Saturday, February 21, 2015

For the SSPX magisterial teachings are accepted on the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 but rejected with respect to Vatican Council II (with the premise)

Patty:
That is why, Catholics need to look to the realities of doctrine, dogma, and the Church as She is pre and post VII to understand what is going on and what constitutes schism.
Lionel:
The SSPX must especially do so.
For the SSPX the magisterial teachings are accepted with regard to the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949 but the magisterium is rejected with reference to Vatican Council II ( with the premise).The SSPX accepts that the baptism of desire can be an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. However they do not accept that Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) can be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when it suggests that those persons saved in invincible ignorance are known to us in the present times, to be exceptions to the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Yet they do not accept  Lumen Gentium 16(with the premise) when it  refers to known cases in the present times, which are  exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for the SSPX.
Is this not a contradiction and irrational? So what is the SSPX position on doctrine?
The SSPX accepts the Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani inference in 1949 which indicates that people in Heaven can be visible and known to us in the present times( 1949 for him and 2015 for us ). So they are exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors, which says all need to convert into the Church for salvation.
Yet the SSPX does not accept Vatican Council II (LG 16,LG 8, NA 2,UR 3 etc). They infer that these cases are explicit exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors.

Don't you think there is something wrong with the SSPX doctrinal policy. Should this not be clarified by them?The SSPX General Chapter Statement 1 said that they accept extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions. While the SPPX USA's Angelus Press, is selling a book written by Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic ?. It affirms the Marchetti error. It says that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are
exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.In other words these cases are visible and known to us, to be exceptions.
So the SSPX USA contradicts the SSPX General Chapter Statement.Inspite of writing about this so many times on my blog no one from the SSPX wants to comment.

______________________________

This elevating of opinion as having some basis for the pronouncement and false perpetuation of others being in 'schism' is wholly erroneous.
Lionel:
The onus for clarifying this doctrinal confusion lies with the SSPX.For them doctrine is important.Also their doctrinal position will decide if they will receive canonical status.

________________________

For 'personal opinion' is precisely that which is being protested by those who chasten the 'lawful' authority for seemingly having lost their heads and/or having evil intentions.

 
Lionel:
The SSPX and the lawful authority are both in the same leaky boat on this issue.They both accept the Marchetti Confusion.

_________________________

You don't say, is the line that comes to my mind. But try to look to pecipitating causes or the roots of 'why' and everyone goes back to the conditioned response - schism.
Lionel:
For the leftist forces within and outside the Catholic Church Vatican Council II must be accepted as a break with the past.So it has to be interpreted with the irrational premise.This is a schismatic position doctrinally.The magisterium is in schism.
Those who do not accept this heresy and irrationally with reference to doctrine, will politically be dubbed schismatic , reactionary etc.Cardinal Muller says the SSPX is in schism...
Those who do not accept extra ecclesiam nulla salus without the irrational premise, will also be called Feeneyite, Anti-Semtic, haters etc.
So if the SSPX says that they accept Vatican Council II without the premise, they would still be persecuted. There would be legal threats.
The SSPX avoided the anti-Semitism charge and so disassociated them self from Bishop Richard Williamson. They also removed priests (SSPX-Resistance) who criticized the Masons and the Jewish Left.
Now how will the SSPX say that Vatican Council II is Feeneyite ? They will persecuted, as was Robert Sungenis, Bishop Williamson and others.

____________________________

And without any understanding of what that means. And that seems to be the point. Confusing Catholics to such a degree that they toss around words and develop mental blocks to those who are actually in agreement with them.
Lionel:
Lay Catholics must see the truth for them self on this subject. They should not depend on the bishops and priests, liberals and traditionalists.Since they are protecting their churches ,institutions, work etc.
They must know basically that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual error. There are no known exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Humanly speaking there cannot be any known exception, since we cannot see people who are in Heaven. So there cannot be any exception, mentioned in Vatican Council II, to the strict interpretation of the dogma.
Also when the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) says God is not limited to the Sacraments, this statement comes directly from the Cardinal Marchetti mistake. The cardinal assumed there is known salvation outside the Church and so God is not limited to the Sacraments.
-Lionel Andrades

1

http://www.dici.org/en/news/society-of-st-pius-x-general-chapter-statement/
http://connecticutcatholiccorner.blogspot.it/2015/02/pope-benedict-xvi-and-sspx.html
 
This was a Catholic Church gone into schism

We do not know of any soul who has been saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance in 2015

 Pray
because you don’t know by name of any particular soul (I mean, no-one has returned from the dead to give you the heads-up)
Lionel:
We do not know of any soul who has been saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance in 2015.So there are no known exceptions in the present times to the dogmatic teaching. All need faith and baptism (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II ) for salvation. All need to be formal members of the Catholic Church to go to Heaven(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441).So if we are aware that there are no known exceptions in the present times, then the Catholic Church teaches, before and after Vatican Council II, has not changed. It is : all Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and others need to convert formally, in the Catholic Church to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
_______________________________
 Pray for Deacon Nick Donnelly
who has benefitted from God’s mercy in this way, you suggest that this class of persons does not “explicitly” exist.
Lionel:
It is possibile that this class of people exist and are known to God.However they are not known to us. So this class of people must not be considered exceptions to the dogma.
We can accept being saved in invincible ignorance. However we cannot infer that these cases are defacto, known explicitly in 2015. Then we must not conclude that these invisible for us cases are exceptions to the dogma.
________________________
Well, yes it does, Lumen Gentium 16 (which you cite) clearly says so: men who are in ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of their own but “attempt to put into practice the recognition of [God’s] will that they have reached through the dictate of conscience….. can attain everlasting salvation”.
Lionel:
Yes they can attain salvation with certain conditions and they would be possibilities for us and known- cases only for God.For us LG 16 is acceptable as a hypothetical case. A hypothetical case cannot be an explicit exception in 2015.So LG 16 is not an exception to AG 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
_____________________
It would be ridiculous for the Church to describe a category of persons and then for no-one to fit into that category.
Lionel:
The Church mentions this category of people. Before 1949 it did not say that this category of people were personally and explicitly known to us.It did not say that they were known to us  for them to be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the present times(2015), for salvation.
______________________________

Baptism is the normal way into the Church
Lionel:
Yes baptism is the normal way into the Church since God has bound salvation to the Sacraments . This is the de fide teaching before and after Vatcan Council II.
_____________________________
but God is not bound by the sacraments
 Lionel:
This error in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 comes from the factual mistake made in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
________________________________
and indeed the Church has always recognised, for example, the baptism of desire of catechumens and of course the baptism of blood referred to in this blogpost.
Lionel:
Yes and before 1949 the Church has not stated that these cases are personally known to us to be exceptions to the dogma.Mystici Corporis, the Council of Trent etc  only mention these cases. They do not state that they are exceptions to the dogma or that they are are personally known to us in the present times. 
-Lionel Andrades
 
 
 
That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill