The SSPX must be prepared for the CDF's wrong arguments

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) must point out to the Vatican the Marchetti error carried over into Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus and other magisterial documents I mentioned in a previous post 1.

The SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012(GCS) has affirmed extra ecclesiam nullas salus (EENS) with there being no exceptions, while the Marchetti error infers there are explicit exceptions to EENS.
The SSPX should not be asked to accomodate Marchetti's inference in the interpretation of Church-documents, including Vatican Council II.

The SSPX must ask the CDF to clarify that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the irrational Marchetti inference.

However when the SSPX approaches the CDF they can expect the following arguements. So the SSPX must be prepared.
Firstly Cardinal Gerhard Muller will have to agree that Cardinal Marchetti made a mistake. There should be no problem here.Even a non Catholic would have to agree with this. It is common knowledge. Common sense.
We cannot see the dead in Heaven. This is a given.There were no known cases in 1949 of persons saved without faith and baptism. There was no case of someone saved outside the Church. Also no magisterial document before 1949 made this claim.
They only mentioned being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and did not state that these cases were known to us on earth to be exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma.So Marchetti made a factual error. There is no way  around this.

However with reference to Vatican Council II Cardinal Muller made the same mistake as Marchetti in an interview given to Edward Pentin for the National Catholic Register.The same stuff. The interview was available on Edward Pentin and the Vatican website but it is no longer there. It is still there on the NCR website.

Cardinal Muller could say  again as he did in the interview,  that :'The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” 2 We have to remember that this line comes from Marchetti's factual error. We do not know in 2015 'who knows' or who is in invincible ignorance.This is known only to God.Invisible cases for us cannot be explicit exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma.Hypothetical cases cannot be considered objective in 2015.The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) made a mistake here.
When the then Archbishop Muller said 'The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved' he was implying that this was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The text of LG 14 does not state that these cases are visible to us. Neither does it state that these cases are an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This has to be wrongly inferred by Cardinal Muller.

If this was an exception then it was a case known to him personally . Only if it was a known case could it be an exception to every one needing to convert into Church.In other words he could name someone who did not have to enter the Church for salvation.How could he see someone as such when these persons are saved in Heaven? It would be like being able to see an apparition.
How can he know who will be saved without the baptism of water in future? So how could he know of any exception?
So where is the magisterial text which supports the Cardinal Muller when he implies that there are exceptions and so now there is a doctrinal development with regard to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? None! There is no such text to support his view.He can only fall back on Marchetti's mistake.
He has used the false premise of being able to see the dead- saved and then assumes that this is an exception to Tradition in general and in particular to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.



The same mistake was made by Archbishop Augustine Di Noia. 3 On the same tracks.

So the  SSPX could now ask  Archbishop Augustine Di Noia why must they interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise to receive full canonical status ? Vatican Council II can be interpreted without assuming that those who are saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth' (LG 8) are explicit, seen in the flesh. How can any of us say that we know of any particular Lutheran or Anglican who is going to be saved without Catholic Faith.How can Archbishop Di Noia say that he knows of someone who is going to be saved  without the Catholic Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Church? This is bad theology. This is not Catholic theology.

The SSPX should not be asked to accomodate Marchetti's inference in the interpretation of Church-documents, including Vatican Council II as was done by Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Di Noia in the interviews with Edward Pentin.Why does the CDF want the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II presuming hypothetical cases are objectively known in the present times?
There is no rational basis for the CDF doctrinally rejecting the General Chapter Statement(GCS) 2012 of the SSPX .The SSPX must not have to approve the visible-dead theory.How can persons in Heaven be explicit exceptions on earth to the de fide teaching expressed in the GCS?
Without the false premise and conclusion expressed in the two interviews given to the National Catholic Register,Vatican Council II is traditional.It is in harmony with the SSPX position on an ecumenism of return and the need for non Christians to formally convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
The SSPX must ask the CDF to make the first move towards reconciliation and endorse a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II.This would be one without the dead-man walking theory.-Lionel Andrades

1.

SSPX show the Vatican the Marchetti error carried over into Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus and other magisterial documents
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/sspx-show-vatican-marchetti-error.html


2.
NCR:

Do you, nevertheless, accept there’s been a weakening of the Church’s teaching because of this underlying confusion of terminology? One example sometimes cited is that the teaching of “no salvation outside the Church” seems to have become less prominent.

Archbishop Gerhard Muller:

Archbishop Gerhard Muller:That has been discussed, but here, too, there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the third century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the third century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly — and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-the-church-is-not-a-fortress/#ixzz2VLejK3GH

3

NCR:

How much is a perceived weakening of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (no salvation outside the Church) a major part of the problem, as some traditionalists assert? Has today’s understanding of the dogma contradicted its earlier teaching?

Archbishop Augustine Di Noia:

I don’t know if you can blame this on the Council so much as the emergence of a theological trend that emphasized the possibility of salvation of non-Christians. But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it. … [Karl] Rahner had a disastrous effect on this with his “anonymous Christianity.” But the Council does not alter the teaching of the Church.

NCR:

And yet they argue it does?

Archbishop Augustine Di Noia:

This is a very good example of two of the things we’ve mentioned: the danger of reading this as it’s been read by Rahner, instead of in the light of the whole Tradition.

NCR:

They claim that salvation is hardly proclaimed anymore.

Archbishop Augustine Di Noia:

Ralph Martin agrees with that. We do have a crisis, because the Church has been infected with the idea that we don’t have to worry or be anxious or we don’t sufficiently take the mandate to proclaim Christ seriously. But it’s not because of Vatican II, but bad theology. That’s why Dominus Iesus was part of the response to all of that theology of religion. There is no question that the necessity of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus has a long history. But they were talking about heretics, not nonbelievers. That formula addresses the problems of heresies. It has its history.

The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.

http://edwardpentin.co.uk/archbishop-dinoia-ecclesia-dei-and-the-society-of-st-pius-x/

__________________________________

SSPX show the Vatican the Marchetti error carried over into Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus and other magisterial documents

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/sspx-show-vatican-marchetti-error.html

Archbishop Augustine Di Noia was using the false premise : here is the proof! http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/06/archbishop-augustine-di-noia-was-using.html

Remnant newspaper and Fr.Francois Laisney (SSPX) contradict the General Chapter Statement 2012 which said there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/remnant-newspaper-and-frfrancois.html

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 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/meeting-needed-between-ecclesia-deicdf.html

Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J have made a major doctrinal error. So the position of the Society of St.Pius X should be reviewed http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/04/pope-benedict-xvi-and-cardinal-luiz.html

________________________________