Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was not aware of the widespread visible dead error in the Catholic Church, which was supposed to be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So he assumed that Vatican Council II contradicted the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on other religions.
We now realize that it was his interpretation of the Council with the visible dead theory, which was at fault.
Once one is aware that Vatican Council II affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Dignitatis Humanae and other documents of the Council can be interpreted according to Tradition.
The key issue is other religions. The SSPX assumes invincible ignorance, implicit desire, seeds of the word, imperfect communion with the church, elements of sanctification, good and holy things in other religions etc are explicit exceptions known to us.
The Council does not state that these cases are explicit or that they contradict the dogma on salvation.Neither is this clearly mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.It has to be implied.
The secular media and Cardinal Richard Cushing the Archbishop of Boston implied that these cases were exceptions to the dogma.Archbishop Lefebvre picked up this error like about every body during his time.
This false premise, the dead man walking theory, has resulted in a modernist interpretation of Vatican Council II. The Archbishop condemned the Council without being aware of the premise being used.
He was correct the Council is modernist but only if you use the premise of, the dead man walking on earth, saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.
-Lionel Andrades
JESUIT PRIEST TODAY MORNING OFFERED MASS AND THEN INTERPRETS VATICAN COUNCIL II AS A BREAK WITH TRADITION
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment