Saturday, June 14, 2014

Even if a non Catholic was saved in his religion or by his religion the case is implicit for us: Bishop Fellay uses the right hand column

Bishop Bernard Fellay has written that ' the errors contained in the documents of Vatican Council II and in the reforms that followed, especially in the liturgical reform, could not possibly be the work of the Holy Ghost, who is at once the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Holiness.'
It is true that the right hand column was used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and this cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
 
However Bishop Fellay has also been using the right hand column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.There are contradictions. He is has mixed up implicit-explicit, invisible for us and visible for us, de jure-defacto.
 
Let us analyse his last Letter to Friends and Benefactors on the two canonisations.
The expression “subsistit in” (Lumen gentium, 8) means that the Church of Christ has in the separate Christian communities a presence and an action that are distinct from the Church of Christ’s subsistence in the Catholic Church.
Lionel: He uses an inference here. He infers 'that the Church of Christ has in the separate Christian communities a presence and an action that are distinct from the Church of Christ’s subsistence in the Catholic Church'. Even if it is true it is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus .The right hand column is being used.He infers that these cases are explicit for us.This is a contradiction.
A 'presence and action distinct from the Church' would be implicit and invisible for us. It would be rational to use the left hand column.
Taken in this sense, the expression denies the strict necessity of identifying the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, which had always been taught, especially by Pius XII, both in Mystici corporis[2] and Humani generis[3].
Lionel:
Pope Benedict XVI has clarified this point in  "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church". (July 10, 2007).
The Church of Christ is present and active as such, that is, as the unique ark of salvation, only where the Vicar of Christ is present. The Mystical Body of which he is the visible head is strictly identical to the Roman Catholic Church.
Lionel:
Yes.However  salvation in another religion  would not be known to us. It would not be relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
If there is salvation in another religion it would be meaningful for Bishop Fellay since it is explicit for him. He is using the right hand column. He assumes there are exceptions.
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:
'the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities', this would not be a problem if Bishop Fellay considered these cases as invisible.Now he is using the right hand column.
We can affirm (implicit) “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities' along with the literal and traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
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:
They are irreconcilable only if they are explicit. For Bishop Fellay they are   right hand column cases.He is thinking irrationally here.
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.
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)
Lionel:
Nostra Aetate 2, ' ray of the Truth' is always implicit for us.Bishop Fellay and the SSPX priests in general, consider it explicit for us.So Vatican Council II , for them, contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition on other religions and ecumenism.
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. That is why, even though using such means, the sect as such cannot be a mediator of grace or contribute towards salvation,
Lionel:
If they are saved by their sect or saved without it, this  is irrelevant since in both cases, they are not visible to us. If they are saved in their sect, this would still only be hypothetical. If it is considered relevant to the dogma on salvation, then it is using the  dead- man- walking theory. It would be inferring that the deceased-saved is visible on earth.
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.
Conclusion.
Bishop Bernard Fellay is using the right hand column in assuming that the person saved in another religion is explicit.
If he used the left hand side column then the person saved would not be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
He is using Cushingism. Cardinal Richard Cushing brought 'explicit exceptions' into the Catholic Church.
This is not Feeneyism.Fr.Leonard Feeney said there is no visible baptism of desire.So there are no exceptions.He did not deny the baptism of desire, his writings show. In The Bread of Life he accepted that a catechumen could be saved with implicit desire.This must be followed with the baptism of water.Being saved with implicit desire ,with or without the baptism of water, is implicit for us.In either case it is invisible for us. So it is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 says there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus while here Bishop Bernard Fellay considers LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 etc as being exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is a subtle error.
As an argument if it is said that a person is saved in a religion by his religion ( and he cannot be saved by his religion but by God) , it is still implicit for us.So it is not relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Also Vatican Council II does not state this.It has to be inferred wrongly.
Bishop Fellay is using the irrational inference. He infers that the dead who are saved are visible to us. Then he concludes that these cases are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
It is using or omitting the inference, which decides, if Vatican Council II is traditional or a break with the past.This is the missing link.It is with the inference that we get a hermeneutic of  rupture. Avoid it and we have a hermeneutic of continuity.
It is with the inference that Vatican Council II presents a New Revelation in the Catholic Church and this is not the work of the Holy Spirit. Avoid it and the Council affirms the SSPX's traditional position on other religions and Christian communities.
-Lionel Andrades
 






LEFT HAND SIDE COLUMN or RIGHT HAND SIDE COLUMN


All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) etc are either:

implicit                      or explicit for us.

hypothetical              or known in reality.

invisible                     or visible in the flesh.

dejure ( in principle) or defacto ( in fact ).

subjective                 or objective

So one can choose from the left hand side or the right hand side column.

If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general on other religions and Christian communities and churches. There are known exceptions in 2014 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Cathlic Church. The dead- saved are visible.

If the left hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor Tradition on other religions and Christian communities and churches.

Most people interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.

So the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was never ever an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless one is using the right hand side column.There were and are no known exceptions.
In 2014 the Padre Pio Prayer groups, the Neo Catechumenal Way, Charismatic Renewal, all the religious communities and most of the Diocesan priests, the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX), Archbishop Gerhard Muller, Archbishop Augustine Di Noi, Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J, Monsignor Guido Pozzo and the Vatican Council for the Clergy are using the irrational column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church,Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949,Redemptois Missio, Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura ...-L.A

1.