Friday, February 28, 2014

Father Angelo Mary Geiger F.I criticizes Patrick Archbald on the SSPX

 
Father Angelo Mary Geiger F.I who has contributed to a major wedge in the community Franciscans of the Immaculate has posted a report More Evidence of the "Wedge" on his blog Mary Victrix.He still does not want the SSPX to enter the Church with full canonical status unless they accept Vatican Council II (with an irrationality, with the red column)
 
For him and the Apostolic Commissioner of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, Vatican Council II has to be approved with the dead man walking theory. Fr.Geigher assumes that all salvation mentioned in the Council is physically visible to the naked eye. Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
I do not know where he would be place me. Since I accept Vatican Council II.I accept that all salvation mentioned in the Council is implicit for me, it is invisible for  me.  So there is no contradiction with  the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
When Fr.Geigher and others interpret Vatican Council II similarly they will realize that the traditional values that the SSPX holds is that of Vatican Council II. The 'ideology' for which the Traditional Latin Mass is being targeted, is also the same as that of the Novus Ordo Mass.
 
 
http://maryvictrix.com/2014/02/26/more-evidence-of-the-wedge/#more-7364

Vatican Council II is Anti-Semitic in England ?

David Madeley said...
The SSPX tried to buy a church in Manchester, UK, and there was a huge furore in the local press about anti-semites trying to buy a church. In the end there was a legal challenge and the deal fell through.

Creative Minority Report
Lionel:
It is unfortunate that the media in England considers the SSPX anti-Semitic even when they deny that they are anti Semitic.

According to this reasoning, all Catholics (non SSPX in this case), who accept Vatican Council II(AG 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(845,846,1257) would be anti Semitic in England.

Since Vatican Council II, like the Bible and Tradition tells us that Jews need 'faith and baptism' for salvation. Jews need to convert according to Vatican Council II.

We do not know any exceptions in 2014 and neither does Vatican Council II mention any known exceptions to the traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities and churches.
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2014/02/the-national-catholic-register-is-not.html?showComment=1393598579310#c1296221180490564411

If this is what Vatican Council II says then should not the NCR be honest and mention it. It would mean Vatican Council II does not contradict the SSPX's traditional position on other religions and ecumenism.

Creative Minority Report
David Madeley said...
The headline in the Mail says TEACHER SAYS MUSLIM STUDENTS WILL GO TO HELL.(1)

Lionel:
Does he say that the Catholic Church teaches that Muslims are all going to Heaven or some will go or the Church does not say anything on this issue after Vatican Council ?

I think he could say that the Catholic Church teaches before and after Vatican Council II that all Muslims need 'faith and baptism' (AG 7) to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
They are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Church.

They are ALL oriented to Hell according to Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846,845) since :

1.Vatican Council II does not mention any known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and neither to AG 7 which supports the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

2.We do not personally know any exceptions in 2014 to 'all' needing 'faith and baptism for salvation'(AG 7).

3.Being saved in imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) are not known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus or AG 7.

4.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr.Leonard Feeney.

5.Whether Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct or wrong we do not know any one saved with 'elements of sanctification and grace' (LG 8), 'those who are saved by Jesus and the Church' (CCC 846) etc among Muslims and among people in other religions or with no religion.

So if the Church does teach this shouldn't the teacher be honest and say that this is what the Catholic church teaches.

If this is what Vatican Council II says then should not the NCR be honest and mention it. It would mean Vatican Council II does not contradict the SSPX's traditional position on other religions and ecumenism.

1.
David Madeley said...
Catholic Mission. Let's say you have a teacher in a Catholic school, accepting a small quota of Muslim students, and I tell the students that the Church teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church. The parents of a muslim child complain and threaten to sue the school under the religious provisions of the Equality Act. The headline in the Mail says TEACHER SAYS MUSLIM STUDENTS WILL GO TO HELL. I think the school, and the local Church leaders, will throw him to the wolves - and on a human level you can't entirely blame them. The Vatican's guidance over the last 50 years has not been clear enough on how to deal with that situation, leaving room for human weakness to read the texts in a convenient way. Very clever people might be able to read the documents and understand the words in a surprising way, but that's not good enough. Let's see some anathema. Everyone needs to know where they stand. The FFI, the LCWR, everyone.

 

How does Dignitas Humanae square with the Syllabus of Errors?

 
Creative Minority Report
 
On the Creative Minority Report comment- box there is a question:
David Madeley asked : What's your hermeneutic of continuity? How does Dignitas Humanae square with the Syllabus of Errors? If you have an idea, I would genuinely like to hear it.
Lionel:
Dignitatis Humanae mentions that in a society with a secular Constitution a non Catholic has religious liberty. This is something objective. Even the SSPX legally accepts this.

DH also states that a Catholic has a right to live and proclaim his Catholic Faith.

AG 7 affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. A Catholic has the right and obligation, morally, to affirm the dogma in a secular state.The SSPX can also do it.

DIGNITATIS HUMANAE DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE CHURCH'S TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/dignitatis-humanae-does-not-contrdict.html#links

NO MATTER HOW YOU INTERPRET DIGNITATIS HUMANAE IF VATICAN COUNCIL II AFFIRMS EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IS TRADITIONAL
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/no-matter-how-you-interpret-dignitatis.html#links

MICHAEL DAVIS MADE A MISTAKE ON THE ISSUE OF VATICAN COUNCIL II AND OTHER RELIGIONS : ALSO ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/michael-davis-made-mistake-on-issue-of.html#links

RECONCILIATION OF THE SOCIETY OF ST.PIUS X (SSPX) IS NOW POSSIBLE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/reconciliation-of-sspx-is-now-possible.html#links


LIGHT OF THE WORLD ERROR SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO REAL DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND THE SSPX
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/light-of-world-error-shows-that-there.html#links


FOR CARDINAL GODFRIED DANNEELS VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS THERE IS KNOWN SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH SO IT IS A BREAK FROM THE PAST
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/for-cardinal-gottfried-danneels-vatican.html#links
 

The National Catholic Register is Tradition Unfriendly towards the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church

Patrick Archbald has posted a report The National Catholic Register is Not Tradition Unfriendly.
I think like the Catholic Herald,U.K they are tradition unfreindly when the issue touches on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is because of the dogma on exclusive salvation that the Tridentine Rite Mass is targeted. The Traditional Latin Mass is welcomed -but without 'ideology'.
 
It's this ideology that Archbald was supporting in his article which the Editor of the National Catholic Register had to censor. It was obvious he was being threathened.
 
Similarly one cannot write letters to the Editor or comment in the National Catholic Register supporting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So  to protect himself and threats to the NCR the Editor removed the post.
Recall that some of the liberal Rabbis, with political power, have said that they would oppose the Society of St.Pius X being given canonical status. In their language, which one has to decipher to get to the truth, it is said that the SSPX must  'maintain good relations with the Jews' . This means say that the Jews do not have to convert in the present moment.
 
They have to 'accept the reforms of Vatican Council II' .This means do not say that Vatican Council II (AG 7) says Jews need 'faith and baptism ' for salvation. Interpret Vatican  Council II assuming that all salvation referred to in the Council is explicit for us, we can see these dead people now in Heaven.These deceased-saved-and-visible are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition.
 
So on this aspect of Tradition the NCR is Tradition Unfriendly.They even interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church in an irrational, non traditional, but prudent, way.

Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus but who will say it ? Patrick Archbald, Mark Shea ?

There can be two basic interpretations of Vatican  Council II only, one is rational and the other is irrational. Will the NCR discuss this ? Would it be prudent for the Editor to do so?

It would be good for the newspaper and every one's career to just put down the SSPX !
-Lionel Andrades
 
 


Let me be very clear. The last thing I want to be is the cause of any damage to the National Catholic Register. I have been honored to write for them these past years and to be involved in the incredible growth of their web presence. They do good and necessary work on behalf of Christ.

While I admit that I was unhappy about what happened to my post the other day, I don't believe for a second that it was malicious or that it is in any way an indicator of tradition unfriendliness at the Register.

My editor had second thoughts about the piece after giving me the go ahead, but the communication was bungled.

The whole episode is embarrassing to everyone involved. My editor is a good man and a good friend. While I didn't share his concerns, he is responsible for what goes up and not me.

Everyone is regretful about how the situation played out. I know first hand that the folks at the Register are not unfriendly to traditional Catholics and they have allowed me to publish tradition-friendly posts before, posts you would not likely find in any other mainstream Catholic publication.

So nobody should think that because of this one unfortunate incident, the Register is unfriendly or unsympathetic to issues of concern to traditional Catholics.

So if my opinion carries any weight, please let this unfortunate incident go and move on.
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2014/02/the-national-catholic-register-is-not.html

There must have been a leftist storm over Archbold's report
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/there-must-have-been-leftist-storm-over.html#links