Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Sedevacantists, traditionalists,Departments of Theology suggest Blessed Pope Pius XII made a mistake

Sedevacantists and traditionalists just like the Department of Theology at the Holy Cross , Angelicum and Urbaniana universities indicate that Pope Pius XII made an objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
The Society of St.Pius X(SSPX-N. America) on their websites and books have repeated that the Holy Office condemned Fr.Leonard Feeney for his rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and for not accepting the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.
So it means Pope Pius XII considered the baptism of desire etc as being visible and known to us. He assumed we can see the dead who are saved with the baptism of desire etc.
This is an objective error. It is a fact that we cannot see the dead so how can they be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says all need to convert into the Church?
This is also the teaching at the universities Holy Cross, Angelicum, Urbaniana, Regina Apostolorum and the seminaries in Rome.They are making the same mistake as the sedevantists etc.
Similarly the sedevacantists CMRI (Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculate) state on their website that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma on salvation. They too are saying that Pope Pius XII made a mistake.
 Is Feeneyism Catholic
 The Angelus Press of the SSPX (N.America) has published a book written by an SSPX priest Fr.Francois Laisney  which indicates that Blessed Pope Pius XII made a mistake. The book does not say it directly but when it is assumed that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy, it is implied that the baptism of desire etc are visible to us.They are visible  for them to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.So Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy for them.Since he did not say he could see cases on earth saved with the baptism of desire.
 For all of them salvation in Heaven in 2013 would be visible to us physically.
Then the sedevacantists, traditionalists and other Catholics have extended this rationale to Vatican Council II. LG 16 (invincible ignorance) refer to physically visible cases. So many reports on the Internet state LG 16 is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Here is Cardinal Kurt Koch confirming the error in an article in Italian in the L'Osservatore Romano (Nov. 12, 2013). (1)
This effort has certainly not lost any of its relevance now that we are to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the beginning of Vatican II. On the contrary , it has become even more urgent especially if we bear in mind the trends, long dominant to this important event, they see the council a break with the tradition of the Church, and this , in two directions : on the one hand, progressive currents continue to understand the council as the end of the previous ecclesial tradition and the beginning of something new.
Lionel: Since the progressives assume that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy,  it means  LG 16 (invincible ignorance) is a break with Tradition.So Vatican Council II has begun something new.
 How to break with tradition the Vatican is interpreted on the other side , from the traditionalist current , which accuse him of having given birth to a new church , no longer identical to that existed until then.
Lionel: Correct since they are all assuming there are known cases of salvation which are exceptions to the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Error.The Council has given birth to new doctrines and a new church.
It is therefore no coincidence that these two extreme tendencies , already on a linguistic level , agree on making a distinction between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church , as if the Church was no longer the same before and after the council .
Lionel: Yes the Church is no longer  the same before and after Vatican Council II if you use the false premise of being able to see the dead who are saved.Cardinal Kurt Koch too assumes  these cases are living exceptions to Tradition.
 The difference between the two trends is that while the progressive empathic supports a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture ,
Lionel: There is a hermeneutic of rupture, correct. It is the premise which determines the hermeneutic.Without the irrational premise there is a hermeneutic of continuity.
the traditionalist favors hermeneutic of simple , ahistorical continuity ,
Lionel: This was  there in magisterial documents before the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
but in reference to the Second Vatican Council , is revealed also a hermeneutic of rupture.
Lionel: The traditionalists also can only interpret the Council with the false premise.They are not aware that  Vatican Council II can also be interpreted without the false premise.
 From both perspectives , the Vatican is no longer considered as part of the living tradition of the Church, existed until then, but as its end.
Lionel: If you use a false premise with any Church document there will be a break with the past.

No comments: