Sunday, August 28, 2016
Today morning I went to the SSPX chapel in Rome. The prior and the regular priests were not there.There was a new priest not from Albano who offered Holy Mass.Last week Fr. Aldo Rossi offered the Mass and he had no comment on my report saying that the SSPX has changed Catholic dogmas and doctrine.It was sent to him and others in Italian and English.It could also be read on the media.
Last Sunday I wrote that I met Fr. Rossi, the SSPX Prior at Albano and he had nothing to say. It's now some three years and even the District Superior, Fr. PierPaolo Petrucci does not want to respond to this issue.Last week I sent them the follow up reports on this blog.
Basically what I have been saying is that :
1) the SSPX and their lay supporters ( Lake Garda Statement signatories) assume hypothetical cases are not hypothetical.Then they interpret Vatican Council II with this irrationality to reach a non traditional conclusion.
2) I assume hypothetical cases are hypothetical and interpret Vatican Council II with this rationality and so reach a traditional conclusion.
Regarding Point One the SSPX will not admit their error and state that they were wrong.
Regarding Point Two the SSPX will not correct me and show me how I am wrong and neither will they admit that I am correct.
If they admit that I am correct and they were wrong then it means that all their theories about Vatican Council II over the last 50 years were wrong.Archbishop Lefebvre along with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger made an objective mistake.The baptism of desire is a hypothetical case.It is not an objectively known case so it was not relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).The magisterium made a mistake on ' a faith' issue.The SSPX has been supporting the heresy.
Fr. Pierpaulo Petrucci at a conference in Rimini made an objective mistake when he cited a reference from Vatican Council II, which for him contradicted the dogma EENS ( Feeneyite).
Similarly Bishop Bernard Fellay made the same mistake in a Letter to Friends and Benefactors:It can still be read on line.
I have mentioned this so many times. Why do they not just come out and say,"We were wrong all these years". Why does Chris Ferrara, John Vennari, Michael Matt, John Salza and the others simply say that their interpretation of Vatican Council II is 'now obsolete'.Since their premise and conclusion were wrong.
Once they admit this they are in a position to ask Rome to come back to the Faith.
Ask Rome to interpret Vatican Council II as I do. Or ask Rome to comment on my interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Instead Don Aldo Rossi didn't show up today and if he did he probably would say nothing, out of obedience to Fr. Peirpaolo Petrucci or who knows who.
I know that the SSPX priests agree with me personally.The last three years at their chapel, whenever I go there, they have told me that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire in the present times. Nothing spectacular. This is common sense."They are invisible cases. This is something obvious", said Fr. Don Rossi.
So they agree that invisible cases cannot be exceptions or relevant to EENS Feeneyite.But how can they admit that Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops made a mistake ?
So the District Superior is saying nothing.Neither is there any written apologetics refuting me in general or point by point.
If in their defense they would say that they are following the contemporary magisterium,I would agree with them and point out that the magisterium is also making a factual error.We cannot physically see people saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire and then assume that these cases are explicit exceptions on earth in 2016 to all needing faith and baptism for salvation; all needing to be formal and visible members of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
Even the Auxiliary Bishops in Rome know that the Vatican Curia has made a mistake.They will not comment.I have spoken to officials at the Rome Vicariate's Departments for Ecumenism, Inter-Religious Dilague and Mission.The religious there are perturbed on seeing me and knowing what I have to say.
Bishop Williamson has formed a new traditionalist organisation to accommodate all those who do not want talks with Rome until Rome comes back to the Faith. Bishop Williamson does not realize that he also interprets Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and conclusion as does Rome and Bishop Fellay.All sides are so fixed in their false doctrinal position.It is as if it is their political position and they cannot budge.Even the traditionalists the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are being prudent.They will not comment.-Lionel Andrades