Saturday, September 6, 2014

Cardinal Muller must also begin dialogue with Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI :sedevacantism based on misunderstanding on doctrine

Cardinal Gerhard Muller and  Bishop Bernard Fellay are to meet this month.Bishop Mark Pivarunas could also be invited for these reconciliation talks at another time.They all could agree on two common sense points which are at the basis of the doctrinal confusion in the Catholic Church.. The two points are at the basis of disagreement with the sedevacantists CMRI who have hundreds of priests and sisters in their community. Their bishop has posted an article on the CMRI website 1 explaining why they have gone into sedevacantism.The reasons are doctrinal and at the centre is  extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I have analysed it below with reference to the two points.

Like with the meeting with Bishop Fellay there can be end to the tension with CMRI if the Vatican clarifies the following two points; two irrational premises; fantasy inferences, used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II by the CMRI,SSPX and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Ecclesia Dei  cardinals,bishops and priests.
The two points which are hypothetical and irrational are  :-
1. We cannot see the deceased who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.They are visible and known only to God.

2.If something does not exist, it cannot be an exception.If someone is not present in our reality, he cannot be inferred to be an exception to anything.If something is not there it cannot be inferred that it is there.

It is upon these two simple points there can also be a reconciliation of the Vatican with the traditionalists,sedevacantists and the Franciscans of the Immaculate.


Sedevacantism

By Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI

Sedevacantism is the theological position of those traditional Catholics who most certainly believe in the papacy, papal infallibility and the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and yet do not recognize Benedict XVI as a legitimate successor of Peter in the primacy. In other words, they do not recognize him as a true pope. The word sedevacantism is a compound of two Latin words which together mean “the Chair is vacant.” Despite the various arguments raised against this position — that it is based on a false expectation that the pope can do no wrong, or that it is an emotional reaction to the problems in the Church — the sedevacantist position is founded on the Catholic doctrines of the infallibility and the indefectibility of the Church and on the theological opinion of the great Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine.
As an introduction to this article, let the traditional Catholic first ask himself why he is a traditional Catholic. Why does he not attend the Novus Ordo Mass? Why does he reject the teachings of Vatican Council II on Religious Liberty and Ecumenism?( Why does Vatican Council II reject the teachings on Ecumenism for the CMRI ? It is because Cardinal Muller and Bishop Pivarunas use the following two irrational premises.

THE FALSE PREMISE
1. We can see the deceased who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.They are visible and known only to God.
2.If something does not exist, it can be an exception.If someone is not present in our reality, he can be inferred to be an exception to anything.If something is not there it can be inferred that it is there.
(So LG 16,LG 8,NA 2,UR 3 etc refer to visible to us cases who are living exceptions in 2014 to the need for all to receive the baptism of water for salvation. This is a contradiction of the Syllabus of Errors and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Conclusion: Vatican Council II is heretical and a break with Traditon.
Result: Sedevacantism)

WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE
1. We cannot see the deceased who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.They are visible and known only to God.
2.If something does not exist, it cannot be an exception.If someone is not present in our reality, he cannot be inferred to be an exception to anything.If something is not there it cannot be inferred that it is there.
(So Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II is in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors when it says all need faith and baptism for salvation and since the false premise is not used Nostra Aetate 2, Lumen Gentium 16,Unitatis Redintigratio 3 are not exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition
Conclusion. Vatican Council II is traditional on other religions and Christian communities.)

  Why does he reject the new code of Canon Law (1983) in which under certain circumstances schismatics and heretics may, without an abjuration of their errors and a profession of the Catholic Faith, be administered by a Catholic priest the Sacraments of Penance, Extreme Unction, and Holy Eucharist? (Before these issues can be addressed the sedevacantists and traditionalists must identify the false error being made by them in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents) If the traditional Catholic answers the first question correctly, he would state quite simply that the New Mass is without a doubt a danger to his faith and that due to the radical changes in the Offertory and Consecration, it is questionable whether transubstantiation even takes place. In answer to the second question, the traditional Catholic would properly state that the teachings found in Vatican II decrees of Religious Liberty and Ecumenism have been condemned by previous popes, in particular by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors.( Alert signal here! He is using the irrational premises mentioned  above. One with the irrational premise is Vatican Council II a break with the Syllabus of Errors)  Lastly, to the third question, the traditional Catholic would surely answer that such a law in the new code can never be considered as true and binding legislation since the sacraments would be sacrilegiously administered to heretics and schismatics.
How appropriately did the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (We now know that Archbishop Lefebvre assumed that the Hindu in Tibet saved in his religion through Jesus and the Church was visible and known to us and so was an explicit exception for Archbishop Lefebvre , to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.To be an exception to the dogma the Hindu in Tibet would have to be visible and known to the Archbishop.This was the error made by the Holy Office and the Archdiocese of Boston in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case) on the occasion of his Suspension a divinis by Paul VI write the following reflection on June 29, 1976:
“That the Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive.
“This Conciliar Church is schismatic, because it has taken as a basis for its updating, principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church, such as the new concept of the Mass expressed in numbers 5 of the Preface to (the decree) Missale Romanum and 7 of its first chapter, which gives the assembly a priestly role that it cannot exercise; such likewise as the natural — which is to say divine — right of every person and of every group of persons to religious freedom.
“This right to religious freedom is blasphemous, for it attributes to God purposes that destroy His Majesty, His Glory, His Kingship. This right implies freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and all the Masonic freedoms.
“The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.”
(He is correct in as much as the 'Conciliar Church' is interpreting Vatican Council II with the FALSE PREMISE  mentioned above. With this irrationality the result is  heretical.Pope Paul VI and the following popes overlooked or ignored it.) 
Let the traditional Catholic, especially the members of the Society of St. Pius X, ask themselves to what extent have the Pope, bishops, priest and laity adhered to this new Church which would, as Archbishop Lefebvre reflected, separate themselves from the Catholic Church. Benedict XVI, as did John Paul II before him, completely adheres to the Conciliar Church. He enforces the Novus Ordo Mass and false teachings of Vatican II.(Yes with the FALSE PREMISE  used above.Identify the irrationality and the Conciliar Church is traditional once again on other religions and ecumenism.It results in a new way of looking at Religious Liberty.) He follows in the footsteps of John Paul II, who promulgated the New Code of Canon Law (1983), and who boldly practiced false ecumenism and heretical religious indifferentism in Assisi, Italy, on October 27, 1986, by the atrocious convocation of all the false religions of the world to pray to their false gods for world peace!
As unpleasant as this subject may be, traditional Catholics are confronted by the terrible and burning questions:
Is the Conciliar Church the Catholic Church?( Yes.Once the FALSE PREMISE  is  identified theology will return to rationality)
Is Benedict XVI, as the head of the Conciliar Church, a true pope? (Yes. He is equally in the dark about the FALSE PREMISE  as is Pope Francis. No traditionalist or sedevacantist bishop is calling attention to this error overlooked by the popes,cardinals and bishops.)
The sedevacantist would unhesitatingly and unequivocally say no.
To believe otherwise, to answer yes to the above questions, would be to imply that the Catholic Church has failed in its purpose, that the Church of Christ is not infallible and indefectible, that the Pope is not the rock upon which Christ founded His Church, that the promise of Christ to be with His Church “all days even to the consummation of the world” and that the special assistance of the Holy Ghost, have failed the Church — conclusions which no traditional Catholic could ever maintain. Consider the following quote from Vatican Council I (1870):
“For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ ...for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32).”
Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Satis Cognitum, taught that the Teaching Authority of the Church can never be in error:
“If (the living magisterium) could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error.”(The irrational premise in the interpretation of magisterial documents is an error also being made by Bishop Parvenus and Bishop Fellay)
How can a traditional Catholic on one hand reject the New Mass, the heretical teachings of Vatican Council II, and the New Code of Canon Law (1983), and on the other hand, continue to recognize as pope the very one who officially promulgates and enforces these errors?
To consider yet another question, is the faith and government of the traditional Catholic the same as Benedict XVI and his Conciliar Church? Do traditional Catholics believe the same doctrines as Benedict XVI and his Conciliar Church on the New Mass, false ecumenism (ecumenism is false when the FALSE PREMISE is  used) and religious liberty?
Are traditional Catholics subject to the local hierarchy and ultimately to Rome?
Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Mystical Body of Christ, taught:
“It follows that those who are divided in faith and government cannot be living in the one Body such as this, and cannot be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.”
Are traditional Catholics united or divided in faith and government with the Conciliar Church?
The sedevacantist honestly recognizes that his faith is actually not the same as Benedict XVI and his Conciliar Church (Bishop Parvenus  uses the FALSE PREMISE and then rejects Vatican Council II while the popes also use the FALSE PREMISE above but accept Vatican Council II and the break with Tradition). He recognizes that he is actually not subject and obedient to Benedict XVI. As a traditional Catholic, the sedevacantist believes and professes all the teachings of the Catholic Church, and this profession of the true Faith includes a rejection of the false teachings of Vatican II (“all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive” — Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, June 29, 1976).
During the first prayer of the Canon of the traditional Mass which begins Te igitur, the priest in normal times would recite una cum papa nostro N. (one with our pope N.). What significance does this short phrase convey — una cum, one with? One in faith, one in government, one in the Mass and Sacraments — united — this is the significance! Can a traditional priest honestly recite in the Canon of the Mass that he is una cum Benedict XVI? In what is he una cum Benedict XVI? (Both are using the IRRATIONAL PREMISE in the interpretation of magisterial documents. The error is conspicuous in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when it is inferred that the baptism of desire  etc being visible to us are exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. The dead are living exceptions!? The same error is made in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) regarding the necessity of the baptism of water i.e 'God is not limited to the Sacraments')In the Conciliar teachings, in government, in the official New Mass and Sacraments — is he actually una cum?
One last consideration on this subject of sedevacantism is the manner in which all these things have come to pass. When did they take place? How did they take place? This is an area in which sedevacantists themselves differ. Some hold that the papal elections were invalid based on the Bull of Pope Paul IV in 1559, Cum ex apostolatus:
“If ever at any time it appears that... the Roman Pontiff has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy before assuming the papacy, the assumption, done even with the unanimous consent of all the Cardinals, stands null, invalid and void; nor can it be said to become valid, or be held in any way legitimate, or be thought to give to such ones any power of administering either spiritual or temporal matters; but everything said, done and administered by them lacks all force and confers absolutely no authority or right on anyone; and let such ones by that very fact (eo ipso) and without any declaration required to be deprived of all dignity, place, honor, title, authority, office, and power.”
Some sedevacantists quote the Code of Canon Law (1917) in Canon 188 No. 4:
“All offices shall be vacant ipso facto (without a declaration required) by tacit resignation... #4 by public defection from the Catholic Faith.”
Others hold the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifice (Chapter XXX):
“The fifth opinion (regarding a heretical pope) therefore is true; a pope who is a manifest heretic by that fact (per se) ceases to be pope and head (of the Church), just as he by that fact ceases to be a Christian (sic) and a member of the body of the Church. This is the judgment of all the early Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
Pope Innocent III as quoted by the theologian Billot in his Tract. de Ecclesia Christi, p. 610:
“The faith is necessary for me to such an extent that, having God as my only judge in other sins, I could however be judged by the Church for sins I might commit in matters of faith.”
Suffice it to say, the issue of the pope is a difficult one, an unpleasant one, and a frightful one; yet it is a necessary and important issue which cannot be avoided.
In conclusion, let it not be said that the sedevacantist rejects the papacy, the primacy, or the Catholic Church. On the contrary it is because of his belief in the papacy, the primacy, the infallibility and the indefectibility of the Catholic Church that he rejects Benedict XVI and his Conciliar Church.(It is because of ignorance of the irrationality mentioned above that the sedevacantist rejects the popes.The misinterpretation has resulted in sedevacantism)
For the sedevacantist, the Catholic Church cannot and has not failed. The great apostasy predicted by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Thessalonians has taken place:
“Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God.... And now you know what restrains him, that he may be revealed in his proper time. For the mystery of iniquity is already at work; provided only that he who is at present restraining it, does still restrain, until he is gotten out of the way. And then the wicked one will be revealed...” (2 Thess. 2:3-8).
Who is this one “who is at present restraining it... until he is gotten out of the way. And then the wicked one will be revealed”? Perhaps Pope Leo XIII has the answer in his Motu Proprio of September 25, 1888, when he wrote in his invocation to St. Michael:
“These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.”
(The Catechism of the Catholic Church alludes to this and many in the Conciliar Church expect  this to happen.Still identifying the irrationality can remove the misunderstanding on doctrine.This is  now vaguely attributed to Vatican Council II and the popes. We can have a Vatican Council II interpreted with or without the false premise.I interpret it without the False Premise.
THE FALSE PREMISE
1. We can see the deceased who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.They are visible and known only to God.
2.If something does not exist, it can be an exception.If someone is not present in our reality, he can be inferred to be an exception to anything.If something is not there it can be inferred that it is there.
(So LG 16,LG 8,NA 2,UR 3 etc refer to visible to us cases who are living exceptions in 2014 to the need for all to receive the baptism of water for salvation. This is a contradiction of the Syllabus of Errors and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Conclusion: Vatican Council II is heretical and a break with Traditon.
Result: Sedevacantism)

WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE
1. We cannot see the deceased who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.They are visible and known only to God.
2.If something does not exist, it cannot be an exception.If someone is not present in our reality, he cannot be inferred to be an exception to anything.If something is not there it cannot be inferred that it is there.)

Cardinal  Muller must begin talks with the Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae CMRI, as it has done so with the SSSPX:The CMRI ara a Catholic community and they could be allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass in Catholic Churches,a  facility which is being given to the Orthodox Church.-Lionel Andrades

1.
Sedevacantism 
http://www.cmri.org/sedevac.htm

APRIL 19, 2012


ITS TIME FOR ECCLESIA DEI TO BEGIN RECONCILIATION WITH HUTTON GIBSON, CMRI,MHFM AND OTHER SEDEVACATISTS: PRIMARY ISSUE IS EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

Vatican clarification needed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not explicit exceptions to the dogma and no magisterial text makes this claim.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/its-time-for-ecclesia-dei-to-begin.html


Even if a non Catholic was saved in his religion or by his religion the case is implicit for us: Bishop Fellay uses the right hand column
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/even-if-non-catholic-was-saved-in-his.html


Pope Francis and the Vatican Curia want the Franciscans of the Immaculate to interpret Church documents with an irrationality : appeal for justice
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/pope-francis-and-vatican-curia-want.html

Rational Interpretation of Vatican Council II : hope for the Franciscans of the Immaculate
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/rational-interpretation-of-vatican.html


Fr.Angelo Geiger F.I : SSPX and Franciscans of the Immaculate must continue to reject Vatican Council II with the dead man walking premise ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/frangelo-geiger-fi-sspx-and-franciscans.html

Fr.Francois Laisney and CathInfo are a block to the SSPX Reconciliation
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/frfrancois-laisney-and-cathinfo-are.html
The SSPX (SOS-Resistance) does not clarify if they are referring to Vatican Council II with or without the premise.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/they-sspx-sos-resistance-does-not.html#links

Meeting needed between Ecclesia Dei/CDF, SSPX,CMRI and others: all agree that the baptism of desire is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/meeting-needed-between-ecclesia-deicdf.html#links
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/cardinal-gerhard-muller-and-bishop.html#links

No comments: