Wednesday, February 5, 2014

SSPX must clarify that the baptism of desire is always implicit, hypothetical and invisible for us

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) District Superior Fr. Pierpaolo Petrucci cannot deny that he has made an objective error. He could clarify that the baptism of desire, for us human beings, is always implicit, hypothetical, invisible, de jure and subjective. It is never explicit for us, known in reality, visible in the flesh, defacto, objective.

He would still be affirming  the baptism of desire (implicit) and denying an explicit, visible for us baptism of desire.

 So he still holds the SSPX  position supporting the baptism of desire and the possibility of being saved in invincible ignorance .

 When the baptism of desire is implicit for him, a possibility known only to God,  then it is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is irrelevant  to the dogma.

 With implicit, invisible for us baptism of desire  neither will he be denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus nor contradicting the Creed 'I believe in one baptism(water) for the forgiveness of sin'.

He will be affirming  extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with implicit baptism of desire. So there is no change in the doctrinal teaching of the Church. Explicit for us baptism of desire is irrational, a new doctrine and leads to a theology based on an irrationality.

So Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It means the Catholic Church's teaching on ecumenism and other religions is still the same after Vatican Council II.It is still the same according to the text of Vatican Council II.

Similalry  Ad Gentes 7 affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There are no exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 in Vatican Council II. Since all salvation (UR 3, LG 16,LG 8 etc) and all condemnation (LG 14- those who know and do not enter etc) are implicit, hypothetical and known only to God.

So UR 3 and NA 2 would have to be considered implicit for us since there are no known cases in 2014.

Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci would have to clarify that  UR 3 and NA 2 are implicit for us and they do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

-Lionel Andrades


Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci's error has a bearing on the Nicene Creed

Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci considers 'imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3) as explicit and visible. This has a direct bearing on the Nicene Creed.
Since there are known, visible, objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for him, it means every one does not need the baptism of water in 2014 for salvation. In the Nicene Creed we pray ' I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin'.
For the SSPX, Italy District Superior there is not one known baptism, the baptism of water for the forgiveness of sin but there are three or more known baptisms, the baptism of desire and blood. Then without the baptism of water but with being in imperfect communion with the Church a Christian can be saved !
This is a rejection of the Nicene Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with alleged visible exceptions in the present times.
Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci could resolve the problem by accepting the baptism of desire and being saved in imperfect communion with the Church as being implicit. This would not be a denial of the baptism of desire. He would be accepting the baptism of desire as implicit and denying an explicit baptism of desire, which is irrational.
-Lionel Andrades

Why are institutions and politicians allowed to keep the name Catholic ? - Michael Voris

For almost two years, an intrepid group of lay people here in the Archdiocese of Detroit have been conducting their own research into the issue of Catholic healthcare systems – healthcare systems that are allowed to continue to use the name Catholic by Detroit’s archbishop Allen Vigneron...

Why are these institutions allowed to keep the name Catholic? Why are politicians allowed to keep advertising themselves as Catholic as they champion the culture of death?
- Michael Voris


If Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct or wrong, still imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) and the baptism of desire are not explicit for us : no clarification still from SSPX Italy

There still is no clarification from the Fraternità San Pio X , the Society of St.Pius X in Albano, Italy.
In an article on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Vatican Council II and the loss of the missionary spirit in the Catholic Church (1) , the District Superior Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci  assumes imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) and good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) are explicit for us, known in reality, visible in the flesh,defacto and objective. So for him Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with UR 3, NA 2 etc.
Then he will not affirm the traditional position on extra ecclesiam nulla salus since he assumes that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicit for us, known in reality, visible in the flesh,defacto and objective. They would have to be all these qualities for them to be visible exceptions to the need for all to convert into the Church.
The District Superior of the SSPX in Italy considers those saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church' (UR 3) as being known, visible, explicit in 2014 and so is unable to say that Vatican Council II says all Christians need to enter the Catholic Church (AG 7) for salvation.
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. (Emphasis added)
On the website of the Fraternità Sacerdotale San Pio X Fr. Pierpaolo Petrucci comments on the recent ecumenical meeting at the Basilica of St.Paul Outside the Walls at which Pope Francis was present. He writes :
But from whom comes this scandal if not by those who have left the Church, rejecting the authority of the Pope and revealed truth? To repair this scandal why does the pope not invite those who are separated to return to the unity of faith, worship and submission to the legitimate pastors, unity with the Catholic Church which was never lost and so should be found? So the popes, before the last council such as Pius IX at the first Vatican Council, launched an urgent appeal to the Christians dissidents to return to the bosom of the Church. 2

He cites Pius IX and Vatican Council I but omits Vatican Council II since he assumes there are known exceptions. The dead-saved in Heaven are visible exceptions on earth!?
The Society of St.Pius X, Italy (Fraternità Sacerdotale San Pio X), Albano has made available on its website its position on ecumenism. It has quoted a section of the book Catechismo della crisi nella Chiesa, by Fr. Mathias Gaudron FSSPX which will soon be made available in Italian according to the website.
Once again, like the District Superior at Albano, Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci, it is assumed that 'imperfect communion in the Church'(UR 3) is an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The report on ecumenism by Fr.Matthias Gaudron is cited in Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci's article on the recent ecumenical meeting at the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls, where Pope Francis was present. 3
There is still no clarification from the  Fraternita San Pio X on the factual error made in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
If Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct or wrong, still imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) and the baptism of desire are not explicit for us. So they cannot be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
If the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston supported or condemned Fr.Leonard Feeney on doctrine/ dogma,imperfect communion with the Church, being saved in other religions (NA 2) or being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) are not  exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard  Feeney.   - Lionel Andrades
Atti del XX Convegno di Studi Cattolici, Rimini 2012. Concilio Vaticano II e la salvezza delle anime, la morte dello spirit missionario di Don Pierpaolo Petrucci pp.39-58. Published by Fraternita Sacredotale San Pio X in collaboration with La Tradizione Cattolica.
p.39 Fuori dellaChiesa non c'e salvezza.
p.47. Gli errori penetrati nel Concilio.
p.49. Unitatis Redintigratio
p.51. Nostra Aetate 2

Ma da chi viene lo scandalo se non da parte di coloro che hanno abbandonato la Chiesa, rigettando l’autorità dal Papa o una parte delle verità rivelate? Per riparare questo scandalo perché non si invita coloro che si sono separati a ritornare a quell’unità di fede di culto e alla sottomissione ai legittimi pastori, unità che la Chiesa cattolica non ha mai perso e che quindi non deve ritrovare? Così facevano i pontefici prima dell’ultimo concilio come per esempio Pio IX che in occasione del Concilio Vaticano I lanciava un appello accorato ai cristiani dissidenti perché ritornassero nel seno della Chiesa.[1]


Fonte: Dal Catechismo della crisi nella Chiesa, don Mathias Gaudron FSSPX, edizione italiana fra poco disponibile.

SSPX District Superior Italy cites Fr.Matthias Gaudron on ecumenism also with the same error

No Clarification from SSPX District Superior, Italy

Fr. Manelli, founder of Franciscans of the Immaculate, cleared of any financial wrongdoing

Posted by tantamergo
About the only public claim made against the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (FFI) to justify the very heavy handed, seemingly unjust treatment they are receiving, was that there had been some mismanagement of funds and/or real estate, or that holdings had been transferred in an unseemly manner. Now, even these accusations were directed at actions taken months AFTER the apostolic intervention began, so they could not have been the reason for it, but that was one of a very few things trotted out to try to explain this tearing apart of a solid, vibrant, growing religious order (those others being supposed “crypto-Lefebvrianism and “a definite, always traditional drift” – whatever those mean).
But now a correction has been published by the Apostolic Commissioner assigned by the Congregation for Religious to ”reform” this order, Fr. Francisco Volpi, which states that Fr. Stefano Manelli, founder of the FFIs, had “absolutely nothing” to do with any possession or orders of transfer for real estate in the possession of the order:
The Apostolic Commissioner Father Fidenzio Volpi OFM Cap has published a correction. In it, he explains that the family of the religious founder of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, Father Stefano Maria Manelli, has “absolutely nothing” to do with any possession or orders of transfer for the real estate of the Order. This had been maintained in recent months, according to which the the Order was placed under the provisional commissioner Volpi, by the official Internet site of the Order: Father Alfonso Maria Bruno, who was appointed by Commissioner Volpi to head the FFIs after the expulsion of the established leadership of the Order, was made the most powerful man in the Order. The lawyer for the family Manelli had threatened criminal penalties, and required clarification from Commissioner Volpi [on this matter of the alleged real estate dealings - sorry, some rough translation from the original German here] . This is now acknowledged that it was a libel, which was published by “someone” on the Internet platform.
To date, no reasons for the provisional administration of the Order have been announced, because the openly published reasons: maintenance of the traditional rite, numerous vocations, critical examination of the Second Vatican Council, the development in the Church since then, the unabridged explanation of the faith, and strict observance of the rules of the order, are clearly not offenses. [Obviously, there has to be something more to it than just this list. If so, the persecution is totally unjust. But as I related at the bottom of this post here, there have been some private, behind-the-scenes allegations that there were more substantial problems. But even these, if fully true, do not in my mind anyway justify the excesses being engaged in against the FFIs at present]
Instead, the claim was brought into the world from the environs of Father Alfonso Bruno, [The author is sort of hedging - the allegations of financial improprieties emerged on the FFI's own website, after Manelli and the rest of the prior leadership had been removed. It was always ex post facto, an allegation that only emerged after the major steps to break the order had been taken, so it could have had nothing to do with the removal of the leadership] that Father Manelli had to overwrite the Order property to his family members and thus gave the impression that the superior had possibly stolen from his own religious order. Apart from the fact that the alleged transactions had taken place only after the beginning of the provisional administration, [in fact, several weeks to a few months later] which gives more the impression of a mediated response, but could not be a reason for the provisional administration, it has now turned out to be slander, as Commissioner Volpi confirmed himself.
At the request of the prosecutor of the Manelli family, the false claim has now been deleted from the internet site of the Order managed by Father Alfonso Bruno. Instead, the complete correspondence between the Manelli family lawyer and Commissioner Volpi has been published at the request of Manelli family.
Interesting, an ugly libel was made, until evidence was produced the refuted it, and threats of legal action were made. Wowzer. Then the libel was retracted. But as always in these cases, the damage has already been done to Fr. Manelli’s heretofore stellar reputation.
So, we are still left with “crypto-Lefebvrianism” and an “always, definitely traditional drift” (is that a crime? Then I’m in trouble!) as the official reasons for the draconian intervention. The under the table reasons that have not been publicized, but of which I have been told, would fit under “crypto-Lefebvrianism,” but certainly don’t merit to me the kind of severe intervention we’ve seen.
If you’re not already praying for the Franciscans of the Immaculate, please consider doing so! They need our help in this worst of times.