The SSPX was excommunicated because Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops were not aware of the Richard Cushing error

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) was excommunicated because Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger did not mention an error in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case which spread throughout the Church. It resulted in the interpretation of the Council which was heretical. It denied the dogma on salvation.

The whole process can now be rectified since the problem is in the interpretation and not in the actual texts. From the text one can make wrong or correct inferences depending on one of two premises. The premises are 1. The dead saved are visible to us 2 the dead saved are not visible to us.

If Cardinal Ratzinger had realized that the problem originated with Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston in the 1940’s, he could have prevented the formation of the SPX. It was Cardinal Richard Cushing who broke with tradition and created the new doctrine of the explicitly known (formerly implicit) baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. What rationally and traditionally was always considered implicit and known only to God, he posited it as being known to us and so an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma.

The popes and cardinals at the Vatican seemed to support Cardinal Richard Cushing–from the 1940’s until today. Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith also seems to accept that the baptism of desire is an explicit exception to the traditional understanding of the dogma, worse still, that we can see the dead alive.

May be he did not realize it, since superficially the baptism of desire seems like an exception to the dogma. Many Catholics make this innocent mistake. I also did so at one time.

If the error was identified at the time of the SSPX split, Vatican Council II could b projected as a traditional Council with no known cases of the visible dead who are saved and who are exceptions to the dogma according to St. Francis Xavier, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Robert Bellarmine, St.Maximillian Kolbe, St. Anthony Mary Claret…

When the ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is ecclesiolcentric, as in the past centuries, then its values on other religions, ecumenism an religious liberty is traditional and according to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

At the time of the SSPX excommunication they could not identify the visible dead virus which was the cause of liberalism and dissent.

With the visible dead theory accepted, there remained only one interpretation of Vatican Council II which was a break from tradition. It was rejected by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvere.

Pope John Paul II approved the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre and four bishops. Non of the six of them, the pope and the SSPX bishops, realized the exact cause of the non traditional Vatican Council II.

Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI and the Cushing error has been identified. He can resolve the issue immediately.-Lionel Andrades



CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER AND ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SSPX PROBLEM BY IDENTIFYING THE WRONG PREMISE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/cardinal-joseph-ratzinger-and.html#links 

Without the false premise ecclesiology is traditional. Vatican Council II is not modernist but traditional

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/without-false-premise-ecclesiology-is.html#links

       

Without the false premise ecclesiology is traditional. Vatican Council II is not modernist but traditional

From the SSPX North America District website:

"Magisterium or living tradition?"

Fr. Gleize denounces a false dilemma

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Their objection to our position, in short, is that the only living magisterium worthy of the name is today’s magisterium, not yesterday’s. Only the magisterium of today can tell what conforms to Tradition and what is contrary to it, for it alone represents the living magisterium, the interpreter of Tradition.

Lionel: We reject a magisterium today which contradicts the magisterium of the past on faith and morals.

And therefore we must choose one of two things: either we reject Vatican II, judging that it is contrary to Tradition,

Lionel: There is an interpretation of Vatican Council II which is the result of a wrong premise. Both the Vatican and the SSPX are using it. Change the premise and it is a different Council.

but at the same time contradicting the only possible magisterium, the living magisterium, which is today’s (the magisterium of Benedict XVI), and we are no Catholics but Protestants; or else we decide not to be Protestants and we are obliged to accept Vatican II so as to obey the living magisterium, which is today’s, declaring that the Council is in conformity with Tradition.

Lionel. The Council with the premise of us 'being able to see the dead saved on earth', is not in conformity with tradition. Neither is it rational.

This is a dilemma, in other words, a problem with no apparent solution beside the two that are indicated: if we try to avoid one of the two horns, we will not avoid the other. But in reality this dilemma is false. For there are such things as false dilemmas….

Lionel: The issue is the premise. Vatican Council II is the conclusion of the premise chosen. With the correct, rational premise there is no dilemma.

The two alternatives are avoidable, both at once, for there is a third solution. It is possible to reject Vatican II without being Protestant and while obeying the magisterium; it is possible not to be Protestant and to obey the magisterium without accepting Vatican II…. The dilemma is false because an indispensable distinction is omitted. If we make the distinction, we find the way out of the dilemma, because we show that there is a third alternative. Our response therefore consists in making that distinction.

Lionel: Without the false premise ecclesiology is traditional. Vatican Council II is not modernist but traditional.

…[the expression] ‘the living magisterium’ does not mean ‘as opposed to the past magisterium’; it means ‘as opposed to the posthumous magisterium’. This living magisterium is the magisterium of the present, but also that of the past. The objection to our position consists of combining ‘living magisterium’ and ‘present magisterium’ and of setting this ‘living magisterium’ in opposition to the past magisterium. This combination occurs because they situate themselves exclusively within the subject’s point of view. They no longer distinguish between two points of view: that of the office or function (in which the living magisterium is at the same time present and past) and the point of view of the subject (in which the living magisterium is present only). The two are confused and thus they reduce the living magisterium to the present magisterium...(Continued)

Lionel: The present magisterium can make mistakes when due to political pressure it says Jews do not have to convert in the present times.

-Lionel Andrades

http://www.sspx.org/sspx_and_rome/magisterium_or_living_tradition_fr_gleize_denounces_a_false_dilemma.htm

CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER AND ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SSPX PROBLEM BY IDENTIFYING THE WRONG PREMISE

Both Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre could have ended the Society of St.Pius X ( SSPX ) problem before it arose, if they had just observed that the baptism of desire was never ever an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra eclesiam nullla salus and to Fr.Leonard Feeney's traditional interpretation.

They did not realize that all who are dead and saved are implicit for us and never explicitly known. So there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to extra ecclesiam nullas salus.

We acknowledge the baptism of desire etc but they are not exceptions. So Vatican Council II is saying there is no salvation outside the church .

Here are the two premises with their logical conclusions.

Premise1: The dead saved are visible to us.

Premise 2: The dead saved are not visible to us.

Conclusion with Premise 1: There is salvation outside the church.

Conclusion with Premise 2: There is no salvation outside the Church.

Conclusion with Premise 1: Vatican Council Ii says there is salvation outside the Church.(LG 16-invincible ignorance etc)

Conclusion with Premise 2: Vatican Council II says there is no salvation outside Church. (LG 16 is not explicit but implicit).

Conclusion with Premise 1: Vatican Council II contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Conclusion with Premise 2: Vatican Council ii is in accord with Vatican Council II and the Syllabus of Errors. It does not contradict them.

Conclusion with Premise 1: Vatican Council II is modernist.

Conclusion with Premise 2: Vatican Council II is traditional.

I leave you to judge which premise was being used by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

The SSPX have just to inform Ecclesia Dei  that they affirm the second premise. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican cannot fault them for rejecting Vatican Council II and not affirming traditional values on other religions. etc. They are not rejecting the Council but only useing a different interpretation.

If the cardinal and archbishop understood and  used the second premise, there would be no excommunication.

APPLY IT TO VATICAN COUNCIL II

ATherefore, 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. B.Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."-Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.

Conclusion with Premise I: B contradicts A.

Conclsuion with Premise 2: B does not contradict A.

A.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...B.Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.-Ad  Gentes 7, Vatican Council II

Conclusion with Premise I: B contradicts A.
Conclsuion with Premise 2: B does not contradict A.

A. 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

B. '...let them gladly and reverently lay bare the seeds of the Word which lie hidden among their fellows.-Ad Gentes 7

Conclusion with Premise I: B contradicts A.
Conclusion with Premise 2: B does not contradict A.

This same analysis can be done with other passages in Vatican Council II.

-Lionel Andrades