Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Fr.Paul Morgan, SSPX District Superior (GB) cannot criticize the Transformed in Christ Catechesis and Evangelisation program : Archbishop Lefebvre makes the same error

Fr.Paul Morgan, the District Superior of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX,Great Britain) cannot criticize the Transformed in Christ Catechesis and Evangelisation 1since the same error has been made by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Bernard Fellay.

HannahVaughan-Spruce , in her Catechesis program, may mean well and she could also be a good catechist, but she is using the doctrinal error approved by the Catholic Bishop's Conference of England and Wales (CBCEW). 

The same error is made at the instituions where she studied theology.
So at preparation for Confirmation or Evangelisation she cannot say that every one must be a Catholic to go to Heaven.

Fr.Paul Morgan cannot criticize Hannah Vaughan-Spruce  or the CBCEW for assuming that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since this was the error made by Bishop Bernard Fellay in his last Letter to Friends and Benefactors 82.2

Bishop Fellay, the SSPX Superior General, infers that all non Catholics who are saved with 'a ray of the Truth' (NA 2) etc are visible to us on earth. He infers that they are visible since he considers these cases as being exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus which he mentions in the Letter.If it is an exception then it is visible.This is a subtle inference. With this irrational inference he has denied the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He does not realise that it is the inference which contradicts the dogma. Instead he blames Vatican Council II in a vague way.

Similarly the CBCEW has a video on its website which says not every one needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation, according to Vatican Council II.This same error  of mixing up what is implicit  as being explicit, what is hypothetical as being known in reality, is made by the Catholic Prof. Gavin D'Costa on the CBEW video. The video can also be seen on the website of the  University of Bristol and Fr.Morgan has nothing to say.

Fr.Paul Morgan cannot protest. Since he would be contradicting  his Superiors . They could ask him to join the SSPX Resistance .There the same error is made by the SSPX priests and their English bishop, Williamson. 

They are not aware of the irrational inference and then they say there is ambiguity in Vatican Council. They say there are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus not aware of the false premise. With the false premise there is no Catholic mission with Catholic doctrine.The traditionalists and the liberals are using the same irrational inference to change Catholic dogma and doctrine.The result is that the liberal CBCEW accepts Vatican Council II with the irrationality and the SSPX rejects Vatican Council II with the same irrational reasoning.
They both are not aware that the Council can also be interpreted without the irrational inference. Then Hannah's catechesis and evangelisation would also change.
-Lionel Andrades

April 23-August 26,2014 - still no clarification from the SSPX

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

Cardinal Nicols and FIUV are telling a falsehood. Why do rank and file Catholics have to accept it?

Transformed in Christ Catechesis ,U.K is flawed doctrinally

The Transformed in Christ Catechesis is flawed doctrinally. It  ignores Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) which says 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.It also interprets Nostra Aetate 2 ,as saying a non Catholic being saved 'with a ray of the Truth'  refers to defacto, objective, seen in the flesh cases in 2014 who are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to Ad Gentes 7.
-Lionel Andrades


