Wednesday, January 13, 2016

The basic error of the traditionalists and sedevacantists in the interpretation of Vatican Council II : the reason many have chosen sedevacantism is not being discussed


Image result for Photo of Fr.Francois Laisney

Fr.Francois Laisney has written a review for the controversial book True or False Pope by  John Salza and Robert Siscoe.There was a review recently in Italian at Correspondenza Romano of Roberto de Mattei.Now Rorate Caeli has another promo. All the SSPX forums are not addressing the basic error of the traditionalists and sedevacantists in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and which is the reason many have chosen sedevacantism.
Nor are they discussing if Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism and then the Council would emerge traditional with the old ecclesiology. This would mean Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops made a mistake all these years on the interpretation of Vatican Council.
True or False Pope - Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors


By Fr. Francois Laisney (SSPX):

I have read the whole book – much to my satisfaction. This book addresses each and every argument of sedevacantists, and adequately refutes it! The arguments are solid and cogent.  
Lionel:
Fr. Francois Laisney like the sedevacantists and the authors of this book assumes that the baptism  of desire refers to visible cases in the present times and so is an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). How can people in Heaven be explicit on earth? And if they are not visible how can they be exceptions to the old ecclesiology 
So for all of them, pro-SSPX, Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) is an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma. This was the position of Archbishop Lefebvre  too.
So they all reject Vatican Council II as a break with EENS and the old ecclesiology.The sedevacantists chose to go into sedevacantism because of this error while the SSPX priests vaguely say they reject Vatican Council II but accept Pope Francis.
For me Lumen Gentium 16 refers to an invisible and not a visible case and so it is not an explicit exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma, with the traditional ecclesiology.
__________________
One of the authors is an attorney, who by his professional training is used to strict reasoning, and both authors employ this strict and logical reasoning throughout the book. 
Lionel:
It is not logical reasoning to assume people in Heaven are visible on earth who are explicit exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation. It is irrational to assume there are known baptism of desire cases, who are saved without the baptism of water.
It is also irrational to infer that a saint in the past is a visible exception in 2016 to all needing to be 'card carrying members ' of the Church for salvation.
Yet this was the reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which was accepted by Fr. Francois Laisney, the authors of the book and the SSPX bishops.
__________________

Image result for Photo Bishop bernard Fellay
Their honesty and thoroughness is a great value for this book.
Lionel:
It has been many years now. I have been writing on this same subject. I have addressed Fr. Francois Laisney so many times. He has never responded. He has not said that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire and so physically the baptism of desire cannot be a known exception to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation.
He could not say that this was his false reasoning in the book he wrote against Fr.Leonard Feeney.
_____________________
Image result for Photo False Premise
 It is a very thorough and very well documented book, solidly grounded in the doctrine of the Magisterium of all times and of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, as well as Catholic theologians.
Lionel:
This is false.
The authors of the book, like Fr. Laisney use an irrational premise and inference to interpret magisterial documents as do the sedevacantists.
Integrity would mean having to say that there can be another interpretation of Vatican Council II, a rational one and the conclusion would be traditional.
______________________
Related image
Given the fact that, at the root of sedevacantism, there is often pride, even such solid arguments still need much prayer in order to obtain the light of grace touching their heart and souls, so that with this grace they will be able to correct themselves.
Lionel:
The root of their sedevacantism is interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.They do this by using an irrational premise and inference.So they produce a non traditional conclusion.
______________________

Related image
 This is indeed the first goal of this book, to help many of them to correct their erroneous position, a position that puts their own faith in great danger and ultimately their eternal salvation. So we pray that this excellent book have many good fruits of conversions.
Lionel:
We can also hope that all associated with this book, in the SSPX, religious and laypersons, will be honest and admit that they interpreted Vatican Council II with a factual error.
______________________
Image result for Photo False Premise
Yet this book is useful for others. First it is highly useful to those who might be tempted by sedevacantism, in order to enable them to reject it right away for its many flaws.
 Secondly it is of great help for all Catholics in general, to help them understand better the present crisis of the Church, and the true Traditional position. It will remain the reference book on sedevacantism for many years to come.
Lionel:
The book is being recommended by those who have made a mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents and will not comment upon it.
-Lionel Andrades

REMNANT NEWSPAPER LIKE FR. FRANCOIS LAISNEY ALSO SEES 'THE GHOSTS' http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/remnant-newspaper-like-fr-francois.html


