Monday, July 18, 2016

Every year Bishop Fellay makes the same doctrinal error and no one in the SSPX informs him about his new theology : the SBC and other traditionalists make the same mistake

Bishop Fellay's statement on the SSPX being faithful to doctrine and theology is misleading.Since the premise for the  SSPX new theology, is based on the objective error in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The Letter(1949) assumed BOD was an exception to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was irrational, non traditional and heretical. It was an innovation in the Church. It was modernism which Archbishop Lefebvre overlooked.It is magisterial heresy accepted by Bishop Fellay.

EVERY YEAR
Every year Bishop Bernard Fellay keeps issuing the same statements on Catholic theology and doctrine.He seems out of touch with reality.I am aware of two faiths-his and mine.Irrespective of the liturgy his doctrine and mine are different.
Inspite  of so many corrections of his doctrinal position he will still go on repeating the same things, without addressing the precise criticism made against him.
There is doctrinal confusion among the traditionalists.So some have to admit that they are wrong.They differ from the others.
For the traditionalists of the  St. Benedict Centers the baptism of desire is explicit and so it is  an exception  to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) however for them Lumen Gentium 16 etc is also explicit, objectvely visible and so Vatican Council II is an exception to EENS.
For the traditionalists SBC and SSPX there are exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II.Since LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc are visible in 2016! It is only because they are visible that they are exceptions.For me there are no exceptions to EENS. Since LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc refer to invisible cases in 2016.
So with this doctrinal confusion the traditionalists are there at the Latin Mass.Without this doctrinal confusion I attend Mass in Greek, Latin and the vernacular.
The traditionalists need to humble themself and address this issue.Yet they act as if the problem does not exist. Every year Bishop Fellay appears as if he does not know what I am saying.Or no one wants to explain this to him.
Recently I was in communication via e-mail with a pro-SSPX layman in the USA.We were going in circles.Since basically my view is hypothetical cases cannot be physically seen in 2016; we cannot see baptism of desire cases, with the naked eye in 2016.He refused to address this point.He refused to answer when I asked: 'Can you see or know a baptism of desire case in 2016 or in the past with or without the baptism of water?
He would not answer.His entire traditionalist theology like that of the liberals,is based on hypothetical cases being physically visible, empirically seen in the present times.He just refused to address this issue.May be he needed time. He needed to consult someone.In his mind he could not accept that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the popes, cardinals, bishops and Vatican Council II made a simple mistake.
The other day Bishop Fellay was reported as saying,'the solution is not simply juridical. It depends on a doctrinal position that it is imperative to express.' 1 .
O.K I have explained my doctrinal position as a Catholic. Now it is imperative that the SSPX tells me how precisely  am I wrong in my reasoning, in my theology and faith and how do I differ from them.

THEY AGREE WITH ME
I have an Archbishop, a Dean of Theology at a pontifical university in Rome, an American lay apologist and many priests in Rome who agree with me.They know I am correct since it is a law of nature that we humans cannot see things invisible and we can only see things visible. So if something has to be an exception it has to be different and it has to be present.The apple in a box of oranges is an exception since it is there in the box.
For Bishop Fellay, the Ecclesia Dei, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Vatican and the liberals,Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal Koch,  LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, Na 2 etc refer to things visible. They have got it wrong.For me these are references to invisible cases.
Zero cases of something cannot be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says the apologist John Martignoni. LG 16 etc are zero cases in our reality in 2016.
The baptism of desire etc cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, also says Fr. S.Visintin OSB, the Dean of Theology, at the Benedictine University of St. Anselm, Rome.
Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson  says the same.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a de fide teaching of the Church and we cannot know of any exception, said Fr. Nevus Marcello O.P.2

SSPX PRIOR IN ITALY

Father Aldo Rossi , the SSPX Prior at Albano, Italy  said the issue 'is obvious'. There are no known cases of the baptism of desire.However when this SSPX Prior consults the Italian Dictrict Superior at Albano, Fr.Pierpaolo Petrucci and they coordinate with Econe, then they have no comment on this issue.It seems as if the wrong doctrinal position of the SSPX is their political position. 


TWO FAITHS AT SAME MASS
So now we have traditionalists and liberals at Mass with one Catholic Faith and I am there at the same Mass with another.
So for me, Bishop Fellay's statement on the SSPX being faithful to doctrine and theology is misleading.Since the premise for their new theology, is based on the objective error in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The Letter(1949) assumed BOD was an exception to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was irrational, non traditional and heretical. It was an innovation in the Church. It was modernism which Archbishop Lefebvre overlooked.It is magisterial heresy accepted by Bishop Fellay.-Lionel Andrades
1.

 JULY 17, 2016

SSPX announce that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism and Rome can do the same and so come back to Traditionhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/the-sspx-should-announce-that-they.html

2.
CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS IS DE FIDE AND NOT CONTRADICTED BY VATICAN COUNCIL II- Fr. Nevus Marcello O.P http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/cantate-domino-council-of-florence-on.html



BRAZILIAN PRIEST SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

No comments: