Wednesday, December 10, 2014

SSPX has only to interpret Vatican Council II with the left hand side column and there is no break with their traditional beliefs on other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty

If the SSPX uses the left hand side (blue) column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II then Vatican Council does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Catechism of Pope Pius X. So the traditional teaching is affimed on other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty when the rational column is used in the interpretation.
Check it out for yourself.
 
Here is the format.
 
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 or ' a ray of the Truth' (NA 2) are either:
LEFT HAND COLUMN................................. RIGHT HAND COLUMN
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.
The left hand column does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So Vatican Council II is in agreement with the traditional teaching on Islam and the other religions.
With the left hand side column 'imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3) among Protestants is not a known exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Since there is no contradiction or exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or need to enter the Catholiic Church with no known exceptions in 2014-2015. So there is no exception to the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political laws.There is no known salvation outside the Church.
Since there is no salvation outside the Church  all political laws must have Jesus as its center as taught by the Catholic Church.
So the SSPX has only to interpret Vatican Council II with the left hand side column and Vatican Council II is no more a  break with their traditional beliefs on other religions, traditional ecumenism and religious liberty.
-Lionel Andrades
______________________________________________

None of the two, mention the irrational premise when they discuss Vatican Council II. This will also be ignored in the SSPX -Brandmuller discussions

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/none-of-two-mention-irrational-premise.html


Cardinal Malcolm Ranjit expects the SSPX to reject the Syllabus of Errors as he does and then accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the irrational red column http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/cardinal-malcolm-ranjit-expects-sspx

 

Good sermon on sloth


IMPORTANT: Fr. Rodriguez’ last sermon in Shafter



http://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/important-fr-rodriguez-last-sermon-in-shafter/

http://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2014/12/09/good-sermon-on-sloth/

None of the two, mention the irrational premise when they discuss Vatican Council II. This will also be ignored in the SSPX -Brandmuller discussions

According to reports on a traditionalist forum the SSPX leadership is to meet Cardinal Walter Brandmuller this month and review Vatican Council II. Cardinal Branmuller has said that Vatican II Declarations do not contain “binding doctrinal content ... ' and so 'binding doctrinal content' should not be a major part of the breach between the Holy See and the SSPX.
A few days back Pope Francis said he would be willing to accept unity with the Ortodox Church without any theological or doctrinal conditions.
At the last Muller-Fellay meeting however it was decided that accepting Vatican Council II ( interpreted with an irrational inference) was necessary for reconciliation.
The SSPX presently interprets Vatican Council II with the irational premise and so rejects the Council. Cardinal Muller, Cardinal Ladaria and the CDF/Ecclesia Dei  officials also interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise - but accept the Council.
None of the two, mention the irrational premise when they discuss Vatican Council II. This will also be ignored in the SSPX -Brandmuller discussions.
They both will probably agree that the SSPX should be given canonical status without Vatican Council II ( with or without the premise) being made a condition.
-Lionel Andrades

Cardinal Malcolm Ranjit expects the SSPX to reject the Syllabus of Errors as he does and then accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the irrational red column

 
Cardinal Malcolm Ranjit, the Archbishop of Colombo, has said that if the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX ) is given canonical status he would invite them to his seminary to train students in Colombo;Sri Lanka. What he has not said, is  that he would expect the SSPX, like his seminarians, to reject the Syllabus of Errors and also accept Vatican Council II as he does.
For Cardinal Ranjit the Syllabus of Errors would not be compatible with Vatican Council II 1 since he uses the right hand side ( red) column instead of the left hand side (blue) column in the interpretation of the Council.
If he chose to use the blue column then Vatican Council II would not contradict the Syllabus of Errors.
Here it is.
 
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 or ' a ray of the Truth' (NA 2) are either:
LEFT HAND COLUMN................................. RIGHT HAND COLUMN
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.
He and his staff are still not willing to interpret Vatican Council II using the rational blue column.
 -Lionel Andrades
1.

You have no magisterial document (except the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is contradictory and without precedent) which says there are known exceptions to the dogma




Your theology is not traditional.

Lionel:
I am saying all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church for salvation. This was the teaching of the Church for centuries.No Church Council, pope or saint said that the baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma. It was a possibility followed with the baptism of water but it was not an exception. This is Cushingism which you are using. It comes to us from Boston in the 1940's. It is irrational since you cannot see or know any exception to the dogma. You cannot see or know the difference between necessity of means or precept .Also no Church document before 1949 suggests we can see the dead who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire etc who are visible exceptions to the the dogma, the Syllabus of Errors etc.It is based on this irrationality that you have built your theology.
_________________________________________



You still haven't understood my position.
You're so confused that's it's sad.
Nobody supports you except in your mind.

Lionel:
I quoted you an Archbishop who said that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma. He was clear that we do not know any such case in the present time. The Archbishop was not saying anything extraordinary. This is common sense. We cannot see the dead on earth.
Then I quoted you the Dean of Theology at the University of St. Anselm, Rome saying the same thing.
There are many other priests in Rome who have supported what I have said.
______________________________________



There is no dogma that states that baptism is the necessity of means for salvation. Necessity of precept as the law of the Church teaches.

Lionel:
Necesity of means and precept is an invention of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. It is dejure, subjective, hypothetical for us humans. Only God can judge the diffeence.It has nothing to do with extra ecclesiam nulla salus as Fr.Leonard Feeney interpreted it.You've fallen for the liberal ruse from Boston.
______________________________________



Canon 737 declares, “Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually or at least in desire is necessary for all for salvation….”

Lionel:
Yes the baptism of water is the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments actually and there are no defacto exceptions in 2014. The baptism of desire , actually, is irrelevant. Since it cannot be administered or known. What is hypothetical cannot be a known exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
One cannot say that 'God is not limited to the Sacraments'(CCC 1257). Since the Syllabus of Errors, the dogma on exclusive salvation and Vatican Council II (AG 7) tells us that God is limited to the Sacraments for salvation. CCC 1257 is confusing and wrong in a defacto sense. Actually, God has chosen to limit salvation to the Sacraments.
____________________________________________________________



THE LAW IS THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION OF TRENT WHICH SAYS THE SAME THING.

Lionel:
The Council of Trent no where says that the baptism of desire is visible to us or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. You have not been able to provide any citation when I asked you to do so before.
So you have no magisterial document (except the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is contradictory and without precedent) which says there are known exceptions to the dogma or that the baptism of desire refers to visible cases in the present times.Case finished!



You are not free to reject the law of the Church.

Lionel:
I generally accept the law of the Church but if a new doctrine is taught, which is irrational and heretical( and which you are using) I am free to reject it. I reject a new Gospel.
It is based on this irrationality (Vatican Council II with the premise contradicts Tradition) that you have chosen sedevacantism and rejected the pope.The popes seem unaware of the same error, which you are making in theology and doctrine.
I know you are sincere in this and mean well. You are not helped by so many Catholics who are unaware of the false premise used in the interpretation of the magisterial documents. Cardinal Ratzinger and later Pope Benedict XVII seemed unaware of it.
-Lionel Andrades
 
 
My theology is traditional.Yours is Cushingism. Yours is irrational.