Wednesday, June 15, 2016

SSPX bishops did not know that the error they made with Vatican Council II was to assume hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

See the Frequently Asked Questions page on the SSPX website.1.Then go to number 6, 'What are Catholics to think of Vatican Council II ?The website shows that the SSPX bishops and theologians  did not know that :-

Image result for Photos overlooked it

1.The error in Vatican Council II is assuming hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.(EENS).This was an error made by the Council Fathers.

2.The SSPX bishops error was also assuming hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS, when they could have avoided this interpretation.There was a choice.
3.The bishops error was not interpreting hypothetical cases as being just hypothetical .So they are irrelevant to the dogma EENS. They cannot be exceptions to EENS since they refer to invisible cases.
The baptism of desire and blood  and being saved in invincible ignorance are hypothetical cases.So they are not exceptions to the dogma EENS as it was wrongly suggested in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. So the Council has made an error when it refers the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance with respect to all needing faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7, LG 14).This point is missing on the SSPX website.
Also on the page on Vatican Council II no where is the dogma  EENS affirmed as it was known to the 16 century missionaries. Since Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX founder, assumed hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance were  exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.
So doctrinally the SSPX website does not affirm traditional EENS. It affirms an EENS in which hypothetical cases are assumed to be explicit, visible in the flesh and then postulated as being exceptions to EENS. Since this was the understanding in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
The bishops and priests, the page on Vatican Council II shows, were also not aware that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc were hypothetical cases and so did not contradict EENS.
The SSPX also contradicts itself. On the website page Catholic Principles it states :
2. The Catholic Church is the unique Ark of Salvation
The Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within Her, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics, cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Mt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock... (Council of Florence, Dz714).3
Here it says every one needs to be a formal member of the Church  and on the website page Fr. Feeney and Catholic doctrine it states that the baptism of desire is an exception.In other words a hypothetical case is an exception. 4

It states :
1.But, to make his point, Fr. Feeney went so far as to exclude Baptism of desire (and martyrdom) from the means of salvation. (The SSPX does not exclude the baptism of desire with reference to EENS, like the Holy Office 1949, it considers it not a hypothetical but an explicit case to be an exception.So it cannot be excluded.)

2.Here is the crux of the matter, for, although no sacramental character can be conferred without a sacrament, sanctifying grace can be given outside the sacraments:(In other words the SSPX knows of some case outside the Sacraments in the past or present .Someone went to Heaven without the baptism of water.This was humanly possible.It was also personally known to someone in the SSPX).

3.Let us finally quote the letter of the Holy Office condemning Fr. Feeney’s teaching:
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. ( So the SSPX is saying that someone in 1949 when this Letter was written, knew of someone who went to Heaven without the baptism of water. Or may be someone in Boston or Rome personally knew of someone saved with the baptism of desire.So it was not a hypothetical case.)
So for  Bishop Bernard Fellay LG 8 and UR 3 contradict the dogma EENS ( according to website page on Principles), since LG 8 and UR 3 are not hypothetical cases but are explicitly known.5 
So he rejects Vatican Council II.
Image result for Photos of mistakes
He is not aware that LG 8 and UR 3 are hypothetical cases.
This was also a mistake in Vatican Council II. The Council Fathers should not have mentionedLG 8,UR 3, NA 2,LG 16 etc  in the Council with reference to EENS. 6
Image result for Photos overlooked it

 A.The SSPX bishops and theologians  do not know that the error in Vatican Council II is their assuming hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.(EENS).A false premise and inference was made.Sp the conclusion is heretical and non traditional.

B.The SSPX has to be informed that if they avoid the false premise and inference Vatican Council II is traditional on EENS. It supports the dogma EENS according to the website page on Principles.The conclusion is traditional, rational and orthodox.

Bishop Fellay interprets EENS and Vatican Council II assuming hypothetical cases are objectively known in the present times.The doctrinal position of Bishop Bernard Fellay is heretical. He also contradicts the SSPX doctrinal General Chapter Statement 2012 which affirmed EENS with no exceptions.

-Lionel Andrades






1.
Frequently asked questions about the SSPX

http://archives.sspx.org/sspxfaqs.htm




2

What are Catholics to think of Vatican II?

http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q6_vatican_ii.htm



3.

Catholic Principles

http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/catholic_principles.htm#p5



4.
Fr. Feeney and Catholic doctrine
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/feeneyism/fr_feeney_catholic_doctrine.htm

5.
Image result for Photos of mistakesLAB_82
BISHOP BERNARD FELLAY ASSUMES THEORETICAL POSSIBILITIES KNOWN ONLY TO GOD ARE EXPLICIT IN THE PRESENT TIMES AND RELEVANT TO EENS

The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)

Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church, which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949". -Bishop Bernard Fellay (April 13, 2014 ) Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82



'Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church'. Why, because they are known cases in the present times? They are explicit for us? So they are exceptions to the dogma?



'The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities.'So what? Why mention it with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? What is the connection with this invisible for us reference and the dogma? Is LG 8 referring to an expicit case for Bishop Fellay?



'The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)' O.K. But this is speculation with goodwill. This is not a case of someone personallyknown.So it is not a practical exception to EENs.To assume it is an exception would be subjectivism, something like Protestant situation ethics  in morals. UR 3 refers to something which is implicit and not explicit.It is known only to God and is not objective for us.


http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/cardinal-muller-archbishop-di-noia-and.html


6
Second Vatican Council in session

SSPX website does not state that Vatican Council made an error : it assumes hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/sspx-website-does-not-state-that.html

_____________________________________________________________




___________________________________________________________________

SSPX doctrinal position is politically correct and heretical : Bishop Fellay interprets EENS and Vatican Council II assuming hypothetical cases are objectively known in the present times

No one to defend Bishop Bernard Fellay : Heresy

The doctrinal position of Bishop Bernard Fellay is heretical. He also contradicts the SSPX doctrinal General Chapter Statement 2012 which affirmed EENS with NO exceptions

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/the-doctrinal-position-of-bishop.html

_________________________________________________________________