Sunday, September 28, 2014

SSPX must not announce that they reject Vatican Council II



I hope the SSPX will not announce that they cannot accept Vatican Council II.
They must announce that they accept Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise.They must announce that they accept Vatican Council II interpreted with Feeneyism.
They need to announce that they reject Vatican Council II, the Vatican Curia-version, interpreted with Cushingism.
They must announce that they accept Vatican Council II according to the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 which says there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They must clarify that they accept Vatican Council II (without the premise) and also affirm Tradition.



They accept the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as possibilities and not known realities in 2014 so they simultaneously also affirm 'the rigorist interpretation' of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They must clarify that 'the Hindu in Tibet' whom Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said is saved in his religion through Jesus and the Church,is not a visible exception in 2014  to all needing the  baptism of water for salvation.
If the SSPX announces that they reject Vatican Council II it means they still do not understand that they are rejecting Vatican Council II according to Cushingism and are not aware of the other interpretation which is rational, pro-Tradition and which the liberals hate.
-Lionel Andrades

It is not the fault of the SSPX.No cardinal or priest has corrected an error in doctrine and so helped the SSPX and Catholics in general follow traditional doctrine.

No one is telling the SSPX and Catholics in general that Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditional teachings on other religions and Christians communities.

I have seen the images of the Society of +Marcel Lefevbre in a full demonstration against the black mass that took place on September 21, 2014. They look every bit Catholic … yet they are not submissive to the Vicar of Christ. They are Catholic protestants.
Lionel:
It is not the fault of the SSPX.No cardinal or priest has corrected an error in doctrine and so helped the SSPX and Catholics in general follow traditional doctrine.
For instance:
1.No one has said that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are in Heaven and so are not physically visible on earth.
2.No cardinal or pope has said. Since these cases are not physically visible to us, they are not personally known in 2014 they cannot be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is common sense. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake.
3.No cardinal or pope is saying that those saved with ‘ a ray of the Truth’(Nostra Aetate 2), imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3), seeds of the Word (AG 11) etc are not physically visible to us in 2014.
4.No cardinal, bishop or pope is saying that since these cases are not visible to us, they are not explicit, we cannot meet someone on the streets saved as such, they are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.To be an exception they would have to be visible and personally known in 2014.
5.So many in the Church are looking after number one , even after being informed, and are not saying that there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
6.No one is telling the SSPX and Catholics in general that Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditional teachings on other religions and Christians communities.
-Lionel Andrades

If there is someone saved without the baptism of water(Good Thief?) he would not be known to us in 2014.

Christopher
How does one belong to a ‘religion’ outside the Catholic Church if the individual renounces it and embraces Catholicism?

Lionel:
The issue is: is Vatican Council II contradicting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
If someone belongs to a ‘religion’ outside the Catholic Church and is saved or if he embraces Catholicism and is saved this still is a hypothetical case. A hypothetical case is not an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

All references to salvation in Vatican Council II are hypothetical.
_______________________________________________

Lionel:
‘I would like to say that Vatican Council II is traditional on the issue of other religions and Christian communities when’
Christopher:
It guarantees false religions as a ‘right’, that is not Traditional.

Lionel:
The reference was to other religions and Christian communities. Does Vatican Council II say that those who are saved in other religions are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? No. One can infer that they are exceptions but this would be a personal inference and it would be irrational. Since we cannot see the dead do they cannot be exceptions.
___________________________________________________

Lionel:
’1) We do not assume that those who are in Heaven are exceptions on earth to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.’

Christopher:
Nor do you have any authority to assert all who die outside the Church are damned, unless you actually claim the authority of God.

Lionel:
All who die outside the Church are on the way to Hell. This is the teaching of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7)
______________________________________________


Lionel:
‘In this context I refer to the Baptism of Desire. Whether a person can be saved or not with the Baptism of Desire is another theological issue.’

Christopher:
And Theologians have argued that Baptism of Desire is a possibility.

Lionel:
If the Baptism of Desire leads to salvation without the baptism of water or with the baptism of water, the theologians must agree that we cannot name any single such case in 2014. So we do not have an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Vatican Council II also does not say there are explicit cases.
___________________________________________________


Lionel:
‘I keep the text of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus before me. It says all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation i.e all need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation.’

Christopher:
Heresy: Feeyenism. Holy Office 1949 condemned it, see St. Thomas Aquinas as a rebuttal of Feeyenism’s notion that Baptism of Desire is inadequate. (Apocalypse 7:14)

Lionel:
If any one, even if he is a cardinal or a pope, says that we can see the dead on earth who are now also in Heaven and these deceased are visible in the flesh to him, are also explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church in 2014, then, this person, is factually wrong. The Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case. There are defacto no exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
The same objective error is being made in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.(LG 16 (saved in invincible ignorance) is considered an exception to AG 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation).

Secondly, St.Thomas Aquinas supported Feeneyism. The man in the forest who is in ignorance is not an exception to the dogma which St.Thomas Aquinas upheld. St. Thomas said that God would send a preacher to teach and baptise him. So every one who is in Heaven, for St.Thomas Aquionas, is there with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.
___________________________________________


Lionel:
‘So if you say someone could be saved with the Baptism of Desire or if you say that someone could not be saved without the Baptism of Desire, either way, it is irrelevant to the dogma on salvation.’
Christopher:
You’re the only one bringing it up.

Lionel:
I am aware that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism, without the irrational premise( dead are visible) or with the irrational premise.I choose the rational interpretation.

Similarly the SSPX can affirm Vatican Council II without the irrational premise. They would also be in harmony with Tradition, the dogma on salvation, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc.They could have it both ways. Vatican Council II and Tradition. Baptism of Desire and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
__________________________________________

Lionel:
‘Since this case is not visible to us in 2014, since this person is in Heaven, this hypothetical person cannot be an explicit exception to all needing the Baptism of Water in the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.’

Christopher:
And of the Good Thief?

Lionel:
If there is someone saved without the baptism of water(Good Thief?) he would not be known to us in 2014. I cannot meet someone on the streets who has been saved as such or is going to be saved as such. So it is irrelevant to the dogmatic teaching.
Implicit for us baptism of desire, invisible for us baptism of desire is compatible with the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Centers ,mentioned (criticized) in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

Christopher:
No one knows if he was baptised, and infact, given his repentance on the cross would logically lead to a last minute repentance which would rule against the potentiality of the good thief obtaining Baptism. The whole issue of the Baptism of Desire has not been decreed by the Church, nor has St. Thomas Aquinas’s notions of Baptism of Desire been condemned by the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas was very well aware of the Council of Trent..

Lionel:
Baptism of Desire is always theoretical and implicit for us. So it was never mentioned by the Church Councils as an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It was Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits in Bosto, who came up with this new theory of a visible baptism of desire which was an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
Cushingism is irrational, non traditional and heretical.
-Lionel Andrades


So if you say someone could be saved with the Baptism of Desire or if you say that someone could not be saved with the Baptism of Desire, either way, it is irrelevant to the dogma on salvation.

Barbara:
There is some confusion about Baptism of Desire: one cannot be saved because he belongs to a religion outside the Catholic Church

Lionel:
I would like to say that Vatican Council II is traditional on the issue of other religions and Christian communities when
1) We do not assume that those who are in Heaven are exceptions on earth to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
In other words:
2) We cannot see the dead on earth; we cannot see on earth with our physical eyes, people now in Heaven.
In this context I refer to the Baptism of Desire. Whether a person can be saved or not with the Baptism of Desire is another theological issue.

I keep the text of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus before me . It says all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation i.e all need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation.
So if you say someone could be saved with the Baptism of Desire or if you say that someone could not be saved with the Baptism of Desire, either way, it is irrelevant to the dogma on salvation. Since this case is not visible to us in 2014.The person is Heaven. So this hypothetical person cannot be an explicit exception to all needing the Baptism of Water in the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
-Lionel Andrades


Without the premise ( dead-saved are visible exceptions to the dogma) Vatican Council II is traditional on other religions and Christian communities.


Don’t believe it? Take a look at the documents of the Second Vatican Council wherein one will find such malignant propositions as:
- Christ does not hesitate to use the communities of the heretics as means of salvation (UR 3)
- The Jews of today who reject Christ are one with the children of the Church in His Saving Cross (NA 4)

Lionel:

This can be interpreted according to the liberals as meaning there is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
For me it is not a break since hypothetically a Protestant or Jew could be saved in his religion, under certain conditions (which could include the baptism of water).However since these cases mentioned above (UR 3,NA 4) are not known to us.They are not explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Neither are they exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
To imply that these cases are visible to us and so are exceptions to the traditonal teaching on salvation, is Cushingism. You are correct the Vatican uses Cushingism in the interpretation of the Council.
The two examples which you have given can also be interpreted with Feeneyism . There are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Those saved in other religions would be saved with the baptism of water and they would be Catholics when they are in Heaven.
Vatican Council II (UR 3,NA 4) has mentioned them but not stated that they are known, objective cases. This has to be wrongly inferred and in general this is the common inference.However we have the choice of accepting them as being hypothetical cases known only to God.They cannot be anything else.If we consider them as hypotehtical cases only, we are not using the irrational premise.We do not infer that they are living persons in 2014.
With Cushingism the examples you have provided above result in ‘ a development of doctrine’ according to the Vatican.This is the position of the Catholic universities in Rome. Without the premise ( dead-saved are visible exceptions to the dogma) Vatican Council II is traditional on other religions and Christian communities.
Lionel Andrades

Second Vatican Council II did not ‘develop’ extra ecclesiam nulla salus it affirmed the Feeneyite position -3
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/second-vatican-council-ii-did-not_49.html



They can change the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus when they use an irrational inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. So a pastoral Council becomes dogmatic.


my2cents 
Louie, you are correct. This Bishop Of Rome, (nor any other Pope) cannot in FACT change the dogma of the faith.

Lionel:
They can change the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus when they use an irrational inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. So a pastoral Council becomes dogmatic.
-Lionel Andrades

Archbishop Lefebvre was correct. However he like Pope John Paul II was not aware that Vatican Council II could be interpreted with an irrational premise or without it. The Council text is neutral.

Among those who have benefited most, and rather directly so, is every priest of the Roman Rite today who celebrates the traditional Mass; including certain woefully ignorant self-promoting clerics who reap the blessed fruits of +Archbishop Lefebvre’s labor with one hand whilst pointing a calumnous finger at the Society of St. Pius X with the other.
Lionel:
Vatican Council II was being interpreted with an irrational premise and we can still see the results before us. So Archbishop Lefebvre was correct. However he like Pope John Paul II was not aware that Vatican Council II could be interpreted with an irrational premise or without it. The Council text is neutral
Similarly the two SSPX groups and the good Opus Dei priest is not aware that the Council can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism.They are all using Cushingism.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 used an irrational premise and rejected a defined dogma and THEY ALL ACCEPTED THIS as normal.They accepted the Letter and rejected Feeneyism,which was traditional.
When Vatican Council II is interpreted with that same irrational premise, the traditionalists reject Vatican Council as not being traditional and they still reject Feeneyism. The liberals accept Vatican Council ( as a break with the past) and reject Feeneyism.The liberals are rejecting a Vatican Council II which is Feeneyite.
-Lionel Andrades

SSPX Oklahoma City: Black Mass Response VIDEO




http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/