Sunday, March 16, 2014

Father Paolo Scarafoni L.C, Rector of the University of Europe in Rome is still teaching theology with error

Father Paolo Scarafoni L.C is the Rector of the University of Europe where Prof. Roberto de Mattei also teaches and interprets Vatican Council II using the false premise of being able to see the dead.So the Council is presented as a break with Tradition, a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla  salus and the Syllabus of Errors. LG 16,LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are considered visible exceptions.They are considerd visible when really they are invisible for us and so irrelevant to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.If we cannot see any exception, if we do not know any one saved outside the visible boundaries of the Church there are no known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Father Paolo Scarafoni also interprets Vatican Council II with the irrationality of the dead-saved, now in Heaven  being visible exceptions.He has majored in dogmatic theology and has been teaching theology with this  error.
He could not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2000-2002 when he was the Rector of the University Pontificial Regina Apostolorum (UPRA). I was a student of Philosophy there. I was  penalised for affirming the dogma which was being denied by the UPRA faculty including Fr.Paolo Scarafoni, who  now  probably denies it as the Rector of the European University in Rome.
There was pressure on the faculty to ask me to stop proclaiming the Faith on this issue and since I would not I had to finally leave. I was not allowed to appear for the Final Comprehensive exam in Philosophy. No one among the faculty, even at the Leginaries of Christ seminary (PIMME), were willing to affirm the dogma on  salvation. Their theology supposed there were known exceptions.This was convenient. In this way they could deny the dogma and not be persecuted personally.
Now how will Fr.Paolo Scarafoni affirm Vatican Council II being in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
Would it mean if he and Roberto Mattei endorsed Vatican Council II without the false premise and in accord with Tradition, they could lose their jobs at the University of Europe in Rome ? So they deny the Faith.
-Lionel Andrades

Doctrinal crisis within the SSPX and they don't know how to handle it

There is a doctrinal crisis within the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) and they don't know how to handle it.Today morning I met Don Aldo Rossi, the Prior of the SSPX ,Albano, Italy. He had no comment.

May be the SSPX,Albano have decided to sit this one out and wait for a consensus decision from Econe, their Headquarters.
 The SSPX District Superior  was recently  interviewed on Rai Uno, the  local televisin,  and he escaped easily  since the interviewer was not aware of the doctrinal error  within the SSPX. The SSPX District Superior Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci presented the standard SSPX position implying Vatican Council II was a break with the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism.The interviewer did not know that all these years  the SSPX has been interpreting  Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance), Unitatis Redintigratio 3 ( being saved while in imperfect communion with the Church), NA 2 ( being saved in other religions which have good and holy things) etc as referring  to known cases.For the SSPX these cases are objective and visible. In other words Don Petrucci can see the dead in Heaven who are exceptions to all needing  to convert into the Church, to avoid Hell and go to Heaven.This is irrational but Rai Uno, did not know this.
We don't know any such case of the deceased being visible to us.These are possibilities known only to God but are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
There are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and this is a doctrinal surprise for the SSPX.
The SSPX priests at Albano with whom I have spoken  to understand  me but they have to be obedient to their District Superior and remain in unity with Econe.
In the past some of the SSPX priests would criticize Fr.Leonard Feeney  but now they know that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma on salvation. It has nothing to do with the dogma on salvation since there are no known cases in 2014. 
So like the Good Thief, who died on the cross without the baptism of water and went to Heaven, if there are many Dismas' in 2014, we do not not know any. So Dismas in 2014 is  not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. All need faith and baptism for salvation and we do not know any Dismas in 2014 who is saved outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church.
'Zero cases of something are not exceptions', said  the apologist John Martigioni. He agrees, here are no exceptions to the dogma on salvation.
 If the SSPX, Econe,acknowledges  that in Vatican Council II there are no known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( as did there last General Chapter Meeting in 2012) 1.Then for them there is no change in the Catholic teaching  on other religions and ecumenism in Vatican Council II.They would interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus as did St.Augustine, St.Thomas Aquinas, St.Robert Bellarmine, St. Francis Xavier, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Anthony Marie Claret, St.Maximillian Kolbe and numerous other saints.
The issue is how does the SSPX present this information to their supporters ?  Those who attend  the SSPX religious services , assume LG 16, UR 3, NA 2 etc are explicit  and very visible for us . Now the SSPX priests have to tell them that LG 16 etc  refer to invisible for us cases and so Vatican Council II never was an exception to Tradition.
Also this error is there in many of the books published by the SSPX Districts and read by lay Catholics.Do they acknowledge  the error in the books? Do they  make  corrections? Do they stop publishing books with factual errors; implying they can  see the dead ?
Over time things could sort itself out but if the SSPX said  Vatican Council II affirms  extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( this was omitted in the General Chapter Statement) would it legally be considered  Anti Semitic ?
 Vatican Council II would also be offensive to Muslims. Mohammad, did not have 'faith and baptism' (AG 7).Muslims in general are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Church,not according to Tradition only, but according to Vatican Council II.If there are any exceptions it would be known only to God.Presently the SSPX assumes there are known exceptions, mentioned in Vatican Council II,to the dogma on exclusive salvation
-Lionel Andrades