Sunday, 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 Tradition
Posted by Catholic Mission at 7:25 PM
Labels: Church Miltant TV possible program on CDF-SSPX Reconciliation, Simple way for the SSPX to help Rome return to the Faith, SSPX, SSPX considers hypothetical cases as being explicit
When the Council is interpreted with the new theology, which is based on an irrational premise, there are dogmatic and doctrinal changes.It is a break with the pre-Council of Trent magisterium of the Catholic Church.
From Louie Verrecchio's blog:
I have e-mailed the faculty at the Sacred Heart Seminary, Detroit posts from this blog on the debate between Bishop Sanborn and Dr.Robert Fastiggi, professor of theology.I invited their comments.This is quite some time back. I had also sent reports to the Rector of the Seminary. Also to Ralph Martin who is on the faculty.
Ralph Martin's book was displayed by Christine Niles on a Download program.But that book has a flaw.
It assumes that hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and blood, and being saved in invncible ignorance refer to objective cases in the present times. Then it is further assumed that these cases exclude the baptism of water.Then it is concluded by Ralph Martin that these hypothetical cases are exceptions to the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
So Ralph Martin does not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus nor Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 which says all need faith and baptism for salavtion.
This is the understanding of 'Church' for the rest of the faculty and also the Archbishop of Detroit.
How can we know of someone saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church in 2016 ?. How could any one in the past also know of someone saved without the baptism of water, who would be an exception to EENS, in the present times. For example how could Cardinal Francesco Marchetti who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assume that the baptism of desire as a known case, explicitly visible without the baptism of water, for it to be an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS?. He could not know!If there was such a case it would only be known to God.
Similarly the faculty of the Catholic seminary in Detroit cannot know of an excepton to the dogma EENS in 2016.So this was the flaw in Martin's book.
The book was praised by the Archbishop Augustine Di Noia at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Ecclesia Dei. Di Noia when asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus, by Edward Pentin, in an interview, said he knows of some Protestants/Anglicans who will be going to Heaven outside the Church.How is this possible? How can he know someone who will not commit a mortal sin before death,Catholic or Protestant?. How can we judge the soul of someone and say he will be going to Heaven without entering the Catholic Church or he has gone to Heaven without being a Catholic ?
So it was understandable that Di Noia would read Martin's books since both of them were using philosophical subjectivism.They were judging invisible cases of the baptism of desire which is impossible. Then then conclude that these cases are known in real life and would be exceptions to traditional EENS.
This is their ecclesiology at Mass and it is a break with the pre- Council of Trent ecclesiology since they use this irrationality.
So now we have two faiths at Holy Mass.We have Archbishop Di Noia, Ralph Martin, Dr. Fastiggi and the Rector of the seminary attending Holy Mass assuming there are exceptions to EENS, while I attend Mass knowng there are no explicit exceptions to EENS. These are examples of two different belief systems. Differences in doctrine. Differences in Catholic faith at the same Mass.
Then they all assume that Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) is a break with the dogma EENS while I assume it is not.Again we see differences in doctrine. It is the same liturgy that we can both attend but our faith is different.
They interpret EENS and Vatican Council II with the premise of hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire being explicit in 2016 while I avoid this premise.
So is it the same Catholic faith? No.
Their position reflects the innovation in the Church, from the second part of the Letter(1949) which has been accepted by the contemporary magisterium.My position reflects the first part of the Letter ( 1949) which is a continuation of the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS, according to the pre-Council of Trent magisterium.
If they avoid the premise and the non traditional conclusion they could attend Mass with the old faith, with my faith.