Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Bishop Michael Olsen has to be asked if all salvation in Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) when considered implicit and invisible for us, is no more a contradiction of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Most Reverend Michael F. Olson

On the blog Creative Minority Report I posted a link which mentions three heresies.
These errors are shared by correspondents of the National Catholic Register, the faculty of the Fischer-More College and the diocese of Bishop Michael Olson.
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.

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.

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 (ex cathedra), is a first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II.

These three errors arise when we assume that salvation, be it with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance, is a state visible to us on earth. Then this false premise (the visible -dead premise)  is used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II . The conclusion is a Vatican Council which is non traditional and suggesting there is a  New Revelation from God.
This is not a New  Revelation from God as it is made to seem but assuming that the  invisible for us is visible on earth and then building a false theology upon it.The new theology, the new ecclesiology, rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This issue has to be addressed by Patrick Archbald who has written to Bishop Michael Olsen, regarding the TLM  at Fischer-More College.
Bishop Olson has to be asked if all salvation in Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) when considered implicit and invisible for us, is not a contradiction to  the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?.

He needs to clarify if Vatican Council II is in agreement with the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church?

This would mean that the baptism of desire is not a known exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.

This would mean that those priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass can also hold the 'rigorist' and traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus ,along with implcit for us baptism of desire, as did the saints Robert Bellarmine, Anthony Marie Claret, Francis of Assisi etc.

If he says that the Holy Office 1949 excommunicated Fr.Leonard Feeney for heresy then it means Bishop Olson is also assumes there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 -Lionel Andrades
Please find below the content of an email that I sent to Bishop Olson requesting clarification.

 Dear Bishop Olson,

My name is..[Introduction Redacted]

Pursuant to your actions vis-à-vis the prohibition of the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite from taking place at the chapel of Fisher More College, I have the following questions:

What problem is this prohibition intended to remedy?

Is this prohibition the least restrictive measure possible to effect that remedy?

What consultations, if any, were held with the school to avoid such actions?

Are there clear criteria or actions set out which, if followed, would allow for the restoration of permission for the public celebration of the EF at Fisher More College?

Since the offering of the Extraordinary Form is key to the mission of Fisher More College and is a particular attraction for many of its students and their families, is it of concern to you prohibiting the EF may undermine such attraction to the school and thereby precipitate its demise?

Since no public communication regarding this matter has been issued by your office, is it your position that the prohibition of the ongoing public celebration of the mass in the Extraordinary form does not require a reasonably adequate public explanation?

Pursuant to the rights and restrictions spelled out in the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, could you please cite the canonical authority you relied on to implement the prohibition of one form of the Roman rite?

As this matter is of significant and legitimate concern beyond the campus of Fisher More College, any further information you could provide relevant to the questions above would be greatly appreciated.

Patrick Archbold

The Bible is Catholic

The Bible is Catholic

Try explaining to our Fundamentalist brethren about almost any tenet of the Catholic faith and you’re likely to hear in response, “Chapter and verse, please”. In other words, of course, they want to know exactly where that teaching is found in the Bible because they adhere to what is spelled out and therefore only such teachings are retained by them. However, not every belief in Catholicism is to be found word-for-word in Sacred Scripture.
All teachings of the Church, however, are in harmony with Sacred Scripture. This essay will look at the trifecta of the Church’s authority: The Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium.
The Holy Trinity is one of the teachings of almost every Fundamentalist community (but not all of them) that is not specifically in the Bible. Nowhere is the doctrine of the One Godhead as Father, Son and Holy Spirit — co-eternal and co-equal — found in the Bible; but they are “words in harmony with Scripture”, according to the second of the 16 Fundamental Truths of the Assembly of God. This is important because it is my Assembly of God family and relatives who always love to insist on “chapter and verse”. It seems that they will allow doctrines “not (explicitly) found in the Scriptures” but for Catholics to do this it is perceived as “adding to what is written”. Most of our understanding of the Holy Trinity comes from the extensive writings of the Early Church Fathers such as St. Augustine, St. Athanasius and many others.

