Bishop Bernard Fellay’s mistake was corrected by Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson,
former Nuncio of Switzerland and Liechtenstein. It was corrected also by the
statement of Fr. Stefano Visintin OSB, former Rector of the University of St.
Anselm, Rome. But this was not reported by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) media.
There was no clarification or apology. The SSPX continued with the mistake in
the interpretation of Vatican Council II since they did not want to be Anti
Semitic. So they did not interpret the Council rationally.
The SSPX continued to project invisible cases of the baptism of desire (LG
14) and being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) as being visible examples
of salvation outside the Church; known non Catholics saved without faith and
the baptism of water.
The SSPX would project possibilities of salvation, which exist only in
our mind, as known only to God, as being objective cases known also to humans.
In other words, people in Heaven were seen on earth. This was a violation of
the Principle of Non Contradiction but it was the New Theology of the 1949
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston (LOHO). The 1949
LOHO is followed by the traditionalists and liberals.
There was no clarification or comment from Bishop Bernard Fellay and
neither from the Vatican. They did not say 1) that the 1949 LOHO made a
mistake. Invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible
ignorance mentioned are not visible examples of non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church in
1949-2024.So they are not objective exceptions for the strict interpretation of
the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the Church Councils, for the SSPX. The
SSPX must endorse the Fourth Lateran Council 1215 and the Council of Florence
1442 on EENS. These Councils did not name any exceptions.
2. The SSPX has to clarify that LG 8, 14, 1, 5, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22
etc, in Vatican Council II refer always to only hypothetical cases. This was
clear over the centuries and this was the apostolic teaching of Pope Pius X.
So invisible cases in 1965-2024 of LG 8,14,15,16 are not visible and
objective examples of salvation outside the Church and so LG 8, 14, 15, 16 etc,
do not contradict EENS as defined by the Church Councils.
Bishop Fellay needs to admit that the SSPX made a mistake on
salvation-theology and had wrongly changed doctrine for which it apologizes.
Bishop Fellay must also apologize for not accepting the 2012 General
Chapter Statement of the SSPX which affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus with no exceptions. Presently the text of that Statement is not available
on the Internet. - Lionel Andrades
Bishop Fellay's error in public
CARDINAL GERHARD MULLER : MISTAKES HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES AS BEING EXPLICIT IN THE PRESENT TIMES.
That has been discussed, but here, too, there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the third century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the third century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly — and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.
But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason. We must hope that those who do not belong to the Church through no fault of their own, but who follow the dictates of their God-given conscience, will be saved by Jesus Christ whom they do not yet know. Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience. - Cardinal Gerhard Muller (10/02/2012 ). Archbishop Gerhard Müller: 'The Church Is Not a Fortress', National Catholic Register http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-the-church-is-not-a-fortress/#ixzz3pwkg3Mur
Lionel: Cardinal Muller projects invisible cases of being saved in invincible ignorance as being objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was also the mistake of the Council Fathers ( 1965). So they could be suggesting here that only those who 'know'( about Jesus and the Catholic Church and its importance for salvation of all ) are on the way to Hell. But traditionally the Catholic Church has taught that those 'who know' and non Catholics in general are oriented to Hell without Catholic faith and the baptism of water. All need faith and baptism for salvation states Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.Outside the Church there is no salvation ( CCC 846 etc). So the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( 845,846), Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7), the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q,27 other religions are not paths to salvation) and the Athanasius Creed ( all need to be Catholic for eternal life) etc are not contradicted by Lumen Gentium 14.
___________
ARCHBISHOP AUGUSTINE DO NOIA : ASSUMES WHAT IS KNOWN ONLY TO GOD CAN BE KNOWN AND JUDGED BY US HUMAN BEINGS.
I don’t know if you can blame this on the Council so much as the emergence of a theological trend that emphasized the possibility of salvation of non-Christians. But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it. …The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.' - Archbishop Augustine di Noia ( 07/01/2012 ), Archbishop Di Noia, Ecclesia Dei and the Society of St. Pius X, National Catholic Register.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-dinoia-ecclesia-dei-and-the-society-of-st.-pius-x/#ixzz3Q1Vx3byR
Lionel: How can possibilities of salvation known only to be God be practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesia null salus? How can he judge which non Catholic is not in mortal sin and will go to Heaven even though he is not a Catholic?
___________________________
BISHOP BERNARD FELLAY ASSUMES THEORETICAL POSSIBILITIES KNOWN ONLY TO GOD ARE EXPLICIT IN THE PRESENT TIMES AND RELEVANT TO EENS
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
http://www.dici.org/en/documents/letter-to-friends-and-benefactors-no-82/
Lionel: Bishop Fellay too assumes hypothetical cases are objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He has accepted the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office which has confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, defined by three Church Councils. None of these Councils mentioned any exceptions. Bishop Fellay does not call attention to the mistake in the 1949 LOHO.- Lionel Andrades
________________________________________________________
Here are the controversial passages again
___________________________________________________________
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/04/bishop-bernard-fellay-contradicted-by.html
Bishop Bernard Fellay contradicted by Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson, John Martignoni : Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
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, Letter to Friends and Benefactors (April 13,2014)
Does LG 8 and UR 3 refer to an an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Is implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? -L.A
Continued
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/04/bishop-bernard-fellay-contradicted-by.html
Posts