Fr. Francois Laisney indicates that for the SSPX the Church is no more ecclesiocentric since there are explicit exceptions to the dogma on salvation
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/fr-francois-laisney-indicates-that-for.html#links


Fr. Francois Laisney, Fr. Peter Scott like Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J is saying that the Catholic Church is no more Exclusivist ecclesiocentric: SSPX priests and liberals agree that there are explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma outside the church no salvation
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/06/fr-francois-laisney-fr-peter-scott-like.html

SSPX SELLS HERETICAL BOOK BASED ON THE IRRATIONALITY OF THE DEAD MAN WALKING THEORY

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/sspx-sells-heretical-book-based-on.html

DOCTRINAL ERROR OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE AND SSPX BISHOPS POSTED A NEW ON U.S WEBSITE

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/doctrinal-error-of-archbishop-lefebvre.html


SSPX(USA): it's an issue of integrity

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/07/sspxusa-its-issue-of-integrity.html

The Council of Trent, Mystici Corporis no where says that these cases are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Rome made a mistake in 1949 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/the-council-of-trent-mystici-corporis.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

Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) still assumes on its USA website that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/society-of-stpius-x-sspx-still-assumes.html

Where does the SSPX say there are defacto exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Here it is : it's irrational

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/where-does-sspx-say-there-are-defacto.html

If the 'magisterium' of 1949 inferred Catholics could see the dead it was an objective error

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/if-magisterium-of-1949-inferred.html


Lady at SSPX chapel does not know how to handle this
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/lady-at-sspx-chapel-does-not-know-how.html

Bishop Bernard Fellay could check the non traditional, irrational errors in SSPX books http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/10/bishop-bernard-fellay-could-check-non.html


Roberto Mattei accepts this invisible-visible distinction made by the contemporary magisterium. It is not irrational for him.It is not heretical. Since he uses this same reasoning to interpret Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/roberto-mattei-accepts-this-invisible.html

TO INTERPRET IMPLICIT FAITH (BAPTISM OF DESIRE ETC) AS REFERRING TO DE FACTO SALVATION WOULD BE HERESY- Don Massimiliano dei Gaspari F.I, Superior and Italian priest in Romehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2010/04/to-interpret-implicit-faith-baptism

Roberto Mattei accepts this invisible-visible distinction made by the contemporary magisterium. It is not irrational for him.It is not heretical. Since he uses this same reasoning to interpret Vatican Council II

Based on historical Church censures, Pope's interreligious video induces heresy, scandalous to faithful
Roberto de Mattei has not said that the video contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since he and the SSPX have rejected the dogma assuming there are explicit cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire.They are saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, for him.
For Prof. Robert de Mattei all need to enter the Church for salvation except for those saved with the baptism of desire and blood and in invincible ignorance. They are all saved for Mattei without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. This is how he interprets Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
This is heresy but it is magisterial heresy so no one questions him or the SSPX.

 Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing..-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

'it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church' is the magisterial teaching accepted by Roberto de Mattei.

Here is more heresy and irrationality accepted by him and the SSPX.It's magisterial.

10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22).-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions 1997. (1)

So there is no exclusivist ecclesiocentrism for Cardinal Muller, but so what, neither is it there any more for Prof. Roberto de Mattei.

International Theological Commission (ITC)
58. In the face of new problems and situations and of an exclusive interpretation of the adage: “salus extra ecclesiam non est”, the magisterium, in recent times, has articulated a more nuanced understanding as to the manner in which a saving relationship with the Church can be realized. The Allocution of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854) clearly states the issues involved: “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord”-The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized(2007. International Theological Commission) http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_index-doc-pubbl_en.html

'the magisterium, in recent times, has articulated a more nuanced understanding as to the manner in which a saving relationship with the Church can be realized.' and Roberto de Matti and the SSPX  have accepted it even though it is heresy. It contradicts the exclusivist ecclesiocentrism which was the theology of the Church over centuries. This was the theology associated with the Traditional Latin Mass.

66. In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII addresses the question, How are those who attain salvation outside visible communion with the Church related to her? He says that they are oriented to the mystical body of Christ by a yearning and desire of which they are not aware (DS 3821).-Christianity and the World Religions 2007

So in other words  they who are ,'outside the visible communion with the Church' are visible and known, so they are  related to the Church.Invisible cases are visible.These persons with the 'yearing and desire' are personally known in specific cases. So they become exceptions, to the interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, according to Fr. Leonard Feeney.If they were invisible they could not be related to the Church since they could not be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).They would be irrelevant and un related to ecclesiology or soteriology.
So even though he says they are outside the visible communion with the Church, according to his theology, the new theology, they are visible to be relevant to the dogma EENS and to be exceptions to the old ecclesiology associated with the Latin Mass.
 Roberto Mattei accepts this invisible-visible distinction made by the contemporary magisterium. It is not  irrational for him.It is not heretical. Since he uses this same
irrational and heretical reasoning to interpret Vatican Council II. 
-Lionel Andrades


DECEMBER 17, 2010


PROF.ROBERTO DE MATTEI DOES NOT ANSWER WRITTEN QUESTION AT CONFERENCE http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2010/12/profroberto-de-mattei-does-not-answer.html



Prof. Roberto de Mattei also uses apparition theology
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/prof-roberto-de-mattei-also-uses.html

Legion of Christ universities in Rome have compromised to remain legal

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/legion-of-christ-universities-in-rome.html

Linverno_della_Chiesa1
Cristina Siccardi ,Paolo Pasqualucci use the irrational inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/cristina-siccardi-paolo-pasqualucci-use.html

Winter for the Catholic Faith in England
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/winter-for-catholic-faith-in-england.html

P. Paolo Scarafoni LC (a sinistra) insieme ai reverendi conferenzieri nella biblioteca universitaria

Fr.Paolo Scarafoni L.C and Roberto de Mattei at the European University in Rome are denying the Catholic Faith for personal reasons

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/frpaolo-scarafoni-lc-and-roberto-de.html

Father Paolo Scarafoni L.C, Rector of the University of Europe in Rome is still teaching theology with error

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/father-paolo-scarafoni-lc-rector-of.html



They asked me if I thought Roberto dei Mattei and Bruno Gherardini were wrong

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/they-asked-me-if-i-thought-roberto-dei.html





The Church makes the visible-invisible distinction in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when it suggests that the baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water.

Where does the Church make a distinction between visible and invisible cases when teaching Baptism of Desire?
If you cannot show us, then you have created a distinction of your own making, and certainly haven't shown that the doctrine is merely theoretical.
Be sure to cite the Magisterial document, Pope, year, and reference.

Lionel:
Where does the Church make a distinction between visible and invisible cases when teaching Baptism of Desire?
The Church makes this distinction in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when it suggests that the baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water.
It makes this distinction between invisible and visible cases in the Baltimore Catechism (1808) when it places the baptism of desire and blood in the baptism of water section, suggesting that the baptism of desire and blood have the same effect as the baptism of water and these cases are known to us, they are visible.
The distinction is made in two theological papers of the International Theologiocal Commission when it rejects the Feeneyite version of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It's influence can be seen in magisterial documents like Redemptoris Missio etc.
Related image
It is there when, for example, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 suggests that the baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water and it is an exception to the traditional, exclusivist interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. So the visible-invisible distinction is made. It means that the baptism of desire is an exception to the Feeneyite version of the dogma since it is visible.It is explicit. It would have to be objectively seen for it to be an exception. It would have to be personally known in specific cases for it to be relevant to the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.So the beginning  of the visible-invisible distinction was there in 1808 and it became official in 1949 and the error was placed in many places in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14), where the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are mentioned, even though they are invisivble cases for us.
They were placed in Vatican Council II along with orthodox passages supporting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In other words these cases are explicit for them to be inserted in Vatican Council II with passages which say all need faith and baptism for salvation.
So the understanding in the Church, after the error was, all need to enter the Catholic church with faith and baptism, except for those with the baptism of desire.This was a new doctrine. It included the visible-invisible distinction in a subtle way.
-Lionel Andrades

For Francisco Romero Carrasquillo too deceased are living exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/for-francisco-romero-carrasquillo-too.html

THE INVISIBLE-VISIBLE DISTINCTION IS MADE IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS OF THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949

The invisible-visible distinction is made the following passage which says  only those who know about the Church and who do not enter cannot be saved, instead of the traditional all who are not members of the Church will not be saved.Being saved in invincible ignorance was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani, who issued the Letter(1949).These cases were visible and so they were exceptions. So only those who were not in invincible ignorance, who knew, needed to enter the Church or be damned to Hell.

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949


In certain circumstances a person did not need the baptism of water since he could be saved with the baptism of desire which excluded the baptism of water.These cases were known to be relevant.They were visible to be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.    -  Letter of the Holy Office 1949

It is not always required to be incorporated into the Church as a member,it is said, since there are visible exceptions is the understanding.
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing..-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Those united only by implicit desire were relevant to the dogma,since they were visible exceptions.The inference was that cases saved with an implicit desire were known can could be known.
With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire,..   - Letter of the Holy Office 1949

From the Housetops did not make the visible-invisible distinction.The St.Benedict Centers members who issued this magazine would not say that the baptism of desire excluded the baptism of water and was salvific.There were no explicit exceptions for them.
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.    - Letter of the Holy Office 1949

The St.Benedict Center refused to say that there was known salvation outside the Church.There were no exceptions to the dogma in their artcile.There were no visible exceptions so the magisterium is criticizing them.
Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.    - Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Fr.Leonard Feeney said there was no salvation outside the Church.There were no exceptions for him.He could not see or meet any one saved without faith and baptism in the Catholic Church.He was critical of the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuit Superior for saying there was known salvation outside the Catholic Church.
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.   - Letter of the Holy Office 1949

They were spreading theological doctrines, which were traditional and did not suggest that there were visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It was not tolerated by the Magisterium in Rome.
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.   - Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Rome was saying there were exceptions. In other words the baptism of desire referred to visible cases, for them to be exceptions.Rome was teaching an irrationality.
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.   - Letter of the Holy Office 1949  -L.A

_________________________________________________


Now see the errors of the International Theological Commission (ITC).

International Theological Commission (ITC)
10. Exclusivist ecclesiocentrism—the fruit of a specific theological system or of a mistaken understanding of the phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus—is no longer defended by Catholic theologians after the clear statements of Pius XII and Vatican Council II on the possibility of salvation for those who do not belong visibly to the Church (cf, e.g., LG 16; GS 22).-International Theological Commission, Christianity and the World Religions 1997. (1)

Lionel:
‘Pope Pius XII and Vatican Council II has clearly said that those who do not belong visibly to the Church can be saved.’

To be an exception to the exclusive interpretation of the dogma those who do not belong visibly to the Church would have to be known.
Where does Vatican Council II or Pope Pius state that we know these exceptions personally or that they are explicit exceptions to the dogma?. Pope Benedict and Bishop Gerhard Muller just assumed these cases are known to us and so are exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma.
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Vatican and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, Vice President of Ecclesia Dei were also associated with the ITC.

International Theological Commission (ITC)
58. In the face of new problems and situations and of an exclusive interpretation of the adage: “salus extra ecclesiam non est”, the magisterium, in recent times, has articulated a more nuanced understanding as to the manner in which a saving relationship with the Church can be realized. The Allocution of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854) clearly states the issues involved: “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord”-The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized(2007. International Theological Commission)
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_index-doc-pubbl_en.html

Lionel:
The Allocution of Pope PIus IX clearly does not state in the passage cited above that those saved in invincible ignorance are explicitly known and so are exceptions to the dogma which says whoever does not enter into the Church will perish. These exceptional cases are known only to God.The Church Councils and popes knew this. This unfortunately was the error of the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing and the Jesuits there.


Pope Benedict XVI and Bishop Gerhard Muller, ITC.
59. The Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) offers further specifications. “To gain eternal salvation, it is not always required that a person be incorporated in reality (reapse) as a member of the Church, but it is necessary that one belong to it at least in desire and longing (voto et desiderio). It is not always necessary that this desire be explicit as it is with catechumens. When one is invincibly ignorant, God also accepts an implicit desire, so called because it is contained in the good disposition of soul by which a person wants his or her will to be conformed to God’s will”.

Lionel:
Yes in principle a person can be saved with the baptism of desire. In reality, explicitly we do not know any case of a person saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire. So it is not an issue with respect to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Implicit desire is irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma.It is not even an issue.

66. In his encyclical Mystici Corporis, Pius XII addresses the question, How are those who attain salvation outside visible communion with the Church related to her? He says that they are oriented to the mystical body of Christ by a yearning and desire of which they are not aware (DS 3821).-Christianity and the World Religions 2007

Lionel:
Yes they can be saved and we do not know who are these cases specifically. So one cannot imply that those saved with the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma. They are not.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/pope-benedict-and-bishop-gerhard-muller.html