SSPX is still part of the problem : communique on the Beatification of Pope Paul VI
Communique of the SSPX’s General House on the Beatification of Pope Paul VI (with comments)
On October 19, 2014, at the close of the Extraordinary Synod on the family, Pope Francis will go forward with the beatification of Pope Paul VI. The Society of St. Pius X wishes to express serious reservations concerning beatifications and canonizations of recent popes, whose rushed proceedings dispense with the wisdom of the Church’s centuries-old rules.
It is true that Paul VI was responsible for the encyclical Humanae Vitae, which letter instructed and consoled the Catholic family at a time when the most basic principles of marriage were under bitter attack. So they are again, and in a scandalous fashion, by certain members of the present Synod.
But Paul VI is also the Pope who saw Vatican II to its conclusion, thereby introducing in the Church a doctrinal liberalism manifested especially in errors such as religious liberty, collegiality, and ecumenism.
In the books and on line articles of the SSPX there is no reference to Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism. Ad Gentes 7 is placed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 under the title Outside the Church there is no salvation. Since Ad Gentes 7 is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus there is no change expressed in Vatican Council II on other religions and ecumenism.
So for me Vatican Council II is not a break with the tradiitonal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as taught over the centuries by the Church Councils, the popes ,saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston. I do not assume that LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 etc are exceptions to the dogma.The SSPX makes this error and so the Council is a break with the past.
So one cannot blame Pope Paul VI, who also gave us Evangelii Nuntiandi, for the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.The fault is with those who use an irrational premise in the interpretation.They include the SSPX and the Vatican Curia.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davis and other leaders of the traditionalist movement were not aware that an objective errror was made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which changed the Catholic Church's traditional teaching on ecumenism and other religions. The Letter wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire was an explicit exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. The baptism of desire has nothing to do with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This modernist error was adopted by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre long before Vatican Council II . He was not aware that invincible ignorance (LG 16 ), being saved in imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) etc, were not visible exceptions to the dogma .
The same error was made by Bishop Bernard Fellay in his last Communique to Friends and Benefactors.The error was repeated at the Angelus and other conferences.It is there in the writings of the SSPX bishops.
The result was an upheaval which he himself admitted on December 7, 1968, in the following words: “The Church is now confronted with uncertainty, self-criticism, one might almost say self-destruction. As if the Church were doing violence to Herself.”
Lionel: Yes,since Vatican Council II was being interpreted with an irrational premise on such a big scale.
The following year he conceded: "In many areas the Council has not yet put us at peace; it has rather stirred up trouble and difficulties which are useless for reinforcing the Kingdom of God in the Church and in souls.”
Lionel: An irrational premise was being used in the interpretation of the Council and so it emerged as a break with the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius X and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
He went so far as to give this dire warning on July 29, 1972: “The smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God through some crack: doubt, incertitude, dissension, worry, discontent, and conflict are plain to see…”
Lionel: Yes it was plain to see but the exact cause was subtle and seemed unknown to him, as, it was unknown to the leaders of the traditionalist movement.
But he was merely stating a fact, while failing to take those measures capable of stopping the self-destruction.
In the 1960s it was being taught that there is salvation outside the Church as if these cases were known to them. It was as if they knew the names of the persons saved outside the visible boundaries of the Church.It was being taught that every one did not have to be an explicit member of the Catholic Church to be saved. In other words they knew non Catholics who were saved without the baptism of water.This was part of the text of the Letter of the Holy Office which was accepted by the SSPX and most people in the Church . The exceptions were the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney, the St.Benedict Centers, and their supporters, who were disparagingly called 'Feeneyites'.They are still criticized on the SSPX (USA ) website.
Catholic theology! Exactly!The new theology is built upon there being visible cases of the deceased who are now in Heaven. These dead persons allegedly saved with the baptism of desire etc and without the baptism of water, were known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So since there was known salvation outside the Church, (they could see the dead on earth) theology had been changed in general.
Along the same lines Archbishop Lefebvre said that the new Mass was “infused with a Protestant spirit” which is a “poison inimical to the Faith.”
Lionel: I have attended the Novos Ordo Mass offered by priests of the Franciscans of the Immaculate when the Mass was sacred and Catholic.The Novus Ordo Mass is still the Sacrifice of Jesus and it could be offered by a priest without using a heretical and irrational inference in the interpretation of magisterial documents.
Under his pontificate many priests and religious were persecuted, and even condemned, for their fidelity to the Tridentine Mass. The Priestly Society of St. Pius X remembers with great sorrow the condemnation of 1976 whereby Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre found himself suspens a divinis because of his attachment to that Mass and his categorical refusal of the reforms. Only in 2007, with the issuance of Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio, was it finally admitted that the Tridentine Mass had never been abrogated.
The Tridentine Mass is still being prohibited today since it is assumed that Vatican Council II ( with the premise) is a break with the old ecclesiology of the Traditional Latin Mass.The fault is not with the TLM but with traditionalists who still continue to interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise resulting in a break with the old ecclesiology.
Following in the footsteps of its founder, the Society of St. Pius X declares yet again its attachment to the Church’s 2000 year-old Tradition,
Sorry.Inferring that the dead are visible to us is not the 2000 year -old Tradition. It has come into the Catholic Church since 1949.
Also Vatican Council II without the irrational inference does not contradict the 2000 year- old Tradition.The SSPX 's position is the same as the liberals and heretics on this issue.
convinced that such fidelity, far from vain nostalgia, in fact provides an apt remedy to the Church’s self-destruction.
The SSPX is using the same irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II as those who are the enemies of the Church.They are still part of the problem.