: Also the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 rejected the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney and his non acceptance of the baptism of desire.

SSPX: For centuries the Church taught that there was exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.Now it has been changed?

Ladaria-Morerod : Yes. The change came in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case and it was accepted by Vatican Council II.

SSPX: We think there is no theological basis for what you say since the baptism of desire is not  visible, it is not known to us , so it cannot be an exception to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the literal interpretation of the dogma. It is irrelevant to the literal interpretation.

Can you name anyone saved with the baptism of desire or a good conscience?

Since Lumen Gentium 16 is implicit it is not an explicit exception to the dogma.So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the dogma.

You do not have any theological basis for the 'theology of religions' and 'the ecclesiology of communion'.

Instead Vatican Council II supports the dogma and Fr.Leonard Feeney when it states in Ad Gentes 7 that all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
___________________________________________

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J  and Bishop Charles Morerod O.P have expressed these errors 'in writing' in  two of the theological papers of the International Theological Commission. The SSPX should have corrected them in 1997 . 

Now Bishop Williamson says Vatican Council II is a modernist document . True, when you are using a modernist error.If he identifies the error  like the SSPX did at its last chapter, Vatican Council II becomes a traditional document.

Vatican Council II  affirms the literal interpretation of the dogma ouside the church no salvation. Ad Gentes 7 does not contradict it with Lumen Gentium  16  etc. Nostra Aetate 4 says Catholics are the new People of God. Catholics are the Chosen People of God and outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation (Vatican Council II).

 

Bishop Williamson says the present issue is a doctrinal one and he does not know how it is going to be solved. He can help by identifying the error of the visible to us dead who are now in Heaven with the baptism of desire.-Lionel Andrades

BISHOP RICHARD WILLIAMSON TRACES THE CRISIS OF THE CHURCH TO THE FIFTIES BUT DOES NOT MENTION THE FAULT LINE IN THE 1949 LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE

It was in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 that a misunderstanding arose it was institutionalised and then inserted in Vatican Council II by Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits.

In the video SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre and Rome 1 to 3 (1) Bishop Richard Williamson traces the origin of dissent in the Church.

He does not recognize that a major source of dissent and apostasy was the error of the visible baptism of desire being an exception to a defined dogma. This error was accepted by him and only this month in the SSPX communique (July 19) it has been rectified.

Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuit Superior placed restrictions on Fr.Leonard Feeney who held the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.(2)

In 1949 the confusion of the visible-to-us baptism of desire was official and later it would be included in Vatican Council II. Once this error is identified Vatican Council II becomes a traditional document with values held by Bishop Williamson and the SSPX.--Lionel Andrades

1

On the 8th of August, 1949, Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani, Secretary of the Holy Office, wrote to the Archbishop of Boston and sent him a Declaration of this Holy Office to be conveyed to Father Feeney, which made clear the sense in which one should understand the doctrine that "There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church." Father Feeney refused to adhere to this declaration and wrote with regard to the matter that "it can be considered as having established a two-sided policy in order to propagate error."

On October 28, Father Feeney was expelled from the Jesuit Order.

Things remained unchanged until September 14, 1952. At this point, the Archbishop of Boston demanded that Father Feeney retract his false interpretation and make an "explicit profession of submission" to the Roman Declaration within one month or suffer the penalty of being reduced to the state of a layman.

Father Feeney, accompanied by four witnesses, presented himself before his Archbishop. He told him that his only option was to declare the letter of Marchetti-Selvaggiani "absolutely scandalous because it was frankly heretical." Then he asked His Excellency if he was in agreement with the views expressed by the Roman Declaration. He obtained the following response: "I am not a theologian. All that I know is what I am told." Then, in the presence of these witnesses, Father Feeney accused the Archbishop of failing to perform his duty, and left.

On September 24, 1952, a letter was sent from the St. Benedict Center to Pius XII, accusing the Archbishop of Boston of heresy.

In October of 1952, Cardinal Pizzardo summoned Father Feeney to present himself in Rome for a hearing by the Holy Office. Father Feeney -accepted on condition that they told him beforehand what the charges against him were. Not receiving any response, he did not comply.

On February 16, 1953, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis announced the excommunication of Father Leonard Feeney. The following is an official translation of the Decree:

"Since Father Leonard Feeney remained in Boston (St. Benedict Center) and since he has been suspended from performing his priestly duties for a long time because of his grave disobedience to the Authority of the Church, in no way moved by repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, and has still failed to submit, the most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with the responsibility of safeguarding faith and morals, during a plenary session held on February 4, 1953, have declared him excommunicated with all the effects that this has in law.

"On Thursday, February 12, 1953, Our Most Holy Father Pius XII, Pope by Divine Providence, has approved and confirmed the decree of these Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that this be made a matter of public record.

"Given in Rome in the general quarters of the Holy Office, February 13, 1953. Marius Crovini, notary."

The Case of Fr. Leonard Feeney

Excerpt from The Reign of Mary (winter 1992) http://www.the-pope.com/feeneyite.html

CARDINAL MULLER AND ARCHBISHOP DI NOIA WHO ASSUME THERE ARE KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA SHOULD BE ASKED TO NAME THESE PERSONS : VATICAN COUNCIL II INDICATES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS ' the only Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation and no possibility of finding the means that lead to it'

The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Vice President of Ecclesia Dei has asked the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But they want the SSPX to accept these documents while assuming there are persons on earth who are saved in Heaven and who are also on earth.

So they want the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) to state  that we know people who are saved without the Sacraments and who are in Heaven (CCC1257) and these people are also on earth and so are an exception to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus which Pope Pius XII called 'the dogma' the 'infallible teaching'(Letter of the Holy Office 1949).

Who are these exceptions ? Can they name them for us?

How do they want the SSPX to accept Lumen Gentium 16 as being an explicit exception to 'the dogma' when they cannot tell us the names of the people they know on earth who are saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience.

Reason tells us that there can also be an interpretation of Vatican Council II which does not assume that we know all the dead.

Since there are no known exceptions to the 'infallible teaching' in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church the SSPX could accept these documents in harmony with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This would be accepting Vatican Council II in accord with Tradition; the dogma.The real  issue is no more Vatican Council II which the SSPX accepts according to the dogma as indicated in their communique of July 19,2012.(1)

According to the SSPX version of Vatican Council II all non Catholics need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation (to avoid Hell) and there can only be an ecumenism of return.-Lionel Andrades

1.

This is why its seems to us opportune to reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the only Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation and no possibility of finding the means that lead to it; in its monarchical constitution, willed by Our Lord, which means that the supreme power of governance over the whole Church belongs to the pope alone, the Vicar of Christ on earth; in the universal kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the creator of the natural and supernatural order, to whom every human being and all society must submit. - SSPX Communique (emphasis added).

THE SSPX ACCEPTS VATICAN COUNIL II ACCORDING TO TRADITION (DOGMA): SECONDARY ISSUES PREVENT RECONCILIATION

The SSPX accepts Vatican Council according to Tradition and rejects the Council as a break from Tradition and so will criticize the non traditional version which rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

According to Vatican Insider there are three conditions presented by the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) to the Vatican before they can accept Vatican Council II and receive canonical recognition.

Here are the conditions:

1.“The freedom to preserve, share and teach the sound doctrine of the constant Magisterium of the Church and the unchanging truth of the divine tradition and the freedom to accuse and even to correct the promoters of the errors or the innovations of modernism, liberalism, and Vatican II and its aftermath.” Discerning Catholics will always criticize the we-can-see-the-dead-version of Vatican Council II.

The Muller-Koch-Ladaria-Di Noia version of Vatican Council II claims those dead and saved  in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire,elements of sanctification tc   are known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation. This  results in a new interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

They want the SSPX to accept this error  and not criticize them for their irrationality.

2. The exclusive use of the Liturgy of 1962. The retention of the sacramental practice that we currently maintain (including: orders, confirmation, and marriage).

3.‘The letter also includes other conditions which are considered desirable but not essential: the possibility of having a separate ecclesiastical court of the first instance; the exemption of the houses of the Society of St. Pius X from the diocesan bishops and a Pontifical Commission for the tradition of Rome, which depends directly from the Pope, with the majority of the members and the president in favour of tradition.’

The SSPX has accepted Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of continuity, they are in accord with Tradition (the dogma). 

The issue really is no more Vatican Council II which the SSPX accepts according to the dogma as indicated in their  communique of July 19,2012. Here it is:

This is why its seems to us opportune to reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the only Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation and no possibility of finding the means that lead to it; in its monarchical constitution, willed by Our Lord, which means that the supreme power of governance over the whole Church belongs to the pope alone, the Vicar of Christ on earth; in the universal kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the creator of the natural and supernatural order, to whom every human being and all society must submit. - SSPX Communique (Emphasis added).

According to the SSPX version of Vatican Council II all non Catholics need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation (to avoid Hell) and there can only be an ecumenism of return.-Lionel Andrades

Video Conference Series: Bishop Williamson on the SSPX and Rome

Below are  links to  the Video Conference Series from the blog The Catholic Life

There are a series of videos placed on the internet and before I can see them  I can surely say they hold the 'traditional' error.May be they have not mentioned it here but the error is so commonplace among them that it has influenced most of their talks and writings on Vatican Council II and they do not even realize it.

They do not realize that the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is at the centre of the problem and the error of the visible baptism of desire is being made on all sides- theirs and the Vatican.

The SSPX communique (July 19, 2012) has identified the  problem and clarified that there is 'no possibility of salvation' outside the Roman Catholic Church.

If this perspective is held the two bishops will realize that there can be a traditional and non traditional version of Vatican Council II and they can endorse the traditional one without conceding their traditional Catholic values- Lionel Andrades

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 1   http://youtu.be/gsxklW_A3ig

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 2 http://youtu.be/QkERiSw4Qx4


SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 3 http://youtu.be/qgRj6qj45BY

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 4

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 5.mov

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 6

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 7 (B…

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 8 (B…

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 9 (B…

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 10

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 11

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 12

SSPX Archbishop Lefebvre & Rome 13

SSPX ASK BISHOP GERHARD MULLER TO ANSWER THE TWO QUESTIONS WHICH CARDINAL SEAN O'MALLEY WILL NOT : ENTIRE CONCEPT OF VATICAN COUNCIL II CHANGES

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) communique ( July 19, 2012) supports the priest from Boston on whom the Archdiocese placed sanctions.

This is why its seems to us opportune to reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the only Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation and no possibility of finding the means that lead to it; in its monarchical constitution, willed by Our Lord, which means that the supreme power of governance over the whole Church belongs to the pope alone, the Vicar of Christ on earth; in the universal kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the creator of the natural and supernatural order, to whom every human being and all society must submit. - SSPX Communique(Emphasis added).

The SSPX communique is saying there is no possibility of finding the means of salvation outside the Catholic Church. It is not possible to know anyone with implicit desire or who will be saved  in invincible ignorance. Humanly this is not real.

It is possible to accept in theory, in faith and in pricniple that someone can be saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience (LG 16) but not as a known possibility on earth. The SSPX is affirming the literal interpretation of the dogma as was done by Fr.Leonad Feeney. So they are answering positively the two questions asked of the Archdiocese of Boston weeks back and to which there is no response. The two questions are:

1) Do we personally know the dead saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc ?

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

If the SSPX would ask Bishop Gerhard Muller to respond to these two questions the CDF Prefect would have the same understanding of Vatican Council II as the SSPX.Probably this frightens the Archdiocese of Boston .

We now know that Fr.Leonard Feeney the priest from Boston answered the two questions in harmony with Tradition and was falsely penalized for rejecting the baptism of desire, as if the baptism of desire was relevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma.

If Cardinal Gerhard Muller says that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston rejected the literal interpretation of the dogma, then it means there  was an objective mistake made by the Holy Office.The baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma. It is irrelevant to the dogma.

If Cardinal Muller agrees that  we do not know the dead saved then it means LG 16 is not an exception to the dogma.So there is nothing in Vatican Council II or the Catechism of the Catholic Chruch which contradicts the literal interpretation of the dogma as expressed in the SSPX communique. We do not know anyone saved with 'elements of sanctification' (LG 8), seeds of the Word, in imperfect communion with the Church and other implicit cases known only to God.

So holding the literal interpretation of the dogma is an affirmation of Vatican Council II according to Tradition. Ad Gentes 7 supports Fr.Leonard Feeney and the SSPX position while LG 16, LG 8 etc are not known exceptions.-Lionel Andrades

That an error was made in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case it was known for a long time: Even the SSPX communique supports the priest from Bostonhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/that-error-was-made-in-frleonard-feeney.html#links

THE SSPX HAS ACCEPTED VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN ACCORD WITH THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAMNULLA SALUS- BISHOP MULLER IS REFUSING TO DO THE SAME

Vatican Council II says outside the Church there is no salvation (AG 7). For the Vatican Curia, cardinals and bishops, Vatican Council II has rejected the dogma.For the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) AG 7 could be supporting the dogma and LG 16 and LG 8 are not known exceptions. There is ‘no possible salvation outside the Church’.For the Vatican Curia LG 16 and LG 8 are ‘known exceptions’ to the AG 7 and the dogma on salvation.

The SSPX position on Vatican Council II is rational. They do not claim to know the dead-saved who are known exceptions.The Vatican Curia’s position on Vatican Council II is irrational. They claim to know the dead who are supposed to be exceptions to the dogma.

The SSPX position is traditional. The Vatican Curia is non traditional they claim non Catholics can be saved in the present times and act as if there are such cases in 2012 which are known to them.

The SSPX has accepted Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of continuity, they are in accord with Tradition (the dogma). For Bishop Gerhard Muller it is a rupture with tradition, they deny the  dogma outside the church no salvation.

The SSPX could announce that they have accepted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and that this an indirect acceptance of Vatican Council II. They should ask Bishops Muller and Di Noia to do the same in public.

Archbishop Di Noia has denied the dogma in the National Catholic Register interview when he was asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So his interpretation of Vatican Council II will also change when he denies the dogma. He assumes that there are non Catholics saved with grace (LG 8 etc) and these cases are exceptions and of course known to us, for them to be exceptions.

The SSPX has to explain to Archbishop Di Noia, Vice President of Ecclesia Dei and to Bishop Gerhard Muller, President of Ecclesia Dei that there is ‘no possibility’ of salvation outside the Church. Since those who are dead and saved are unknown to us.So they cannot be exceptions to the dogma and the traditional interpretation and acceptance of Vatican Council II

Since the dogma is in agreement with Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church the SSPX are also in agreement with these Church documents. The Vatican Curia is not in agreement with the dogma because of alleged exceptions so their interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Catechism has to be different.
- Lionel Andrades