Saturday, March 1, 2014

Michael Voris and Patrick Archbald still clueless

Michael Voris interviews Patrick Archbald. Both of them are using the hermeneutic of discontinuity  in the interpretation of Vatican Council II: they are using a false statement to interpret the Council.
They have never interpreted Vatican Council II as being in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and with no ambiguity. There has always been ambiguity for them Since they assume that all salvation referred to in Vatican Council is visible, known, explicit.This is irrational. With this irrational understanding they reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Then they blame the Council.
-Lionel Andrades


http://new.livestream.com/churchmilitanttv/events/2797527

A doctrinal time bomb was brought into the Church at Boston

Fr.Angelo Geiger wrote during the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI :
 
As the pope continuously promotes the Second Vatican Council and its correct interpretation, the new self-appointed “guardians” of Tradition persist in their attempt to tear the Council down. Of particular interest is the sequence of events, a timeline of conflict between faith and doubt, surrounding the announcement of the Year of Faith by Pope Benedict and the particular involvement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Over the last year or so there has been an ongoing debate among theologians, journalists and bloggers about the possibility of the hermeneutic of continuity, that is, there is a question in the minds of some whether Pope Benedict is correct and the Council can be interpreted in continuity with Catholic Tradition. But before we look at a timeline, we should first examine a bit of background.
Lionel:
The cause of a hermeneutic of continuity or rupture depends on the use of an irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. The premise is that the dead now saved in Heaven can be seen on earth. So there are exceptions to traditional documents, especially extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
The hermeneutic of rupture is a principle of interpretation relative to the Council that is shared by both modernists and traditionalists.
 
Lionel: What is the basis of the interpretation ? What is the principle ? What is it precisely? This is never pointed out.
 
 In the December 22, 2005 address the Holy Father explains that the hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture posits the existence and disjunction of a pre- and post-conciliar Church.
 
Lionel: We know there is a general hermenutic of discontinuity.What is not explained is the precise cause of the discontinuity or continuity.
 
 This view regards the Second Vatican Council as a compromise between Tradition and modernity, in which the texts of the Council themselves broke with the past, but did not fully and explicitly indicate how radical and complete that break actually was.
Lionel: Here we see that the cause of the discontinuity or continuity is unknown.
How can the texts of the Council break with the past and also not break with the past at the same time?
They break with the past when the false premise is used.This is the cause of the discontinuity.
Without the false premise there is no ambiguity in Vatican Council II.
 
  According to this narrative, the pope tells us, the texts themselves were compromises born of the necessity to reach some sort of unanimity among the council fathers. “However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts (December 22, 2005). This is the origin of that enthusiastic and amorphous infatuation with the “spirit of the Council.” The remarkable thing is that both modernists and traditionalists hold this interpretative principle. They both believe that the Council is a rupture with Tradition, the modernists because the Council did not explicitly go far enough, and the traditionalists because it went too far.
Lionel: It is clear that the cause of the discontinuity is not known.
Attendant upon this “compromise” interpretation of the Council is the notion that the nature of the Council was political, “a sort of constituent that eliminates an old constitution and creates a new one” (ibid.).
Lionel: More speculation. Since the precise cause is overlooked.
Both modernists and traditionalists believe that the Council democratized the Church.
 
Lionel: It democratized the Church if you are using the false premise in the interpretation.The Council becomes non-traditional.
 
  Modernists have spent the last fifty years tearing down or ignoring all disciplinary structures and misusing the conciliar ideals of the dignity of the human person, religious liberty, collegiality and subsidiarity as a pretext for reinventing everything from sexual morality, to liturgy, to God Himself (or herself, they would say).
Lionel: Yes, after using the false premise in the interpretation.
  Unfortunately, traditionalists agree that the innovation of the Council was not an aspect of its continuity with Tradition but a surrender to the political, progressivist forces of the left. For both modernists and traditionalists it is the revolution of modernity that defines the real meaning of the Council.
Lionel: Traditionalists, the SSPX included, were unaware of the false premise being used.
But the Holy Father counters that the Council was not and could not be a constitutional convention:
However, the Constituent Assembly needs a mandator and then confirmation by the mandator, in other words, the people the constitution must serve. The Fathers had no such mandate and no one had ever given them one; nor could anyone have given them one because the essential constitution of the Church comes from the Lord and was given to us so that we might attain eternal life and, starting from this perspective, be able to illuminate life in time and time itself (ibid.)...
 
Lionel: The Council Fathers did not violate their mandate.They gave us a traditional Vatican Council.The false premise came into the Church in the 1940's in Boston. The Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits were active at Vatican Council II.At Boston they placed a doctrinal Time Bomb in the Catholic Church.


Time Bomb
Father Angelo Geiger F.I:
And now to my timeline leading to the Year of Faith: it illustrates the progression of certain ideas now gaining currency in orthodox circles and how the Holy Father is responding to them.
1.December 22, 2005: Pope Benedict, shortly after his election as Successor of St. Peter, delivers his address to the Roman Curia, outlining the postconciliar crisis and the correct interpretative principles of the Second Vatican Council. The Holy Father strongly reaffirms the wisdom of the Council and its direction, upholding the need for “the dialogue between reason and faith,” “on the basis of the Second Vatican Council.” (Lionel :this is vague.The precise cause is still not mentioned) He goes on to say: “This dialogue must now be developed with great openmindedness but also with that clear discernment that the world rightly expects of us in this very moment. Thus, today we can look with gratitude at the Second Vatican Council: if we interpret and implement it guided by a right hermeneutic, it can be and can become increasingly powerful for the ever necessary renewal of the Church” (December 22, 2005). (Lionel :the right hermeneutic depends on avoiding the irrational premise)
 2.July 7, 2007: the promulgation of the apostolic letter of Benedict XVI, issued motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum (taking force September 14, 2007) “on the use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the reform of 1970,” mandating the free use of the old missal as the “Extraordinary Form” of the Roman Rite. The Holy Father expresses his purpose in terms of responding “to the insistent prayers” of those who “adhered and continue to adhere with great love and affection to the earlier liturgical forms.” In the letter accompanying the motu proprio, the Holy Father also expresses his hope that the biformity of the Roman Rite “can be mutually enriching.”
3.January 21, 2009: Pope Benedict lifts the excommunication of the four SSPX bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. In a letter to all the bishops of March 10, 2009, he clarifies that the lifting of the excommunication and its remission “affects individuals, not institutions”: “The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons.”
  1. March, 2009: Eminent Italian theologian, Monsignor Brunero Gherardini has his book, Il Concilio Vaticano II: Un discorso da fare (The Ecumenical Vatican Council II: A Much Needed Discussion), published by the Franciscan of the Immaculate, together with an open letter to the Holy Father in which he questions the possibility of a hermeneutic of continuity, placing the burden of proof on Pope Benedict to demonstrate rather than declaim the continuity of the Council with Tradition. (He asked for specific proof. The exact cause was still not identified) Monsignor Gherardini calls for “a grand and possibly definitive ordering of the last Council in all of its dimensions and content,” to be conducted by “the most prestigious, secure and renowned specialists in every sector which Vatican II touches upon.” (He also does not know the precise cause of the discontinuity) Gherardini effectively subordinates the magisterium of the pope to a committee of “scientific theologians.”
  2. December 16-18, 2010: The Franciscan of the Immaculate sponsor a Conference in Rome, Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano II: Un Concilio Pastorale, Analisi Storico, Filosofico, Teologica (The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: A Pastoral Council – Historical, Philosophical and Theological Analysis). Among the conference speakers are Monsignor Brunero Gherardini, and Italian professor of history and editor of the Italian monthly Radici Cristiane, Roberto De Mattei. The latter is also the founder of The Lepanto Foundation, “a non-profit institution founded in Washington, D.C., in March 2001,” whose “stated mission is to defend the principles and institutions of Western Christian civilization.” De Mattei is also an admirer and biographer of Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, founder of the Brazilian civic organization, The Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property. He and his Lepanto Foundation seem to operate on the same principles laid out by De Oliveira in the latter’s book Revolution and Counter-Revolution.(Still the precise cause of the discontinuity is not known to them)
  3. April, 2011: The December, 2010 conferences by Gherardini and De Mattei set off a firestorm of controversy. The semi-official Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano publishes articles by Inos Biffi and Agostino Marchetto that severely critiqued the conferences of Gherardini and De Mattei. In particular, De Mattei has successfully managed to turn Pope Benedict’s invitation to “dialogue” on the basis of the “right hermeneutic” as an invitation to “debate” the possibility of the very same hermeneutic. (See De Mattei’s article: “A Council Can Also Make Mistakes”). (The December 22, 2005 conference is used over and over by the partisans of doubt as a pretext for debating the very possibility of a hermeneutic of continuity: a very effective bit of sleight of hand.) (All sides mean well but they do not know there is a precise cause of the discontinuity)
  4. May 1, 2011: Pope Benedict beatifies his predecessor, Pope John Paul In his homily Pope Benedict quotes the newly beatified: “‘I would like once again to express my gratitude to the Holy Spirit for the great gift of the Second Vatican Council, to which, together with the whole Church – and especially with the whole episcopate – I feel indebted. I am convinced that it will long be granted to the new generations to draw from the treasures that this Council of the twentieth century has lavished upon us. As a Bishop who took part in the Council from the first to the last day, I desire to entrust this great patrimony to all who are and will be called in the future to put it into practice. For my part, I thank the Eternal Shepherd, who has enabled me to serve this very great cause in the course of all the years of my Pontificate’. And what is this ‘cause’? It is the same one that John Paul II presented during his first solemn Mass in Saint Peter’s Square in the unforgettable words: ‘Do not be afraid! Open, open wide the doors to Christ!’” The Society of St. Pius X responded responded by stating the following: “Whereas St. Pius X wanted to restore all things in Jesus Christ (according to the original in Greek: to recapitulate, to place Christ at the head), John Paul II only wanted to open things up to Christ, by simply proposing Him to society, to culture, to political and economical systems, – and that in the name of a religious liberty paradoxically conceived as a dogma by an officially pastoral council.” The SSPX author concludes by calling the Council’s teaching on religious liberty “a rupture.” (Dignitatis Hunmanae refers to the rights of non Catholics in a state with a secular Constituion. It is a factual observation. It is not a rupture with the past. Catholics can proclaim the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. DH does not state that they do not have this Religious Liberty).
  5. September 14, 2011: the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith presents Bishop Fellay of the SSPX with a “doctrinal preamble” for his signature, on the condition of which the SSPX would be restored to full unity and canonical status. According to the CDF, the “doctrinal preamble” “enunciates some of the doctrinal principles and criteria of interpretation of Catholic doctrine necessary for ensuring fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church and to the sentire cum Ecclesia, while leaving open to legitimate discussion the study and theological explanation of particular expressions and formulations present in the texts of the Second Vatican Council and of the Magisterium that followed it.” The document goes on to say: “Given the concerns and requests presented by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X regarding the integrity of the Catholic faith considering the hermeneutic of rupture of the Second Vatican Council in respect of Tradition—hermeneutic mentioned by Pope Benedict XVI in his Address to the Roman Curia of December 22, 2005—, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith takes as a fundamental basis for a full reconciliation with the Apostolic See the acceptance of the Doctrinal Preamble which was delivered in the course of the meeting of September 14, 2011” (ibid.) Bishop Fellay’s response was tentative, noting: “Today, for the sake of objectivity, I must acknowledge that in the doctrinal preamble there is no clear-cut distinction between the inviolable dogmatic sphere and the pastoral sphere that is subject to discussion.” (There was still confusion over dogma/doctrine. The dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church was rejected. How and why it was rejected  was not known to them).
  6. September 24, 2011, ten days after the CDF delivers the “doctrinal preamble to Bishop Fellay, Monsignor Gherardini republishes his open letter to the Holy Father (translation) with eighty-three signatures from eminent scholars, including himself and Roberto De Mattei.(with the interpretation of Vatican Council II using the irrational premise)  The challenge to the Holy Father to prove the hermeneutic of continuity is renewed: “If it should happen that this continuity cannot be proved scientifically, as a whole or in part, it would be necessary to say so calmly and candidly, in response to the demand for clarity that has been awaited for almost a half a century.” ( 'this continuity cannot be proved scientifically' ! They wanted to know the precise cause of the discontinuity or continuity.They wanted a concrete answer)
  7. October 11, 2011: Pope Benedict promulgates the apostolic letter, Porta Fidei, “the Door of Faith” in which he announces “A Year of Faith” to begin in exactly one year on October 11, 2012, the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council, and the twentieth anniversary of the publication of The Catechism of the Catholic Church. He makes the words of Blessed John Paul II his own: “I feel more than ever in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century,” and restates his December 22, 2005 contention concerning the Council: “if we interpret and implement it guided by a right hermeneutic, it can be and can become increasingly powerful for the ever necessary renewal of the Church.” (Amen! I would agree with him!!! Without the false premise the Council 'will be the ever necessary renewal of the Church'.)
  8. October 27, 2011: The Holy Father conducts a day of reflection, dialogue and prayer for peace and justice in the world in Assisi on the twenty-fifth anniversary of Blessed John Paul’s encounter with the representatives of the world’s religions. He does this in spite of the Society of St. Pius X’s contention that he would be “renewing the Assisi scandal,” saying that “to err is human, to persevere in error is diabolical.” The Holy Father uses the opportunity of his address to descry two types of violence that have plagued the modern world: religious violence and godless violence. The Church continues to defend religious liberty and the need to maintain freedom from coercion in spite of the scandal taken by traditionalists.
  9. November 30, 2011: Bishop Fellay of the SSPX revealed that he was offering a counter-proposal to the Vatican in regard to the preamble, which he made clear he could not sign as it was. He drew a sharp distinction between the Creed and the doctrinal preamble saying that the Council, which was pastoral, did not add any new articles of the faith, such as: “I believe in religious freedom, in ecumenism, in collegiality.” While he did not reveal what his proposal was, he suggested that the Vatican’s response would enable the society to evaluate their “remaining options.” However, “the heads of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, the Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Levada and Mgr. Guido Pozzo, are of the opinion that no substantial changes can be made to the document.(Cardinal Levada and Archbishop Pozzo have at public forums used the hermeneutic of discontinuity. They used the false premise. At the SSPX-Vatican doctrinal talks too both sides used the false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and were unaware of it )
  10. January 6, 2012: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith promulgates its “Note with pastoral recommendations for the Year of Faith.” There it reiterates Pope Benedict’s homogeneous teaching on the Council: “From the beginning of his pontificate, Pope Benedict XVI has worked decisively for a correct understanding of the Council, rejecting as erroneous the so-called ‘hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture’ and promoting what he himself has termed ‘the hermeneutic of reform, of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.’” It goes on to maintain that The Catechism of the Catholic Church “in this same vein, is both an ‘authentic fruit of Vatican Council II’ and a tool for aiding in its reception.( Still the exact cause of the confusion has not been identified.)
  11. January 2012: Bishop Fellay, representing the Society of St. Pius X, sends a letter to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, informing the Holy the reason why the the “doctrinal preamble” remains unsigned and suggesting modifications to the document.(He was using the false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II so the Council was a doctrinal break with the past for Bishop Bernard Fellay).
12 March 16, 2012: The CDF issues a communiqué concerning the official response of the SSPX to the “doctrinal preamble,” informing the Society that their position “is not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems which lie at the foundation of the rift between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X,” and warning them of the “painful and incalculable consequences” of an “ecclesial rupture.” Bishop Fellay has been asked to “ clarify his position in order to be able to heal the existing rift, as is the desire of Pope Benedict XVI.” According to reports the Society has been given one month to respond. ( They did not know the exact cause for the hermenutic of discontinuity or continuity was a simple irrational statement used to interpret Vatican Council II)
 
 

 

Why must the SSPX have to accept ' a discontinuity with the great tradition of the Church'



Fr.Angelo Geiger write in 2012 on his blog Mary Victrix :

Here is a section from the Final Report for the Synod of Bishops of 1985. It seems to be one of the first, if not the first reference to conciliar continuity, and may have been influenced by Joseph Ratzinger. It is highly unlikely, to my mind, that is was not:
The theological interpretation of the conciliar doctrine must show attention to all the documents, in themselves and in their close inter-relationship, in such a way that the integral meaning of the Council’s affirmations–often very complex–might be understood and expressed. Special attention must be paid to the four major Constitutions of the Council, which contain the interpretative key for the other Decrees and Declarations. It is not licit to separate the pastoral character from the doctrinal vigor of the documents. In the same way, it is not legitimate to separate the spirit and the letter of the Council. Moreover, the Council must be understood in continuity with the great tradition of the Church, and at the same time we must receive light from the Council’s own doctrine for today’s Church and the men of our time. The Church is one and the same throughout all the councils.
Lionel: The Council does not state that we can see with our physical eyes the dead in Heaven who are saved. The Council does not state that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is wrongly implied in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. It is wrongly implied by Fr.Angelo Geiger F.I. This is ' a discontinuity with the great tradition of the Church'.Why must the SSPX have to accept this ?

Basically, the doctrinal preamble states that “[i]t is not licit to separate the pastoral character from the doctrinal vigor of the documents. In the same way, it is not legitimate to separate the spirit and the letter of the Council.” This has been the essential point all along and Joseph Ratzinger, now the Vicar of Christ, will not budge.

Lionel: When it is assumed that Vatican Council II says that the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been contradicted then this is a new doctrine. It results in a new pastoral approach, based upon the new doctrinal error.
 
I know many have a problem with this statement, but at some point those who love the Church will have to concede to Peter. This brings to mind the response of Cardinal Ottaviani to the new Mass and his eventual acceptance of the liturgical changes. [see comment below The following quote was made by Cardinal Ottaviani before the intervention. The comment linked to shows other evidence of his acceptance of the liturgical changes, though this one indicates his disposition of obedience]:
The words of Christ “feed my sheep” are words which have been addressed only to His Vicar, and it follows that whoever would wish to be counted among the Flock of Christ must submit to the Universal Pastor appointed by Christ. No one can be an exception to this rule, not even bishops.
There is no way around this point except to fall into sectarianism.
 
Lionel: Since the time of Pope Pius XII there is a new doctrine in the Church based on an irrationality. It can be corrected now that we have identified it.
 
I find this report concerning Bishop Fellay’s reaction to the decision of the CDF interesting:
During this morning’s meeting, however, he appeared more conciliatory, and in a private conversation that took place in the palace of the former Holy Office, he said he had “no difficulty in accepting the profession of faith,” and also claimed to have no difficulties with the principles expressed in the preamble: the problem, Fellay said, was not the principles, but their application – namely, the fact that the Church today lacks fidelity to the Magisterium. 
Lionel: In the Profession of Faith it needs to be clarified that we are referring to one known, visible and repeatable baptism, which is the baptism of water. 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin'. Generally it is assumed that there are three known baptisms. We cannot administer the baptism of desire.
 
But this not what he was saying six weeks ago, when it was clear that he would not sign and he was giving his reasons why:
And I may say, what is presented today, which is already different from what was presented on the 14th of September, we can consider it as all right, good. They fulfilled all our requirements, I may say, on the practical level. So there is not much problem there. The problem remains at the other level – at the level of the doctrine. But even there it goes very far – very far, my dear brethren. The key is a principle. Which they say, “this you must accept; you must accept that for the points that make difficulty in the Council – points which are ambiguous, where there is a fight – these points, like ecumenism, like religious liberty, these points must be understood in coherence with the perpetual teaching of the Church.” “So if there is something ambiguous in the Council, you must understand it as the Church has always taught throughout the ages.” 
Lionel:'So there is not much problem there. The problem remains at the other level – at the level of the doctrine.' Correct. The problem still is doctrinal. If you interpret a magisterial document by implying that you can see the dead, there will be a doctrinal chaos.

This is problematic to say the least. Heads up and pray for Bishop Fellay and the members of the SSPX. This is their last chance.

-Lionel Andrades









_____________________________________________________


Posted on by
No joy for the SSPX. They did not sign and the Holy Father has not backed down. It seems, as I have said, that the Holy Father does not favor the position of Gherardini and De Mattei.
The doctrinal preamble is non-negotiable. The existence of a hermeneutic of continuity, as such, is not a matter for debate.
Here is a section from the Final Report for the Synod of Bishops of 1985. It seems to be one of the first, if not the first reference to conciliar continuity, and may have been influenced by Joseph Ratzinger. It is highly unlikely, to my mind, that is was not:
The theological interpretation of the conciliar doctrine must show attention to all the documents, in themselves and in their close inter-relationship, in such a way that the integral meaning of the Council’s affirmations–often very complex–might be understood and expressed. Special attention must be paid to the four major Constitutions of the Council, which contain the interpretative key for the other Decrees and Declarations. It is not licit to separate the pastoral character from the doctrinal vigor of the documents. In the same way, it is not legitimate to separate the spirit and the letter of the Council. Moreover, the Council must be understood in continuity with the great tradition of the Church, and at the same time we must receive light from the Council’s own doctrine for today’s Church and the men of our time. The Church is one and the same throughout all the councils.
Basically, the doctrinal preamble states that “[i]t is not licit to separate the pastoral character from the doctrinal vigor of the documents. In the same way, it is not legitimate to separate the spirit and the letter of the Council.” This has been the essential point all along and Joseph Ratzinger, now the Vicar of Christ, will not budge.
I know many have a problem with this statement, but at some point those who love the Church will have to concede to Peter. This brings to mind the response of Cardinal Ottaviani to the new Mass and his eventual acceptance of the liturgical changes. [see comment below The following quote was made by Cardinal Ottaviani before the intervention. The comment linked to shows other evidence of his acceptance of the liturgical changes, though this one indicates his disposition of obedience]:
The words of Christ “feed my sheep” are words which have been addressed only to His Vicar, and it follows that whoever would wish to be counted among the Flock of Christ must submit to the Universal Pastor appointed by Christ. No one can be an exception to this rule, not even bishops.
There is no way around this point except to fall into sectarianism.
I find this report concerning Bishop Fellay’s reaction to the decision of the CDF interesting:
During this morning’s meeting, however, he appeared more conciliatory, and in a private conversation that took place in the palace of the former Holy Office, he said he had “no difficulty in accepting the profession of faith,” and also claimed to have no difficulties with the principles expressed in the preamble: the problem, Fellay said, was not the principles, but their application – namely, the fact that the Church today lacks fidelity to the Magisterium.
But this not what he was saying six weeks ago, when it was clear that he would not sign and he was giving his reasons why:
And I may say, what is presented today, which is already different from what was presented on the 14th of September, we can consider it as all right, good. They fulfilled all our requirements, I may say, on the practical level. So there is not much problem there. The problem remains at the other level – at the level of the doctrine. But even there it goes very far – very far, my dear brethren. The key is a principle. Which they say, “this you must accept; you must accept that for the points that make difficulty in the Council – points which are ambiguous, where there is a fight – these points, like ecumenism, like religious liberty, these points must be understood in coherence with the perpetual teaching of the Church.” “So if there is something ambiguous in the Council, you must understand it as the Church has always taught throughout the ages.”
This is problematic to say the least. Heads up and pray for Bishop Fellay and the members of the SSPX. This is their last chance.


http://maryvictrix.com/2012/03/17/sspx-on-the-brink/

Dave Armstrong interprets Vatican Council II and accepts the Novus Ordo Mass using the irrational premise

The apologist Dave Armstrong who does not allow my comments on Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus on his blog and forum, ignores the ideology which comes with the Novus Ordo Mass. The ideology includes interpreting all salvation in Vatican Council II as not being just hypothetical for us, but known, defacto and visible to the naked eye.  He implies that  we can see the dead on earth who are now saved in Heaven.It is this irrationality, which is not there in Tradition, prior to the 1940's which is there in his writings. So traditionalists who reject Vatican Council II with the irrationality of being able to see the dead-saved, find in the Traditional Latin Mass,that  there is no new doctrine.
 
Here is a comment from Dave Armstrong's blog.

Eufrosnia D said...
Hello again,

I like your article very much and I think it highlights the issue of the danger in the path many take. It does seem very easy to go from the moderate sounding position to something completely radical.

But I do want to ask regarding something that I have come across in discussion with TLM enthusiasts.

They charge that the NO lacks sacredness and expressiveness of certain Catholic truths the TLM had built in. This is actually true given that many of the prayers that touched upon what would be considered "too harsh" or "not ecumenical" is now missing in the NO [Good Friday prayer for the conversion for Jews for an example].

In this sense, they argue that while the NO is valid [because the moment the Church says it is valid, it must be valid], it is inferior to the TLM and is a compromise to the world. They would say it does not make it evil but it does makes it relatively lacking.

They would also say that traditions do not need organic development to be valid (unlike Doctrine). The traditions need the organic development so that the faithful will not be confused when it is just change drastically. One of my close friends argue that the drastic change was the visible sign that lead almost everyone to believe that the Church had finally conceded to the demands of the modern world. To be honest, this seems true to my mind given the widespread confusion with the change of the liturgy after Vatican II.

Lately, though I only attend the NO myself and cannot find a TLM even if I wanted to, I am finding that argumentation more and more convincing.

 
They charge that the NO lacks sacredness and expressiveness of certain Catholic truths the TLM had built in. This is actually true given that many of the prayers that touched upon what would be considered "too harsh" or "not ecumenical" is now missing in the NO [Good Friday prayer for the conversion for Jews for an example].
 
Lionel:
With the irrational premise Vatican Council II rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The irrational premise came into the Catholic Church in the 1940's in Boston. Cardinal Richard Cushing rejected the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr.Leonard Feeney. He assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are know exceptions, visible to us on earth. As if he could name these cases!
 
Eufrosnia D
In this sense, they argue that while the NO is valid [because the moment the Church says it is valid, it must be valid], it is inferior to the TLM and is a compromise to the world. They would say it does not make it evil but it does makes it relatively lacking.
 
Lionel:
The Mass in itself is not evil of course! However most of the priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and much of Tradition. They also interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, with the irrational premise, creating new doctrine.This is heresy.

Eufrosnia D
They would also say that traditions do not need organic development to be valid (unlike Doctrine). The traditions need the organic development so that the faithful will not be confused when it is just change drastically. One of my close friends argue that the drastic change was the visible sign that lead almost everyone to believe that the Church had finally conceded to the demands of the modern world. To be honest, this seems true to my mind given the widespread confusion with the change of the liturgy after Vatican II.

Lionel:
It is true when Vatican Council II is interpreted by most people using an irrational premise.
If the irrational premise is not used, the Council is traditional.
The fault is not with Vatican Council II itself.
-Lionel Andrades
 
 

Cardinal Muller. Archbishop Di Noia and Father Angelo Geiger F.I want the SSPX to accept the common heresy

I don't expect any answer from Fr.Angelo Geiger F.I. We have  discussed this issue via his blog some two years back.
He still denies the Catholic Faith on the following three points.
1.
REJECTING THE NICENE CREED
When one assumes that the baptism of desire is visible for us and not invisible for us then it is a contradiction of the Nicene Creed. When we pray 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin' , instead of meaning there is one known baptism, we are really saying there are three known to us baptisms. The Nicene Creed refers to the baptism of water.Three known baptisms would be the baptism of water, desire and blood.The baptism of desire and blood are known only to God. These persons are visible and known only to Him.
2.
REJECTION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
When one assumes that being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) or imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) are visible to us in the flesh and that they are really not invisible and unknown for us, then it is a rejection of Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 16 etc). When we assume that LG 16, UR 3 etc contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus we are implying that there are known, visible to us exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
3.
REJECTION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
When we assume that all those who are saved through Jesus and the Church in their religion (CCC 846) are known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 (and CCC 846) 'all', need 'faith and baptism' for salvation, then we are rejecting the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II. This is also a heresy.
To deny or reject the Nicene Creed, Athanasius Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, is a first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II.
He writes:
Mary Victrix is a blog that focuses on Christian chivalry in a Marian key, or Marian Chivalry. It develops the tradition of chivalry as it has passed through St. Francis in the Middle Ages, St. Maximilian Kolbe in the twentieth century and into the new millennium through Blessed Pope John Paul II.
Interesting!
He has posted a new report here are extracts from it ,with my comments .(1)
Father Angelo Geiger F.I :
It seems to me that a more reasonable path and one that has more promise of success is for men like Archbold and Voris to convince as many traditionalists as possible that the only way forward is to follow the path laid out very charitably and in a fatherly way by Archbishop di Noia in Advent of 2012, when the dialogue was in its last agony.
 
Lionel:
Archbishop Augustine di Noia in an interview with the National Catholic Register's columnist Edward Pentin has stated that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For him Vatican Council II refers to visible for us cases of non Catholics saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth' (LG 8). This is irrational.
 
Father Angelo Geiger F.I :
There is no reason to be pessimistic, but neither is healthy realism to be avoided. Archbold and Voris characterize the post-dialogue statements of the SSPX with words like “strident, “hypercritical,” “disrespectful” and “rude.” In fact, Bishop Fellay has called Vatican II the council of the Masons, Modernists and Jews.
 
Lionel:
 If one assumes that all salvation referred to or alluded to in Vatican Council II is visible to us in the flesh and so are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, then this is the ideology of the Masons, Modernists and the Jewish Left.


Father Angelo Geiger F.I :

He has said that the validity of the novas ordo is irrelevant because it is evil, and he has called Pope Francis a “genuine modernist.” I understand what they are trying to do, but they need realize they have to sell this and it is a hard sell to say the least.
 
Lionel:
The Novus Ordo Mass, the Traditional Latin Mass or Vatican Council II interpreted with the dead man walking and visible theory results in non traditional and irrational conclusions. It produces heresy.When this is affirmed intentionally even after being informed it is evil.
 
Father Angelo Geiger F.I :
This is the very real risk of regularizing the Society without an agreement: The minute the Holy Father put his seal on the regularization all the usual suspects would be declaring victory, would consider their cause vindicated precisely because of the regularization, and would use the it as a justification to do inside the Church all they have done outside it.
 
Lionel:
 If all sides admit that there can be a rational and irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, and accept this rational version of  the Council being traditional there could be an agreement.There can only be a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II with a rational premise.So there is only one option. It is the traditional option.
 
Father Angelo Geiger F.I :
I am quite sure that if Archbold and Voris search their hearts they will know this is true. And there would be no “working out the details” afterward, for two reasons: 1) because by their own clear statements the members of the Society have absolutely no intention of modifying their positions, in fact, they are wholly committed to the resistance;...
 
Lionel:
 They are correct. They are following Tradition. So how can they be wrong ?.They are rejecting the ideology of Vatican Council II and the Novus Ordo Mass, interpreted with an irrational premise of being able to see the dead-saved on earth. Any Church document with this irrationality would be heretical.
 
Fr.Angelo Geiger F.I :
2) because there simply would be no incentive to do so.
In various ways, I have been warning about this eventuality for a long time, long before the talks broke down, when Pope Benedict was not the traditionalist’s golden boy he is now. If you look at the statements of Bishop Fellay over the course of the dialogue with Rome, you can see that his hope was that faith and trust in the postconciliar magisterial would be weakened to the point that the SSPX and its positions would be seen to be correct.
 
Lionel:
 There are religious communities like the Paulist Fathers ( Church of Santa Suzanna, Rome) who are interpreting Vatican Council with the false premise and denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Cardinal Gerhard Muller has made a similar error when interviewed by Edward pentin for the National Catholic Register. Cardinal Muller assumes there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Vatican Council II. On this issue he and the Paulist Fathers are making an objective mistake. Worse still this is heresy.
So how can there be dialogue with them. ? Also if they are all condoned and accepted with this doctrinal error, why make exceptions only for the SSPX ?
 