The Written Word

Let’s look at where the Bible itself came from. None of the gospels were written as historical texts or as directives on how to start a church. Rather, they were written to attest to who Jesus was — “so that you may believe” (Jn. 20:31). The Acts of the Apostles are a continuation of Luke’s gospel—he tells of the early Church and of Paul’s conversion and missionary travels. It’s kind of like a journal. Paul’s letters are to those communities where there were issues that needed to be addressed. He wrote personal letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Hebrews is a masterful treatise on the eternal sacrifice of Jesus. James wrote one letter; Peter wrote two letters, John wrote three—plus the Book of Revelation —and Jude wrote one. Other gospels and letters were written but did not make it into the canon of the New Testament.
While many Protestants claim that we “added books” to the Old Testament (The Catholic version has 46 books while the Protestant has 39), all Protestants do agree that we Catholics got it right with the NT because they have the same one we do. The first canon of the NT was promulgated in A.D. 397 at the Council of Orange in Africa. Many Protestants claim that the canon was only put forth at the Council of Trent (held from 1545 -1563); however, this is incorrect. It was not promulgated then but re-iterated for all time after Martin Luther had decided to take out the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letter of James, the Book of Revelation and the Letter of Jude. Jude, by the way, makes reference in his letter to the Assumption of Moses and the Book of Enoch—two writings that did not make it into the canon of the New Testament. The New Testament does not come with its own list as to which writings would go into it.
The difference with the Protestant Old Testament and the Catholic one is about which version was used in the time of Jesus. In his day, Hebrew had fallen out of use as an everyday language; Aramaic had taken its place. However, with the conquest of Alexander the Great, Greek became the biblical language due to the Hellenistic influence. The Greek Old Testament (called the Septuagint) contained 46 books but the older Hebrew one (Masoretic text) contained only 39. After the new Christian sect fell out of favor with mainstream Judaism (around A.D. 90) and were driven away, the Jews took the Hebrew version of the Old Testament as their text because the Christians were adept at using the seven “other” books to convert people.
Those seven books, by the way are: Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), the Wisdom of Solomon, First and Second Maccabees, the two Books of Esdras, additions to the Book of Esther, additions to the Book of Daniel, and the Prayer of Manasseh. Here we have the attestation of the Jews in their own online encyclopedia as to why, ultimately, the Septuagint was rendered “unwelcome”: “it had been adopted as Sacred Scripture by the new faith. A revision in the sense of the canonical Jewish text was necessary”. Further, “The quotations from the Old Testament found in the New are in the main taken from the Septuagint; and even where the citation is indirect the influence of this version is clearly seen”. ( This tells us clearly that Jesus and his apostles used the Greek Septuagint Old Testament and not the Hebrew Masoretic. I am uncertain as to why Protestants kept to the Hebrew version of the OT and rejected the version clearly used by Jesus.

Oral Transmission of the Word

As for Sacred Tradition (not tradition w/small “t”), it is another way of handing on the faith—the Latin, “Traditio” means “to hand on”. Almost all of Paul’s letters were composed before any of the gospels were written. Paul tells us in Acts 20:35 when he addresses the people in Aramaic, he states that he was educated “at the feet of Gamaliel” which is quite significant because Gamaliel was a master of the oral law/tradition.
There was no such thing, of course of anyone having his/her own copy of the bible to look things up. Protestants will cite the passage that “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness…” (2 Tim 3:16) but it does not say only scripture. In fact, the Scripture Paul was referring to was the Old Testament for the new had not even been formed. In 2 Thes. 2:15 Paul exhorts his readers to “stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours” (italics mine) — again, no mention of checking facts in the Bible. In 1 Cor. 11:2 Paul praises the church “because you…hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you”.
We know that according to Paul’s own testimony, everything he learned about Jesus and the Church was from Jesus himself —see 1 Cor. 11:23. It is the only way he could quote Jesus as saying “It is better to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35) because this quote is nowhere to be found in any of the gospels. In fact, Paul’s instruction on the celebration of the Eucharist itself (1 Cor. 11:23-26) pre-dates any of the gospels. Paul then goes still further and tells the young bishop Timothy to entrust to faithful people that which he (Timothy) heard from Paul even by way of “many witnesses” (2 Tim. 2:2).
For a good article explaining still more about Tradition, go to this site:

The Right to Interpret

As for the Magisterium, it is the teaching office of the Church. Even though the Church came first, it still serves Sacred Scripture and tradition. The Magisterium is guided by the Holy Spirit. All bishops by their ordination have this special gift of the Holy Spirit so long as they are in communion with the Holy Father. For a better understanding of the Magisterium read my article here. The Magisterium is the interpreter of both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition just as the U.S. Supreme Court is the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. If there were no-one to interpret this great document of ours we would demand that there be an official interpreter of it.
As I stated in my first article on the holy order of bishops, I am glad that my salvation does not rely on my own interpretation of Scripture. If self-interpretation really were of the Holy Spirit, then 100% of the people would necessarily arrive at the same interpretation 100% of the time for “God is not a god of confusion” (1 Cor. 14:33). But God is one…Truth is one. And as I said then…Thank-you, sweet bishops, for all you do!


Non e alcuna Nuova Rivelazione di Dio nella Chiesa cattolica che contraddire Tradizione.Ma quando la distinzione tra  visibile-invisibile , in realtà- ipoteticamente, esplicito - implicito , in teoria-in pratica , non è fatta , poi ci sono due opzioni disponibili. Si può interpretare il Concilio Vaticano II con ragione o senza ragione; irrazionalmente.In il video Don Piepaolo Petrucci, Distretto Superiore di Fraternità Sacerdotale San Pio X interpreta il Concilio Vaticano II irrazionalmente .
Quindi c'è una 'Nuova Rivelazione di Dio' nella Chiesa cattolica con l'interpretazione irrazionale .
Per la Fraternità Sacerdotale San Pio X, Lumen Gentium 16  riferisce alla esplicita per noi casi nel 2014 che sono salvati nell'ignoranza invincibile .
Questa è una Nuova Rivelazione .
Il Sillabo ed extra ecclesiam nulla salus stato rejetto.Loro non sono più validi per i cattolici .
Lumen Gentium 8  riferisce ai non cattolici salvati con «elementi di santificazione e di verità » . Sono visibili per noi nel 2014 . Questa è una Nuova Rivelazione nella Chiesa cattolica .
Exclusivo salvezza non è più una dottrina cattolica secondo l'interpretazione di FSSPX del Concilio Vaticano II .
Così, per Don Pierpaolo Petrucci c'è una Nuova Rivelazione nel Concilio Vaticano II sulle altre religioni .
Il Vaticano accetta anche questa Nuova Rivelazione e quindi sono vieta la Messa Tradizionale Latino dove i cattolici non accettano questa Nuova Rivelazione del Concilio.

-Lionel Andrades


No explicit-implicit distinction at Fischer-More College

Feast of the Assumption_05
1) Mr. King refused to disassociate himself from the public statements of faculty member Dr. Dudley that claimed in his Year of Faith lecture that Catholic professors have the duty to teach young people that Vatican 2 is not a valid Council (he also endorsed other “resistance” positions regarding the Novus Ordo, John Paul II, etc.)
It would seem that Mr.Michael King and Prof. Dudley assumed there is a New Revelation in the Catholic Church, they were not aware of the explicit-implicit distinction.
All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II is implicit for us and explicit only for God. So Vatican Council II does not contradict Michael King and Dr.Dudley's traditional teachings.-Lionel Andrades 


There is no new Revelation in the Catholic Church to contradict Tradition.However when the distinction between explicit-implicit, visible-invisible, in reality-hypothetically, in theory-in practise, is not made, then there are two options available. One can interpret Vatican Council II rationally or irrationally.In the video the SSPX District Superior Don Piepaolo Petrucci, interprets Vatican Council II irrationally.
So there is a New Revelation in the Catholic Church  with the irrational interpretation.
For the SSPX Lumen Gentium 16 refers to explicit for us cases in 2014 who are saved in invincible ignorance. This is a New Revelation.
The Syllabus of Errors and extra ecclesiam nulla salus have been rejected.They are no more valid for Catholics.
Lumen Gentium 8 refers to non Catholics saved with ' elements of sanctification and truth'.They are visible for us in 2014. This is a New Revelation in the Catholic Church. Exclusive salvation is no more a Catholic teaching according to the SSPX interpretation of Vatican Council II.
So for the SSPX Italy District Superior, Father Pierpaolo Petrucci there is a New Revelation in Vatican Council II on other religions.
The Vatican also accepts this New Revelation and so they are prohibiting the Traditional Latin Mass wherever Catholics do not accept this New Revelation of the Council.

Where does Vatican Council II say that all religions are equal paths to salvation?

(6:25) Don Pierpaolo Petrucci says that the Catholic Church is the one true religion founded by Jesus Christ the only Saviour yet Vatican Council II says all religions are paths to salvation.
Where does Vatican Council II say that all religions are equal paths to salvation?
NA 2 refers/alludes  to non Catholics who can be saved with 'good and holy' things in other religions. These are possibilities known only to God. Even Archbishop Lefebvre referred to the Hindu in Tibet being saved in his religion through Jesus and the Church.So this is a possibility. Since these cases are not known to us in personal cases they are not relevant to the dogma on exclusive salvation.They are not exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism) and the thrice defined dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.
Vatican Council II (NA 2) has not stated that non Catholic religions are paths to salvation or that they are the ordinary means of salvation.
It is the position of the SSPX that Vatican Council II (NA 2) suggests there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They also hold the position that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are known, visible, explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
So for them,  all salvation referred to in Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston, refer to explicit, visible cases on earth which contradict Tradition.
The fault is not with Vatican Council II II since I can interpret LG 16 ( invincible ignorance ) as being invisible for us and not visible for us. While for the SSPX District Superior it is the opposite.
For me LG 16 is a possibility for salvation it is not the ordinary means for salvation, the ordinary means for salvation is 'faith and baptism' (Ad Gentes 7). It is the opposite for the SSPX.
For me Ad Gentes 7 says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.So it affirms the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation. This point is not mentioned in books being sold by them in Italy.
There is no new Revelation, in the Catholic Church for me, which rejects Tradition.Since I make the distinction between explicit-implicit, defacto-dejure, visble-invisible. Father Pierpaolo Petrucci does not make this distinction in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. Neither do the liberals and the Left make this distinction. So the result is confusion. The new Revelation in the Catholic Church for them is interpreting all salvation, as being explicit for us on earth, visible in the flesh, defacto cases personally known and of  a course, a break with Tradition.
-Lionel Andrades


Interviewer has not asked Don Pierpaolo Petrucci about the objective errors in books sold by the SSPX

I have not watched the video of the interview of the District Superior of the SSPX, Italy (Fraternità Sacerdotale San Pio X-FSSP). However I am sure the interviewer has not asked him about the objective error he made in a book being sold by the FSSP. The same error is there in other books being sold by them.This includes books authored by Father Jean Marie Gleaze and Cristina Siccardi.
Don Pierpaolo Petrucci could have said in the interview that Vatican Council II has contradicted the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.
The interviewer would just take this for granted and not question it. Since the priest is affirming the political position of the liberals and the Left on Vatican Council II.
So he would not be asked how can being saved in imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) and 'good and holy' things in other religions(NA 2) be known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? This was the error made by Don Pierpaolo Petrucci in a article he had written on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the loss of the missionary spirit in the Catholic Church Church.
By now the priests at Albano know that there are no known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. Yet they have to maintain the 'political' position of the SSPX and claim that the Council contradicts Tradition on the issue of salvation.
They know that the books critical of Vatican Council II are written based on a false premise. They have used a false premise and so naturally the conclusion is non traditional and liberal. If they omitted this irrational premise then Vatican Council II would not contradict the Syllabus of Errors or extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
However if a priest at Albano points out this error he could be in trouble with the political position of the SSPX at Econe ?
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are always invisible for us but for Don Pierpaolo Petrucci it is always visible for us.You can read it in books being sold by the FSSP in Italy.
Vatican Council II does not state that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus but for the District Superior the Council does say this even though there is no text to support his position.
He personally cannot see any exceptions to the dogma on salvation in Albano. Yet he would suggest that he could name some persons saved who are exceptions. So Vatican Council II is rejected.
No interviewer deals with these issues.
-Lionel Andrades

Romauno: Intervista a don Pierpaolo Petrucci

Aspettare per una risposta da Don Aldo Rossi,Priore della Fraternità Sacerdotale San Pio X, Albano,Italia

Mi aspetto una risposta da Don Aldo Rossi, il priore della Fraternità Sacerdotale San Pio X, Albano,Italia. Mandato un e-mail ieri.
Ho scritto:
Caro Don Aldo,
Accetto Concilio Vaticano II .
Comunque accetto che la salvezza menzionato , di cui o cui si allude nel Concilio Vaticano II è invisibile per me e visibile solo per Dio . E invisibile per me nel 2014.Non ci sono eccezioni per il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Non c'è nulla nel Concilio Vaticano II, che contraddice la dottrina tradizionale sulla salvezza esclusiva nella Chiesa Cattolica.
Lei, Don Aldo Rossi, anche crede che ogni salvezza referisce nel Concilio Vaticano II è invisibile per noi sulla terra? 

Quindi, essere salvato nell'ignoranza invincibile ( LG 16) è irrilevante per la tradizionale interpretazione del dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, come era era noto ai santi Roberto Bellarmino , Francesco d' Assisi e Sant'Antonio Maria Claret ?
Non nego il Concilio Vaticano II . Sto solo negando che essere salvato nell'ignoranza invincibile ( LG 16 ) , ecc , può essere visibile nella carne per tutti noi . Sto accettando invisibile per noi, LG 16 come una possibilità .
Io nego una esplicita per noi LG 16 .

Io affermo il battesimo di desiderio nella fede .
Io nego che il battesimo di desiderio e visibile a noi esseri umani.
Anche lei?

Ciò significa che tutti gli indù , buddisti , ebrei, musulmani e altri hanno bisogno di ' fede e del battesimo ' ( Ad Gentes 7 ) per evitare l'inferno e non ci sono eccezioni di cui al Concilio Vaticano II ?Questo è l'insegnamento tradizionale che Dignatis Humanae ( DH ) , il Concilio Vaticano II invita noi cattolici a proclamare.DH menziona il fatto che abbiamo la libertà religiosa , in uno stato con una Costituzione laica ,per proclamare gli insegnamenti tradizionali della Chiesa cattolica .

E per quanto riguarda la Fraternita Sacerdotale di San Pio X (FSSPX) ?( FSSPX ) ?
Sarebbe sufficiente per voi se affermano il Concilio Vaticano II proprio come me ?E che dire per Don Stefano Mannelli FI e gli altri membri dei Frati Francescani dell'Immacolata , potevano anche accettare il Concilio Vaticano II proprio come me ?
In Christo,
Lionel Andrades