Thursday, February 27, 2014

There must have been a leftist storm over Archbold's report


 
The National Catholic Register (NCR)  has still pulled down the report asking Pope Francis to grant the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) canonical status. The  'liberals' must have protested.

The NCR columnist Patrick Archbald like other apologists on the other hand has not seen that the real issue is not Vatican Council II but interpreting the Council with or without a false premise: taking it for granted that we can physically see the dead in Heaven or as is commonly known, we cannot see them with the naked eye.

The real issue is whether your using the yellow or red column below. Since there can only be two basic interpretations of the Council, from them other interpretations follow. There can only be one rational and one bizarre interpretation of the Council.

Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus depending on the colour you choose, YELLOW  or RED.




implicit                         or     explicit for us.
hypothetical                or     known in reality.
invisible                       or     visible in the flesh.
dejure ( in principle)   or      defacto (in fact).
subjective                    or      objective.


 Imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) contradicts the dogma on exclusive salvation.( RED).
Imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) does not contradict the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.(YELLOW).

So the Catholic Church's teaching on ecumenism has changed. Now there are is known salvation outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church.(RED column  interpretation).

So the Catholic Church's teaching on ecumenism has not changed. Now as before there is no  known,visible in the flesh salvation for us in 2014, outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church.( Interpretation with the values in the YELLOW column).

Apologists Archbald, Louis Verrechio, Michael Voris for example are using the irrational interpretation. This is pleasing to the Left. This is also the interpretation of NCR now under the management of EWTN, which is under the control of the Jewish Left.
 
The SSPX could affirm Vatican Council II with the yellow column and it would be a rational interpretation.EWTN and the National Catholic Register are using the irrational red column interpretation of Vatican Council. It is the only one which the SSPX knows of and so rejects it since it is a break with Tradition.Any Church document which uses an irrational premise will result in a break with Tradition and reason.
 
The SSPX can still affirm Vatican Council II with the rational yellow column, even if they choose not to enter the Catholic Church with canonical status.
 
The apologists and the SSPX must be first aware of the error being made in doctrine. Then they could expect the Vatican Curia to correct the error and make the changes.

The SSPX has a right to canonical status since Vatican Council II interpreted with the YELLOW values is traditional. The NCR and EWTN are using an irrational, non traditional interpretation of the Council. The Jewish Left media refer to it as the 'reforms' of Vatican Council II. Liberal professors call it a 'developent of doctrine'. Upon this error the International Theological Commission has speculated that there is a 'theology of religions'.There could be no 'new theology' without the use of the RED column.



The National Catholic Register is not interpreting the Catechism rationally. For them CCC 846 contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. CCC 846 says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church. This means for example there are those saved with the baptism of desire and others with the baptism of water. The NCR and EWTN Management  assume that those saved with the baptism of desire are physically visible to us.Since they are visible to the editorial staff of the NCR there are known  exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation. They are using the RED column in the interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. CCC 846 would also contradict itself when it cites AD 7, all need to enter the Church as through a door. For EWTN-NCR some people in 2014, whom they know and can name, do not need to do so.
-Lionel Andrades
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2014/02/pope-francis-and-sspx-opportunity.html
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/archbold/



His concluding paragraphs:
With the breakdown of discussion between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X at the end of the previous pontificate, the public mood during this first year of the current pontificate, and other internal events, traditional Catholics, both inside and outside the Church, have felt increasingly marginalized. Whether fair or true, I say without fear of contradiction that this is a prevailing sentiment.

This perception of marginalization has manifested itself in increasingly strident and frankly disrespectful rhetoric on the part of some traditionalists and their leaders.

I have great concern that without the all the generosity that faith allows by the leaders of the Church, that this separation, this wound on the Church, will become permanent. In fact, without such generosity, I fully expect it. Such permanent separation and feeling of marginalization will likely separate more souls than just those currently associated with the SSPX.

I have also come to believe that Pope Francis' is exactly the right Pope to do it. In his address to the evangelicals, he makes clear his real concern for unity.

So here is what I am asking. I ask the Pope to apply that wide generosity to the SSPX and to normalize relations and their standing within the Church. I am asking the Pope to do this even without the total agreement on the Second Vatican Council. Whatever their disagreements, surely this can be worked out over time with the SSPX firmly implanted in the Church. I think that the Church needs to be more generous toward unity than to insist upon dogmatic adherence to the interpretation of a non-dogmatic council. The issues are real, but they must be worked out with our brothers at home and not with a locked door.

Further, Pope Francis' commitment to the aims of the Second Vatican Council is unquestioned. Were he to be generous in such a way, nobody would ever interpret it to be a rejection of the Council. How could it be? This perception may not have been the case in the last pontificate. Pope Francis is uniquely suited to this magnanimous moment.

I believe this generosity is warranted and standard practice in the Church. We do not insist on religious orders that may have strayed even further in the other direction sign a copy of Pascendi Dominici Gregis before they can be called Catholic again. So please let us not insist on the corollary for the SSPX. Must we insist on more for a group that doctrinally would not have raised an eyebrow a mere fifty years ago? I pray not.

Give them canonical status and organizational structure that will protect them. Bring them home, for their sake and the sake of countless other souls. I truly believe that such generosity will be repaid seven-fold. Pope Benedict has done so much of the heavy lifting already, all that is required is just a little more.

Please Holy Father, let us not let this moment pass and this rift grow into a chasm. Make this generous offer and save the Church from further division. Do this so that none of your successors will ever say, "If only we had done more."-Rorate Caeili

2 comments:

Unknown said...

Are you still riding this hobby horse, Lionel? Aren't you the same person who pulled the stupid stunt writing to all the priests and bishops of Harrisburg accusing the bishop there of being a heretic?

Will you get a life for Pete's sake? You might consider spending some more time in self-examination rather than spreading your obsession.

I understand that this story has really angered or titillated some people, but the reality is a lot more mundane. Have you read Archbold’s clarification?

http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2014/02/the-national-catholic-register-is-not.html

Someone at Fr. Zuhlsdorf’s blog discussed it with the Register, too. Read it here:

“I asked the Register why the article was taken down. The Managing Editor said, ‘The bottom line is that there was one last theological review in order because the post covers a sensitive topic. There was a miscommunication about this and the post went up without that review. Once it went live the situation took on a life of its own. Pat’s call to extend grace for reconciliation is laudable and we certainly have no disagreement with it. As it is, the related challenges that ensued resulted in the perception that we disagreed with Pat’s expressed desire for the healing of the schism, which is not at all the case.’ I then asked, ‘Is it possible that the article will be posted after a satisfactory theological review or has it already went through the theological review and was found lacking? In either event, I believe some sort of public clarification is in order, in my humble opinion.’ He stated, ‘Patrick posted the article on Creative Minority report. So we won’t be posting that particular one. But you can be sure we will have similar pieces from him and others down the road.’”

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/02/could-pope-francis-be-the-one-to-reconcile-the-sspx/

Catholic Mission said...

Are you still riding this hobby horse, Lionel? Aren't you the same person who pulled the stupid stunt writing to all the priests and bishops of Harrisburg accusing the bishop there of being a heretic?

Lionel:
Hullo Grant. It is nice to be in communication with you once again.

I remember in our last communication you would not say that Jews need to convert according to the Bible and the teachings of the Catholic Church.
You were anti Robert Sungenis and his Bishop, the then liberal Bishop of Harrisburg, now in the diocese of Notre Dame University. He too would not affirm Vatican Council II saying what you deny.
I did write to all in that diocese as I may have done in the diocese of New York and other diocese. It is was just to inform them how Vatican Council II is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus when there are no known exceptions.The Council is traditional on the issue of other religions and Christian communities.