Saturday, June 7, 2014

SSPX (GB) uses irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II so avoids saying Jews, Muslims, Protestants need to convert

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) District Superior Fr.Paul Morgan, interprets all salvation mentioned/alluded to in Vatican  Council II ( NA 2,LG 16 etc) as being visible instead of invisible.If it was vice versa, invisible for us and visible only for God, he would be saying all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and Protestants need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.He does not say this with reference to Vatican Council II. He would say this according to Catholic Tradition minus Vatican Council II.
Since he considers all salvation in Vatican Council II (NA 2 etc) as being explicit for us he says all do not need to convert into the Church in 2014 in England. Or he would say all need to convert into the Catholic Church in 2014 EXCEPT for... This is because he interprets the Letter of the Holy Ofice 1949 as saying that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible in the flesh exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation.It is from there that the misinterpretation of Vatican Council II arises.
For the English District Superior there are known exceptions (NA 2,LG 16, UR 3 etc) so Vatican Council II (NA 2 etc) becomes a break with Tradition. This is how  Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre the founder of the SSPX interpreted  the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II. Here is a quote of Archbishop Lefebvre from the SSPX Great Britain website.

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 It is easy to believe that this doctrine is no longer in effect, that it has been dropped.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.It is not relevant to the dogma. It was the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing who made it relevant.
Fr. Paul Morgan, like the SSPX founder, in his interpretation of Vatican Council II chooses Cushingism, instead of Feeneyism. He assumes there are  known exceptions to the dogma on salvation ( Cushingism) even when he cannot name any such case.He does not state that there are no visible exceptions to the dogma (Feeneyism).Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma ( Feeneyism).For him Vatican Council has exceptions to the dogma ( Cushingism).
Feenyism is rational and Cushingism is irrational.He chooses irrationality like Archbishop Lefebvre.
Without the irrational inference of being able to see 'dead-exceptions', Vatican Council II would be traditional. Ad Gentes 7 indicates  'all' non Catholics in Britain, need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ( to avoid Hell).
Non Catholics in Great Britain do not have 'faith and baptism'. They are oriented to Hell at the time of death.If any one is saved with 'a ray of the Truth' (NA 2) or invincible ignorance (LG 16) it would be known ONLY to God. The ordinary means to avoid Hell is 'faith and baptism'. 
On the SSPX Great Britain website Bishop Bernard Fellay is quoted as saying LG 8, UR 3,NA 2 are exceptions to the traditional teaching.Here is the quotation with my comments. 
The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)
Lionel:Even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in Against the Heresies says that a Hindu in Tibet could be saved in his religion through Jesus and the Church.
And so what ? Even if there was such a person, invisible for us, he would not be an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus..

Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church,” which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949.
Lionel:Why are they irreconcilable if they are not visible to us in real life ?.If Bishop Fellay infers that these cases are visible to us then it would be irreconciliable. It would contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
If the cardinal who issued the Letter of the Holy Office assumed that these cases were visible to us then he made the same mistake.
 A separated community cannot cooperate with the action of God, since its separation is a resistance to the Holy Ghost. The truths and the sacraments that it may maintain can have good effects only in opposition to the erroneous principles on which these communities are founded and which separate them from the Mystical Body of the Catholic Church, whose visible head is the Vicar of Christ.
Lionel: It is possible, in principle, hypothetically and known only to God that a person in a separated community could be saved.De facto we do not know any such case.So it is not an exception to the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation. Bishop Fellay here, does not make the disctinction between explicit and implicit, visible and invisible, in fact and hypotethical.So there is confusion for him,as there may have been for Archbishop Lefebvre.
 The declaration Nostra aetate says that non-Christian religions“often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men,” although such men must find in Christ “the fullness of religious life;” it also “regards with sincere respect those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and doctrines.” (NA, 2) Such a claim must be criticized just as the preceding one. When coupled with heresy or schism, the sacraments, the partial truths of the Faith, and Scripture are in a state of separation from the Mystical Body.
Lionel: True but even Archbishop Lefebvre recognizes the possibility of a non Catholic being saved in another religion through Jesus and the Church. The Holy Spirit could use something good and holy ( Nostra Aetate) in another religion, to draw him to 'the fullness of truth' which is there in only the Catholic Church.
That is  why, even though using such means, the sect as such cannot be a mediator of grace or contribute towards salvation, for it is deprived of supernatural grace. The same must be said for the ways of thinking, living, and acting that are found in non-Christian religions.-Bishop Bernard Fellay 2
The same error as Bishop Bernard Fellay is made by Fr. Franz Schmidberger , in an article available on the SSPX (GB)website.

 Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay and Fr. Franz Schmidberger assume that what is implicit for us ( NA 2, UR 3 etc) is explicit, seen in the flesh. So they assume that these cases are exeptions.If the website clarifies that these cases are known only to God, the District Superior would be saying that Vatican Council II affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus and there are no exceptions to the dogma on salvation. He would be saying that Vatican Council II is traditional on other religions and ecumenism.
-Lionel Andrades
(First Saturday)
Heresy and irrationality on the SSPX Great Britain website ?

Time for Action -Michael Voris

Celine Dion - Ave Maria

Heresy and irrationality on the SSPX Great Britain website ?

The Society for St.Pius X District Superior of Great Britain Fr. Paul Morgan rejects an ex cathedra dogma, the Creed, Ad Gentes 7 and interprets Nostra Aetate 2 irrationally, as referring to cases visible to us in real life instead of visible only to God.
1. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus an ex cathedra dogma defined three times is assumed to have known exceptions in the present times.
2. Vatican Council II ( NA 2, LG 16 etc) can be rationally interpreted as being invisible for us and visible only for God but for him NA 2 is visible.This is an irrational interpretation. It is visible for him otherwise how could it be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
3.He considers being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire as being visible exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
4.In the Catechism of Pope Pius X 27 Q is not contradicted by 29 Q unless you assume that those who are saved with implicit desire (baptism of desire) are visible on earth. Implicit desire is an explicit exception for him.
I  write this based on what is available on the Great Britain SSPX website and what he has omitted saying in public.
I  do not mean to be critical. I realize that this could be the first time someone has mentioned all this to him. So he may not be aware that this is a heresy. The error is innocent.
a. He infers that there are known exceptions to the thrice defined dogma on exclusive salvation.
b. He infers that the Nicene Creed refers to not one baptism for the forgiveness of sin, the baptism of water, but three or more.The baptism of blood, desire, seeds of the Word, a ray of Truth, elements of sanctification and truth, imperfect communion with the Church etc.
The District Superior, does not comment or correct the video of Prof. Gavin D'Costa in England,who says all do not  need to enter the Church for salvation in the present times according to Vatican Council II (Cushingism version).
Fr.Paul Morgan has never in public affirmed Vatican Council II (AG 7) which supports Tradtion when it states all need faith and baptism for salvation.
-Lionel Andrades