Friday, June 6, 2014

SSPX District Great Britain does not correct University of Bristol video : same error as Archbishop Lefebvre

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) District Great Britain does not correct the error on the video of the Catholic Bishop's Conference of England and Wales and that of the University of Bristol,England .In this video Prof. Gavin D'Costa says all do not need to enter the Catholic Church according to Vatican Council II.For him those saved with ' a ray of the Truth' or seeds of the Word' are explicit,visible to the naked eye and whom one can meet personally. So they are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
There is no correction since even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre assumed that these cases were explicit, seen in the flesh.This is possibly also the irrationality of  Fr. Paul Morgan, District Superior,Great Britain.
On the video  Gavin D'Costa ,a Catholic professor of theology informs everyone that the Catholic Church after  Vatican Council II no more teaches that every needs to enter the Church.The Church no more says, for him, that all need to convert.He infers that there is a change in the traditional teaching after  Vatican Council II.This change for him is mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II.
Gavin D'Costa specifies that a person can be saved with 'a ray of the Truth' (Nostra Aetate 2) and 'seeds of the Word' (AG 11).So for him these cases of the deceased-saved are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (since they are visible in 2014). They would have to be visible for them to be exceptions.
There as no been no comment on this issue from Fr.Paul Morgan. 
How can he correct this error on the promotional video of the secular University of Bristol ?. Archbishop Lefebvre made the same mistake. He  assumed that the baptism of of desire was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He also infers that Nostra Aetate 2 was an exception to exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. For him these cases were explicit , seen in the flesh and so they were exceptions to Tradition.If he considered these cases implicit for us and explicit only for God, Vatican Council II would not contradict the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism.The Council would affirm the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
This same error is made by Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX in his last Letter to Friends and Benefactors. This Letter is published on the website of the SSPX Great Britain.
For the SSPX priests in Great Britain these cases of the deceased,would  be exceptions to the dogma .
So there is no comment  or correction,made by the District Superior.
-Lionel Andrades
 

Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake:SSPX, Vatican in same leaky boat

The SSPX founder wrongly inferred that implicit desire ( baptism of desire) was known, seen in public. He possibly took his cue from the Boston Case, when Cardinal Cushing assumed there were  known exceptions to the literal interpretation of extra  ecclesiam nulla salus.
The error was transferred to Vatican Council II. All salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II ( LG 16, NA 2 etc) he assumed to be objective, seen in the flesh.This is irrational. However he used this irrational inference pf being able to see the dead-saved to assume that Catican Council II ( NA 2, LG 16,UR 3,LG 8etc) contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The fault was not with Vatican Council II  ( NA 2, LG 16, ,LG 8, UR 3, AG 11) were invisible for us and known only to God.Vatican Council II would not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Instead Ad Gentes 7 , all need faith and baptism for salvation) supports the traditional dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
So the SSPX bishops, including Williamson,.would affirm  traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus but also infer that there were known exceptions.
They would criticize the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Now after some 70-plus years its clear that we cannot name any one saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.So how can these cases be exceptions to the dogma on salvation.
They are possibilities known only to God. They are not exceptions in 2014 to all needing to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation (to avoid Hell). All means, no known exceptions.
Bishop Willamson, nor the other SSPX bishops were aware that the same error was made by Fr.Luiz Ladaria S.J, President of the International Theological Commission.Fr.Ladaria, now a cardinal, led the Vatican side in the doctrinal talks with the SSPX.
Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Secretary, Congergation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, have left this error, to be confirmed  at any time, on two theological papers  of the ITC. They are The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized and Christianity and the World Religions. Similar to Ladaria and the SSPX , the Secretary of the ITC , Bishop Charles Morerod O.P who participated in the talks would not affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.There were explicit exceptions for all of them.
 
Here is the passage approved by Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Morerod.
 
59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens. When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”.- The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without the being baptized', International Theological Commission,2007

Here it is again:
“To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio).

Note :He is mentioning this relative to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr.Leonard Feeney.
He is rejecting the literal interpretation, i.e everyone needs to convert into the Church, and he is implying that every one does not need to convert into the Church.
Every one does not need to convert for him since a person can be saved with implcit desire ! Implicit desire which is de facto (explicit). Implicit desire/baptism of desire which is known. It would have to be known for it to be an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Why mention baptism of desire if it is only hypothetical for him ? If it is only hypothetical, accepted in theory it would not be an exception.For him it is an exception.
So he infers that the baptism of desire is defacto known in the present times.
Here is another passage approved by Pope Benedict. Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Di Noia have also been active with the ITC and overlooked this. More of the same.



67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation. The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.- Christianity and the World Religions 1997,International Theological Commission

Every one does not need to convert into the Church but only those who know about the necessity of the Church.
The dogma says every one needs to convert but the ITC says only those who 'know'.
Those who know or do not know are known only to God. These are invisible for us cases.How can what is invisible and hypothetical for us be an exception to all needing to convert into the Church in the present times.
It cannot be an exception.
Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium 14) refers to it as a possibility a hypothetical case.It does not refer to it as a known actuality and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The ITC has mixed up invisible for visible, hypotehetical for known in reality.
With this mix up it rejects the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.
'10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22)...'-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions

Here the Vatican's ITC is saying that the old ecclesiology is no more held by theologians, including the ITC, based on extra ecclesiam nulla salus,after the statements of Pope Pius XII and Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) 'on the possibility' of those who do not belong visibly to the Church.

ITC is inferring that there is no more exclusive salvation in the Church since a non Catholic can be saved who is not a visible member of the Church.This is a possibility.
How can a possibility be an exception to the dogma?
Yet it is an exception for the ITC.
How can they reject the teaching on exclusive salvation when they do not know any case in real life? They do not know any case in real life saved outside the Church, so how can there be an exception?

The ITC is not saying, that all need to enter the Church visibly for salvation and there are no exceptions. This was the position of Fr.Leonard Feeney. Instead it is saying there are exceptions.
This is the same error made by Archbishop Lefebvre in the new book published by Angelus Press , Against the Heresies.

Here is more of the same. Its from the ITC website but it could be a statement of the SSPX too. They overlooked it all these years. No one protested.

67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation. The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.- Christianity and the World Religions 1997,International Theological Commission

Note:Every one does not need to convert into the Church but only those who know about the necessity of the Church.The dogma says every one needs to convert but the ITC says only those who 'know'.Those who know or do not know are known only to God. These are invisible for us cases.How can what is invisible and hypothetical for us be an exception to all needing to convert into the Church in the present times.It cannot be an exception.

Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium 14) refers to it as a possibility a hypothetical case.It does not refer to it a a known actuality.So it cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The ITC has mixed up invisible for visible, hypotehetical for known in reality.With this mix up it rejects the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation.

In most books published by the SSPX this irrational inference is used.Lay supporters of the SSPX are not aware of this error.They  buy these books which criticize Vatican Council II when the fault is with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
The common interpretation of Vatican Council II for SSPX lay supporters is a break with Tradition.For me, Vatican Council II supports Tradition on other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty.
 
Evidently,certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism,etc.), but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions,who submit to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire. ("Against the Heresies",p.216)1
 
Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion...which implicitly is equivalent to baptism of desire- Archbishop Lefebvre,Against the Heresies.
 
Yes they can be saved hypothetically. De facto we do not know of any such case. So why mention it. When there are no known cases then there are no exceptions to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Here is Archbishop Lefebvre again trying to accomodare the baptism of desire as an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He is trying to adapt to the Boston Case.
 
We must say it clearly: such a concept is radically opposed to Catholic dogma. The Church is the one ark of salvation, and we must not be afraid to affirm it. You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”--a dictum which offends contemporary minds. It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped. It seems excessively severe...

 

The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.-Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre 1
 
If  any one is saved in his religion, and outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church, it would not be known to us in the present times.So it could not be  an exception to the literal and traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

 Nostra Aetate 2, saved with a' ray of the Truth' or 'seeds of the Word (AG 11) are also not exceptions to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For Archbishop Lefebvre it was an exception. It is also an exception for the SSPX bishops and priests.It is an exception for the ITC.
All are in the same leaking boat.
-Lionel Andrades
 

