Friday, October 31, 2014

Bad theology among traditionalists

These links are an application of what I have been saying in the comments section of the Catholicism.org article Revolutionary Doctrines on the Family by Brother André Marie
October 30, 2014

SSPX APPEAL TO BISHOP MARCELLO SEMERARO TO ENDORSE VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE FALSE PREMISE FOR AN AGREEMENT


But why do the traditionalists condone a modernist teaching?
 
The SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers do not realize still that the baptism of desire etc are not exceptions to the dogma.They are irrelevant.
 
The Eucharist is real, so we can see the host with the naked eye.So we can have a theology and an understanding of the Eucharist.
The baptism of desire is not real or tangible like the Eucharist.You can have an intellectual explanation of it but you cannot have a theology which makes it an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Similarly there cannot be a theology which says LG 16,LG 8 etc are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.There are no concrete cases in our reality for it to be an exception.On the premise of being able to see the dead now in Heaven this year we cannot create a theology.
So how can the baptism of desire or Vatican Council II (LG 16,LG 8 ,UR 3 etc) be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
-Lionel Andrades
 
 
 
Kasper the Friendly Liar

This is the ‘official’ heresy of the Letter of the Holy Office and it has been accepted by the SSPX and the magisterium.

Berto Slomovicci
I don’t know what could be done about it.
Everytime I try to bring the subject up I almost always get accused of heresy and/or “Feeneyism
Lionel:
I agree with you.
They mix up Feeneyism and Cushingism.
Feeneyism says that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not explicit. So there is no salvation outside the Church.
Cushingism says that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicit. So there is salvation outside the Church.
Cushingism is heresy since it rejects the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
It alleges that the dead now saved in Heaven are visible on earth to be exceptions. This is irrational.
The result is fantasy theology based on non existing for us, baptism of desire etc. This is the ‘official’ heresy of the Letter of the Holy Office and it has been accepted by the SSPX and the magisterium.
It is a break with Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7), the Council of Forence, extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Nicene Creed ( I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin and not three or more known baptisms).
-Lionel Andrades

The Bishop of Albano will not like this.But then at least he cannot say that the SSPX has to accept Vatican Council II (with the premise)

 

They will understand that salvation is in the Catholic Church and not in the Conciliar Church.

Lionel:
Both ‘Churches’ are making a subtle error in the interpretation of salvation doctrine.



Berto Slomovicci:
  • Lionel, as far as I know 99.9999% of “Catholics” are making that error nowdays.
Lionel:
Yes .What can be done about it?
The bishop of Albano wants the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II with this error.
The SSPX instead does not state that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the error.Neither is Louie , Vennari and Ferrara wanting to admit this in public.
Then there are priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass who know what I am saying but do not want to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    • If the SSPX in some way makes it known that Vatican Council II can be accepted without the premise, they would be saying that Vatican Council II indicates all need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no exceptions. This means according to Vatican Council II Jews and Muslims need ‘faith and baptism’ for salvation.
      The Bishop of Albano will not like this.But then at least he cannot say that the SSPX has to accept Vatican Council II(with the premise).
      -Lionel Andrades
 

How can they return to the traditional doctrine of the Church when the SSPX is making the same doctrinal error as Rome ?

A Catholic Thinker:
The return of Rome and the bishops to the traditional doctrine of the Church.
  • Lionel:
    How can they return to the traditional doctrine of the Church when the SSPX is making the same doctrinal error as Rome ?

A Catholic Thinker .
I’m short on time, but feel the need to point out for the benefit of the forum that the doctrinal errors lie with Lionel. And, Lionel, no offense, but you’re really proving to be a one-trick pony here.
    Lionel.
    If the doctrinal error lies with Lionel then show him precisely what is the error.
    I have mentioned precisely what is the doctrinal error being made by the traditionalists.
     
    The traditionalists and Cardinal Kaspar say:
    1.Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.2.They both imply that those who are saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) and without the baptism of water, are visible to us on earth.They would have to be known and visible to be exceptions to the dogma.

  • This is irrational. It is a new doctrine and a non traditional interpretation.
    The LG 16 text does not state that being saved in invincible ignorance is explicit and so is an exception to the salvation dogma. It has to be implied. And so it is implied wrongly by traditionalists and liberals.
    The Council of Trent and Mystici Corporis does not mention that implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicit and so are exceptions to Tardition. This has to be inferred. It is inferred wrongly by SSPX priests and bishops.
    Vatican Council II no where says that there are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus but since it is assumed that the dead are visible in the present times, it is wrongly inferred by the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA , that the Council contradicts Tradition.
    Similar doctrinal errors can be pointed out with the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257-1260 and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

-Lionel Andrades

The SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers do not realize still that the baptism of desire etc are not exceptions to the dogma.They are irrelevant.

They can only understand this issue theologically and that too based on the false premise.

Ever mindful:
Thank you Lionel.
I shall continue to read, study and reflect.
 
Lionel:
You will have to be aware.Much of what you read on the Internet on extra ecclesiam nulla salus is leftist propaganda.
There are also Jewish Left groups who threathen Catholics and others who support Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Also most people’s concept of Feeneyism comes from the SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers who do not realize still that the baptism of desire etc are not exceptions to the dogma.They can only understand this issue theologically and that too based on the false premise.
They do not want to admit that all these years they were wrong and there are no known exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma.
-Lionel Andrades
 
 

But why do the traditionalists condone a modernist teaching?

Barbara:
One Hundred Years of Modernism, Fr. Dominic Bourmaud. (Yes, Lionel it’s from the SSPX but good nevertheless!)
Lionel:
Since 1949 there is modernism in the Catholic Church which has also been accepted by the SSPX and other traditionalists.
The SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers, and also the sedevacantists have the same position on Vatican Council II and salvation, as does Cardinal Walter Kasper.
Kasper I can understand.
But why do the traditionalists condone a modernist teaching?
-Lionel Andrades