It is endorsed by:-

Rt Rev Philip Egan, Bishop of Portsmouth:
What I like about “Transformed in Christ” is the way it not only offers a comprehensive catechesis to our young at a level they can engage with, but also the way it grounds this in the primary proclamation of the Gospel, the kerygma of Christ’s death and resurrection (evangelisation). This course not only informs its participants but helps them become, by God’s grace, intentional disciples, focused on the love of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. …
Hannah Vaughan-Spruce brings to this programme the fruits of her practical experience as a faith-filled and accomplished catechist involved in Confirmation courses and adult formation.
Fr Stephen Wang, Senior University Chaplain, Archdiocese of Westminster:
This is an outstanding catechetical resource. It can be highly recommended for Catholic parishes and schools. It provides a rich faith formation in well-structured sessions that will appeal to the minds and hearts of young people. It also gives much needed practical advice for priests and catechists about how to prepare and run each session. It is rooted in the Bible, the Catechism, the wisdom of Christian experience, and the Church’s vision of authentic catechesis.
Fr Stephen Langridge, Vocations Director, Archdiocese of Southwark:
The challenge facing the Church today is not so much teaching the faith as forming Christian disciples. Transformed in Christ is an outstanding course because it leads young people on a journey of faith and encourages them not only to think more deeply about what we believe but to begin to live that faith in prayer and in Christian discipleship.
Fiona Mansford, National Director, Youth 2000:
Young people love to know the truth, even if it’s tough! This Confirmation programme brings the truth of the Catholic faith to life, in a way that will equip and form our young people to live as confident Catholics. There is nothing better than to see a young person deepen their commitment to Christ and the Church, because ‘they get it!’ I am confident that this programme will help young people to understand and love Christ and the Church more.
Fr Tom Dubois, Parish Priest, Nailsea and Portishead:
When I took on running a Confirmation group for the first time, I looked extensively at potential resources and programmes. It was such a joy to me to find your programme and find something that I’d really been praying for some time someone might develop. Catechists were very positive about the experience of using it and the confidence it gave them in preparing for and helping to deliver sessions. Highly creative ideas for engaging young people.
Fr Tom Smith, Parish Priest, St George’s Warminster:
Using Transformed in Christ has completely changed the way I understand and deliver catechesis in the parish context. I can now present a course that holds a narrative, an integrity. It comes with great video clip links, which worked fantastically. The catechists’ guide has made it really easy for the catechist to prepare in advance and be supported by sound teaching, with clearly defined objectives.
Xanthe Dell, Youth Coordinator, Salisbury Deanery:
What an incredible resource! A beautiful balance between doctrine and spirituality all made really accessible and engaging. The sessions are broken down into realistic sections that keep the catechesis alive and the candidates awake. For so long it has been a challenge to lead our young people from the doctrine to the real life-changing encounter with Christ that stops Confirmation just being the “Exit” rite. Having tried a few sessions I am thoroughly excited about the impact I know this will have on our youth.
David Walford, Assistant Headteacher, St George Catholic College, Southampton:
A programme for Confirmation that is both catechetical and evangelising. This programme is more than just teaching; it is seeking. It seeks for our young people to come to know Our Lord Jesus Christ, it seeks for our young people to be transformed in Christ. It is rooted in prayer, Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This programme will produce ‘good fruit’, and help in the ongoing conversion of our youth.

April 23-August 26,2014 - still no clarification from the SSPX

Bishop Bernard Fellay the Superior General of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) has made an objective error in the Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82. He infers subtly that what is invisible for us is visible in real life. So there are real, objective  exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors, Catechism of Pope Pius XII etc. These exceptions are there for him in Vatican Council II .So the Council becomes a rupture with the past.
When I interpret Vatican Council II there are no known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Either Bishop Fellay or I am wrong.
The SSPX bishops, like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, are making an irrational inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II  and they are not denying it.Neither are they refuting my interpretation of Vatican Council II.
For me Vatican Council II is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney's traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.For them it is a break.
-Lionel Andrades

April 13-August 24,2014 and still no correction or clarification from Bishop Bernard Fellay  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/april-13-august-242014-and-still-no.html#links 

There cannot be a continuity with the past in Vatican Council II if a false premise is used in the interpretation http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/there-cannot-be-continuity-with-past-in.html#links

Meeting needed between Ecclesia Dei/CDF, SSPX,CMRI and others: all agree that the baptism of desire is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

The old and new Mass in future will be based on the hermeneutic of continuity

Combine old Mass and new?

Pope Francis offering the new Mass ad orientem in Sistine Chapel.
My PhotoAn article I read this morning from the Catholic Herald about the manner in which the Roman liturgy was reformed in the wake of the council -- provoking an ongoing "hermeneutic of rupture" -- reminded me of a thought experiment from the other day, when I had a long drive home with plenty of time to think.

Before I get to that, first let me unfold the meaning of the "hermeneutic of rupture," which I agree is exactly what happened, and explains to a great degree all that is so weird and otherwise incomprehensible that happened in the life of the Church since the Second Vatican Council. Why were churches wrecked? Artwork and beauty destroyed? Why don't newer churches look like churches? (Actually, they are starting to, again; but this question refers to many churches built between around 1970-2000.) And so on. You know the questions; they may be your questions.
Yes there is a hermenutic of rupture when Vatican Council II is interpreted with a subtle inference. This false premise causes the hermeneutic of rupture.

The hinge is the term "hermeneutic," which means a principle of interpretation. Is the interpretive key you apply to the documents of the council one of rupture and discontinuity? Or is it one of continuity and organic transition?

I don't know if anyone coined these terms before Pope Benedict, but in any case, he made them his own, as he called for Catholics to recognize this problem. And he was plainly right, even as defenders of "rupture" try several responses, each more untenable than the other. They claim:

(1) There was no rupture; all those who say they experienced drastic change are simply mistaken. All those stories of destroyed artwork, wrecked churches, and wildly manipulated Masses are just urban legends. We have always been at war with Eurasia. (This is what I call "Operation Memory Hole": the effort to pretend all or most of the craziness just never happened.)

(2) There was drastic change, but that's what the Council was about. This, in turn, subdivides into:

(2a) The Council couldn't call for it openly, so it wrote its documents in deliberately ambiguous language, expecting the post-conciliar work to go where they didn't dare go.
The amibiguity is there only when the false premise is used. It is assumed that non Catholics are saved and these deceased are now living exceptions on earth to all needing to convert into the Catholic Church. This is fantasy, it is irrationality and it is also the cause of the rupture.

For instance Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. -AG 7

Then Ad Gentes 7 also says :
Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."-AG 7
If you assume that we humans on earth personally know those non Catholics 'who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it',  we have the hermenutic of rupture. Salvation is Heaven is claimed to be physically visible to us on earth. Then it is inferred that these cases are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is concluded that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church.
If you assume that we humans on earth personally do not know any one ' who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it' there is no hermeneutic of rupture. This is a reference to implicit for us, hypothetical cases and so there still is a hermenutic of continuity in Vatican Council II (AG 7).
This same reasoning can be applied to LG 16, UR 3, LG 8 etc.

(2b) The Council did call for it openly, you are just too dumb to see what the documents really mean;

(2c) The Council and its work represents a decisively new way of "being Church,"
The new way of being Church is based on a false premise and so it cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
which is evolutionary; and as a result, it is right and proper that the Council documents themselves be superseded, in the post-conciliar period, by a "Spirit of Vatican II" that must continue to guide us into ever-new emanations and realizations. (OK, I'm hamming it up a little here; but not much. This is pretty much the position of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, and the crowd at the National "Catholic" Reporter.)

(3) Yeah, all that seems disruptive happened, but that's really an organic development anyway, and it's just that you're too delicate and hidebound to realize it.
There can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II. One with the irrational inference and the other without. Only one of the two is rational.

(4) We don't really care about Vatican II; we only care about what we have now, which we like better.

By the way, if you think I'm making up any of these responses, I am not. I have seen and heard them made in various settings, by laypeople, clergy and supposed "experts." There are a lot of folks who are heavily invested in a hermeneutic of rupture -- both emotionally and financially invested -- and so they will defend their position to the uttermost.
However it is sad when traditionalists also use the false premise and are unaware that there can be two interpretations of the Council. They are not aware of the cause of the rupture and neither has the 'magisterium' mentioned it.

In any case, back to the liturgy. Pope Benedict's entire approach to the sacred liturgy embodies the "hermeneutic of continuity," and it is my own as well. And it was in pursuit of a long-term reconciliation that he freed the celebration of the older form of the Holy Mass.
Pope Benedict's entire approach to the sacred liturgy embodies the "hermeneutic of continuity," and it is my own as well.

He does not interpret Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents without the false premise. I do not know what are his motivations.In public he has not identified the false premise.He has never said that Vatican Council II is in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
And it was in pursuit of a long-term reconciliation that he freed the celebration of the older form of the Holy Mass.
He permitted the older form of the Mass to be celebrated only with the new ecclesiology which comes from Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of rupture.The old ecclesiology affirmed extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

So back to my thought-experiment. Recently I found myself wondering: if there were some sort of "merger" between the older form and newer, what might it look like?
It would be based on the hermeneutic of continuity.
I hasten to point out: while the rubrics of the new Mass are loose enough in places that some of this may be possible, it's pretty clear that this entire scheme I am about to unfold would be illicit; so don't do it! (My headline is meant to be provocative, not a recommendation.) But it's fine as a thought-experiment.

Here's what I came up with.

It helps to realize four features I presuppose in what follows that can be realized right now: a church that is structured in the traditional way; use of Latin predominating; traditional vestments and sacred vessels; and ad orientem posture--that is, the priest facing the Lord, with the people, rather than "turning around" to offer the sacrifice. These are all perfectly licit in the new Mass; the extent to which they've become rare is a consequence of the misbegotten "hermeneutic of rupture" described above.

To help show where the ideas come from, I'll use italics to denote a distinctive feature of the older form, and bold to indicate something definitely from the new. Note well: if I don't add either, that means what I'm describing is actually true--right now--of both.

After the priest vests with all the traditional items, including the maniple and biretta (note: allowed right now), he enters led by the ministers in cassock and surplice. In a "high" Mass, the choir/assembly sings the Introit in Latin or the vernacular. He approaches the altar, perhaps placing the chalice on it, and at the foot of the altar he and the servers recite the "foot of the altar" prayers. In a Mass without anything sung, the assembly might join in, or else listen. These prayers might be in the vernacular.
They all interpret magisterial documents with an irrational premise.They are not aware of it.

In a "high" Mass, the priest might then proceed with incense; in any case, he then kisses the altar, and -- if not already sung, recites the Introit, vernacular permitted. He then goes directly to the chair, and facing the altar, leads the Kyrie and Gloria in Latin or in the vernacular.

After leading the collect, he sits down as a lector proclaims the first reading and the gradual or tract from the pulpit, the vernacular permitted. Following this, the priest or deacon goes from the chair, facing the altar and tabernacle, bowing to reciting the prayers beforehand. Then he proclaims the Gospel from the pulpit. The readings could be chanted in a high Mass. When desired, there would be an option for proclaiming the Gospel in the traditional manner, "toward the north." If proclaimed in Latin, it would be read again, in English, at the pulpit.

The sermon would follow, then the Credo, begun by the priest from the chair. The prayers of the faithful, if included, would follow; then the altar would be prepared, and the priest or deacon would receive the gifts from the faithful. The priest then approaches the altar. If not already sung, he recites the offertory antiphon. (Note: the offertory antiphons still exist! But because they don't appear in the Missal, even in the Latin, rather they are in another liturgical book, they have been utterly missing for decades. Yet the GIRM refers to them.)

Now the priest, assisted by the deacon and ministers, using the offertory prayers from the older form, places the bread and wine on the altar. He keeps the bread on the paten. Incense follows in a high Mass, including the traditional prayers with the server giving the called-for responses. (I think a priest himself might licitly pray the traditional incense prayers at this point in the new Mass.) He turns for the "orate fratres" which can be in the vernacular. He prays the offertory collect aloud, and then proceeds with the dialogue and the preface, recited or sung aloud.

The Roman Canon is normally silent, with or without music overlaid (Note: there are those who argue that this is permissible in the new Mass; I have heard the argument, but cannot here reproduce it). The rubrics would give permission to offer it aloud "occasionally." The signs of the cross omitted in the new form would be restored. The Mystery of Faith would be intoned as in the new form, except where use of a traditional Mass setting made it impractical; in which case, the priest would say it sotto voce.

The priest would lead the people in singing or reciting the Pater. The Libera nos would follow, in silence, with the gestures with the paten omitted; the priest would bow and recite, silently, all three prayers preparing for communion (note: in the new Mass, one of these is recited aloud; and one of the two can be omitted). The priest would turn and give the Pax Domini. There is no other "sign of peace." (Note: the sign of peace as currently practiced is, actully optional.) The priest would then lead the Agnus Dei aloud if it is not sung. Then the priest leads the Domine, non sum dignus three times.
Then the priest turns and shows the Body and Blood, saying aloud, Ecce, Agnus Dei; the faithful respond, Domine, non sum dignus three times; the priest then makes his communion, and then comes down to distribute holy communion at the rail. (Note: the new Mass did not eliminate use of the rail.)

After communion, the priest performs the traditional ablutions; the communion antiphon, if not already sung, he recites without the greeting beforehand. He offers the Placeat tibi, then the Benedicat vos, then the Ite, missa est. The last Gospel is omitted, except on special occasions, and the Leonine prayers follow. (Note: once the new Mass is concluded, nothing prevents the priest and people praying these prayers right now.)

What do you think? No doubt I have glossed over some of the fine points. I have, for example, not mentioned many of the gestures and movements particular to the old-form solemn high Mass, because I'm not so familiar with them, and not really wedded to them. Feel free to address that in the comments.

More on false ideologies and their consequences

More on false ideologies and their consequences


Can cases which do not exist in our reality be an explicit exception to the literal and traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney?

Fr.Julian Large:
This is not to say that those who have never had the Gospel preached to them, or never encountered credible witnesses to the Gospel, are beyond the scope of salvation. Certainly not. Yes, Christ has ordained that incorporation in His Mystical Body the Church is to be the means of man’s salvation.

True but what has this to do with all without any exception needing to enter the Church in 2014 for salvation?
Is Fr.Julian implying that these cases are known in the present times and so are an exception to the traditional interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation?.
Can such cases which do not exist in our reality be an explicit exception to the literal and traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Without a clarification Fr.Julian encourages confusion here.

-Lionel Andrades