Meriam Ibrahim’s Brother Says She Should be Executed for Her Christian Faith

Meriam Ibrahim’s Brother Says She Should be Executed for Her Christian Faith

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com
Meriam Ibrahim and her husband and children are getting little support from the Obama administration for her plight, both during her pregnancy and after she recently gave birth to a little girl named Maya. Now, her own devout Muslim brother says she should be executed for her Christian faith.
Al Samani Al Hadi said that they are “Muslim people,” and that Ibrahim should be executed if she refuses to denounce Christianity.
The London Telegraph has more about his comments in a new interview with CNN:
meriam5Meriam Ibrahim, the woman sentenced to death in Sudan for apostasy, was “given a magic potion” to bewitch her into leaving Islam – and should be executed for doing so, her brother has said.
Al Samani Al Hadi Mohamed Abdullah said that he denounced his sister to the authorities because his family are “Muslim people.” He claimed that Ms Ibrahim, 27, was born as Abrar Al Hadi but changed her name when she was drugged by her husband, Daniel Wani. And he said that, if she did not return to the devout family fold, she should be hanged.
“It’s one of two; if she repents and returns to our Islamic faith and to the embrace of our family, then we are her family and she is ours,” he said.
“But if she refuses she should be executed,” he told CNN.
His comments will fuel speculation that the denouncing of Ms Ibrahim was part of a family feud. An American NGO which is paying for the legal costs has claimed that Ms Ibrahim was targeted by jealous relatives who wanted to gain control of her clutch of successful small businesses – a supermarket, farm and beauty salon.
On May 15, Ibrahim was sentenced to 100 lashes and death by hanging for marrying a Christian and refusing to renounce her faith. Although she was raised by an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian mother, Ibrahim is considered Muslim because her estranged father was of Islamic faith.
She has been held in the Omdurman Federal Women’s Prison in North Khartoum with her 20-month-old son since January, and gave birth to a daughter in prison on May 27.
Ibrahim’s husband, American biochemical engineer Daniel Wani, was visiting Sudan in June 2013 to secure U.S. admission for Meriam and their son, Martin, when Al Hadi filed apostasy charges against her. Nations across the globe have condemned her sentence.
Without intervention, Ibrahim will be executed when her daughter turns two years old.
Meriam gave birth recently to a baby girl named Maya and she continues to languish in a notoriously rank Sudanese prison with her 20-month-old son and her newborn daughter. Hundreds of thousands of people have signed petitions urging Sudan to free Meriam or urging their own governments to speak out on her behalf.
Just a day after the first pictures emerged of Meriam Ibrahim’s newborn baby named Maya, her husband was pleading with people around the world to speak up on her behalf so she is not executed for her faith.
The pregnant Christian woman gave birth in chains while in a Sudanese prison because of her Christian faith. Ibrahim’s legs were chained as she gave birth in Sudanese jail and the 27-year-old gave birth as she was shackled to the floor. Her husband was initially refused entry to jail but was eventually allowed in with lawyer.
In an email to LifeNews, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins was critical of the Obama administration for not doing more to speak out on her behalf as other governments worldwide have done.
“Earlier this week, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) that he wasn’t sure he knew about her case but promised to look into the possibility of granting safe haven in the United States. Since then, he has said nothing more publicly,” he said.
“The Obama administration should grant immediate refugee status to Meriam and her children so that they will have the option of finding safe haven in the United States. Family Research Council joins thousands of Americans in demanding President Obama offer a safe haven to this suffering American family,” concluded Perkins.
David Christensen, the Vice President for Government Affairs, is urging Americans to contact Congress on Meriam’s behalf.
“Please contact your Member of Congress and urge them to support H. Res. 601, introduced this week by Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona, calling for the release of imprisoned Sudanese Christian Meriam Ibrahim,” he said.
“Meriam has spent months in a Sudanese prison and has been sentenced to death — all for refusing to recant her Christian faith. Just this week, she gave birth to her second child — a daughter — while still held in jail. Despite being married to an American citizen and the fact that her children are also eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship, Meriam’s case has received little attention from our Department of State or the U.S. Embassy in Sudan,” he told LifeNews. “That’s why H. Res. 601 also calls upon this Administration to act now on behalf of Meriam and to move quickly to grant her and her children refuge in the United States.”
“Sudan’s egregious treatment of Meriam represents the type of human rights abuses our country has long publically condemned. It’s important that Members of Congress act now to pressure the Executive Branch to act and to signal their support for religious freedom and human rights. Please contact your Representative and urge them to co-sponsor H. Res. 601 today,’ he concluded.