Sunday, August 12, 2012

KEEP THE TEXT OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS AND AD GENTES 7 BEFORE YOU- THEN LET THEM THROW QUESTIONS

I would appeal to the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) priests Father Joseph Pfieffer, Father Chazal, Father Fox and others to keep the text of the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus before them along with Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.


The two texts are:


1. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


(Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215,Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302,Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)


2.Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7)

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.

Now when you have placed these two texts (1 & 2) before you ask yourself or anyone else, ‘How does Vatican Council II contradict the dogma?’


If you do not have the text before you and begin to discuss this subject it could lead to a lot of vagueness and confusion.When the text is before you people realize that this is the official teaching of the Catholic Church and not someone’s personal view.


No one would be able to produce any text from Vatican Council II to contradict the dogma or Ad Gentes 7.


I would invite anyone to prove me wrong. I know before hand my answers would be:-


1.“We do not know any one saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience. So Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma or AG 7.”


2.“Theoretically it is a possibility. In reality we do not know any such case.So it does not contradict the dogma, AG 7 or even the Syllabus of Errors.”


3.Those saved with elements of sanctification or seeds of the Word are known only to God. So Lumen Gentium 8 or Dei Verbum, Vatican Council II does not contradict the text in front of me”.


4. “ The text does not say it (seeds of the Word) is explicit or that it ( imperfect communion with the church) contradicts the dogma or AG 7”

5. “We do not know who is in invincible ignorance and saved and who knows about Jesus and the Church and yet does not enter the Church and is in Hell . Only God can judge.The dogma and Vatican Council II (AG 7) says all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell ( for salvation)”.

So if there are no known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II  the Council does not oppose the literal interpretaion of the dogma( the text is in front of us).
When Vatican Council II affirms the dogma, contrary to the liberal propaganda, then we have traditionalist values in ecclesiology, other religions, religious liberty etc.Vatican Council II is traditionalist.The Church may be a 'conciliar church' but the text of Vatican Council II is traditionalist.

Vatican Council II supports the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Pascendi. It is in agreement with the values of the SSPX priests.
-Lionel Andrades


VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE SYLLABUS OR ERRORS OR PASCENDI

ROME HAS TO CONVERT WHEN THE SSPX ANNOUNCES RICHARD CUSHING WAS IN HERESY

NO MATTER HOW YOU INTERPRET DIGNITATIS HUMANAE IF VATICAN COUNCIL II AFFIRMS EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IS TRADITIONAL

FR.NICHOLAS PFLUGER PLEASE ANNOUNCE THAT THE RICHARD CUSHING HERESY IS UNACCEPTABLE

SSPX - ARCHBISHOP RICHARD CUSHING WAS IN HERESY AND NOT FR.LEONARD FEENEY

THE BOSTON HERESY OF THE ARCHBISHOP INFLUENCED VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

DID CARDINAL RATZINGER ASSUME THAT THOSE SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE ARE KNOWN TO US SO THE CATECHISM SAYS GOD IS NOT LIMITED TO THE SACRAMENTS?

CHRISTOPHER FERRARA WITHOUT THE BOSTON HERESY OF THE ARCHBISHOP VATICAN COUNCIL II IS A TRADITONALIST COUNCIL

THE SSPX NEEDS TO ADDRESS THE AMBIGUITY IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949

YOUTUBE BISHOP RICHARD WILLIAMSON MAKES A DOCTRINAL ERROR
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE SYLLABUS OR ERRORS OR PASCENDI

There is so much of confusion. The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) priests could know that the last Chapter of the SSPX has not conceded any ground and made an important announcement which was an end to a long standing error. Doctrinally it has said there cannot be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is calling the attention of its 590-plus priests to this observation. If there are no known exceptions to the dogma then the SSPX understanding of Vatican Council II has changed fundamentally.

In the past the SSPX was using the liberal's interpretation of the Council. They have thrown that out. They are now calling upon their priests, through the communiqué, to see Vatican council II as a traditional Council which affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.The SSPX has brought Vatican Council II back in line with Sacred Tradition.

Father Hewko mentions the importance of the Syllabus of Errors and Pascendi. Vatican Council II without the Richard Cushing error does not contradict these two documents.

Vatican Council II says Christ is not an option. In Ad Gentes 7 it says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation( to avoid Hell). All need Catholic Faith, including Protestants.-Lionel Andrades

Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , ,

ROME HAS TO CONVERT WHEN THE SSPX ANNOUNCES RICHARD CUSHING WAS IN HERESY

Often I hear the SSPX religious say Rome must convert and then we will join them. Rome will convert but the key lies with the SSPX. Rome is modernist because unknowingly it assumes that Fr. Leonard Feeney was in heresy and not the Archbishop of Boston.


If Richard Cushing was in heresy then it means Vatican Council II affirms the literal traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Then obviously the Council would be rejecting the ‘theology of religions’, ‘ecclesiology of communion’ salvation outside the church, ecumenism of non return etc.


Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston  indicated that there are visible cases saved with the baptism of desire. This is in heresy.If Cushing is rejected then  the ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is exclusive ecclesiocentrism. Religious liberty is traditional.


Rome has to convert since how can they keep repeating the irrationality of the visible dead (with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance) once the SSPX is aware of this error and goes public.

 How can they keep saying that we know non Catholics saved ‘who are ‘good and holy’, 'in imperfect communion with the Church' or saved with 'the seeds of the Word' when we do not know any of these cases in 2012 who can be an exception to the dogma or the Syllabus of Errors?


So the responsibility for Rome’s conversion lies with the SSPX. The SSPX priests must understand that Fr. Leonard Feeney could not be in heresy for affirming a defined dogma which does not mention 'exceptions'.


When it is implied that Vatican Council II mentions ‘exceptions’ we must observe  that none of the ‘exceptions’ are known to us in the present time. So they do not contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney. Vatican Council II is a traditionalist Council. This has not been the formation of seminarians at Econe.


So the SSPX priests should not walk away from the main body until they understand this and can present a rational response for or against what is being said here.Over time Rome and the SSPX will understand. So just wait. Stay where you are.


The SSPX priest Fr. Fox from Australia speaks about knowing the will of God.

God of course will not want any priest to accept irrationality like visible dead exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Also the SSPX communiqué has not directly recognized  Vatican Council II with the Richard Cushing error. It  instead affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and rejects the possibility of knowing any exceptions.


This is indirectly affirming a traditional Vatican Council II with traditional values on other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty.So whether one is in or out of the SSPX Vatican Council II is traditional.-Lionel Andrades

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

NO MATTER HOW YOU INTERPRET DIGNITATIS HUMANAE IF VATICAN COUNCIL II AFFIRMS EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IS TRADITIONAL

There has been so much written and spoken about Dignitatis Humanae (DH), Vatican Council II without mentioning that the real issue is extra ecclesiam nulla sales. If there is ambiguity in DH it is because of the rejection of the dogma on salvation.

If it is accepted that Vatican Council II endorses extra ecclesiam nulla salus then Religious Liberty is no more ambiguous in Vatican Council II.

So the ambiguity in Religious Liberty is not in DH but  when it is assumed that Lumen Gentium 16,on invincible ignorance and being saved with a good conscience, are known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.

This is the Richard Cushing heresy to assume that a defined dogma has explicit exceptions and that we can see the dead saved with a good conscience.This is irrational. It is also an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.

There are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So the Council affirms the traditional understanding of religious liberty.

If one is a priest in or out of the SSPX - affirm Vatican Council II in accord with the dogma and the Syllabus or Errors and reject the Richard Cushing Error of the visible baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.-Lionel Andrades
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)