Fr.Angelo Geiger F.I:
Perhaps his goal has had unintended consequences, further complicated by the new pontificate, but Bishop Fellay has committed himself and the Society to a trajectory that is simply and plainly inconsistent with full ecclesial communion. Whatever other problems we have on the left with the radicals, this is no reason to invite more chaos.
 
Lionel:
 If Vatican Council II affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors then Vatican Council is in agreement with the traditional position of the SSPX on other religions and Christian communities. So the SSPX has a right to canonical status if the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith admits this fact in public.
-Lionel Andrades
 
1.
More on Patrick Archbold and Michael Voris
 
 

Heresies of faith ignored by Catholic apologists Patrick Archbald,Jimmy Akins and other columnists at the National Catholic Register

Patrick Archbald has posted a report on the National Catholic Register on heresies.(1)
 
There is also the heresy of faith.The heresy of faith is ignored by Catholic apologists Patrick Archbald,Jimmy Akins and other columnists at the National Catholic Register.
 
1.
REJECTING THE NICENE CREED
When one assumes that the baptism of desire is visible for us and not invisible for us then it is a contradiction of the Nicene Creed. When we pray 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin' , instead of meaning there is one known baptism, we are really saying there are three known to us baptisms. The Nicene Creed refers to the baptism of water.Three known baptisms would be the baptism of water, desire and blood.The baptism of desire and blood are known only to God. These persons are visible and known only to Him.
2.
REJECTION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
When one assumes that being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) or imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) are visible to us in the flesh and that they are really not invisible and unknown for us, then it is a rejection of Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 16 etc). When we assume that LG 16, UR 3 etc contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus we are implying that there are known, visible to us exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
3.
REJECTION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II AND THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
When we assume that all those who are saved through Jesus and the Church in their religion (CCC 846) are known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 (and CCC 846) 'all', need 'faith and baptism' for salvation, then we are rejecting the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II. This is also a heresy.
To deny or reject the Nicene Creed, Athanasius Creed and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, is a first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II.
-Lionel Andrades
1.
 
 
 
 
 
July 24, 2013

Jesuits in first class heresy - e-mailed to Pontifical Gregorian University contact numbers

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/07/jesuits-in-first-class-heresy-e-mailed.html#links
Jesuits in first class heresy

SSPX still selling books with objective error

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/no-denial-from-sspx-italy-americacanada.html#links
 
Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci's error has a bearing on the Nicene Creed
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/frpierpaolo-petruccis-error-has-bearing.html
 
SSPX District Superior Italy cites Fr.Matthias Gaudron on ecumenism also with the same error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/sspx-district-superior-italy-cites.html#links

What about me Fr.Angelo GeigerF.I ?

What about me Fr.Angelo Geiger F.I ? (1)
 
I accept Vatican Council II.
However I accept that salvation mentioned, referred to or alluded to in Vatican Council II  is invisible for me and visible only for God. Since it is invisible for me in 2014  there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There is nothing in Vatican Council II which contradicts the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Do you also believe that all salvation referred to in Vatican Council II is invisible for us on earth ?
 
So being  saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16)  is irrelevant to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the saints Robert Bellarmine, Francis of Assisi and St.Anthony Marie Claret ?
 
I am not denying Vatican Council II. I am only denying that being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) etc, can be visible in the flesh for all of us. I am accepting invisible for us  LG 16 as a possibility. I am denying explicit for us LG 16.
 
I am affirming the baptism of desire in faith. I am denying that it is defacto and  visible to us human beings.
 
This would mean all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and others need 'faith and baptism' (Ad Gentes 7)  to avoid Hell and there are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II ?

This is the traditional teaching that Dignatis Humanae(DH),Vatican Council II  asks us Catholics to proclaim.DH mentions that we have the religious liberty, in a state with a secular Constitution, to proclaim traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.

So what about the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) ? Would it be sufficient for you if they affirm Vatican Council II just like me?

And what about Fr.Stefano Mannelli F.I  and other members of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, could they also accept Vatican Council II just like me?
-Lionel Andrades
First Saturday
 
 
 
 
1.
Father Angelo Mary Geiger
mvtrix@gmail.com 
http://maryvictrix.com/

(These two blog posts have been e-mailed to him).

Father Angelo Mary Geiger F.I criticizes Patrick Archbald on the SSPX
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/father-angelo-mary-geiger-fi-criticizes.html#links