What I am doing today is showing (in part) WHY I believe as I do. I refer to the words of Pope Benedict XVI himself for my views...
LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCHCONCERNING THE REMISSION OF THE EXCOMMUNICATIONOF THE FOUR BISHOPS CONSECRATED BY ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVREDear Brothers in the Episcopal Ministry! The remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated in 1988 by Archbishop Lefebvre without a mandate of the Holy See has for many reasons caused, both within and beyond the Catholic Church, a discussion more heated than any we have seen for a long time. Many Bishops felt perplexed by an event which came about unexpectedly and was difficult to view positively in the light of the issues and tasks facing the Church today. Even though many Bishops and members of the faithful were disposed in principle to take a positive view of the Pope’s concern for reconciliation, the question remained whether such a gesture was fitting in view of the genuinely urgent demands of the life of faith in our time. Some groups, on the other hand, openly accused the Pope of wanting to turn back the clock to before the Council: as a result, an avalanche of protests was unleashed, whose bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment. I therefore feel obliged to offer you, dear Brothers, a word of clarification, which ought to help you understand the concerns which led me and the competent offices of the Holy See to take this step. In this way I hope to contribute to peace in the Church.
An unforeseen mishap for me was the fact that the Williamson case came on top of the remission of the excommunication. The discreet gesture of mercy towards four Bishops ordained validly but not legitimately suddenly appeared as something completely different: as the repudiation of reconciliation between Christians and Jews, and thus as the reversal of what the Council had laid down in this regard to guide the Church’s path. A gesture of reconciliation with an ecclesial group engaged in a process of separation thus turned into its very antithesis: an apparent step backwards with regard to all the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jews taken since the Council – steps which my own work as a theologian had sought from the beginning to take part in and support. That this overlapping of two opposed processes took place and momentarily upset peace between Christians and Jews, as well as peace within the Church, is something which I can only deeply deplore. I have been told that consulting the information available on the internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on. I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news. I was saddened by the fact that even Catholics who, after all, might have had a better knowledge of the situation, thought they had to attack me with open hostility. Precisely for this reason I thank all the more our Jewish friends, who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust which – as in the days of Pope John Paul II – has also existed throughout my pontificate and, thank God, continues to exist.
Another mistake, which I deeply regret, is the fact that the extent and limits of the provision of 21 January 2009 were not clearly and adequately explained at the moment of its publication. The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.
In light of this situation, it is my intention henceforth to join the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" – the body which has been competent since 1988 for those communities and persons who, coming from the Society of Saint Pius X or from similar groups, wish to return to full communion with the Pope – to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes. The collegial bodies with which the Congregation studies questions which arise (especially the ordinary Wednesday meeting of Cardinals and the annual or biennial Plenary Session) ensure the involvement of the Prefects of the different Roman Congregations and representatives from the world’s Bishops in the process of decision-making. The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. Anyone who wishes to be obedient to the Council has to accept the faith professed over the centuries, and cannot sever the roots from which the tree draws its life.
I hope, dear Brothers, that this serves to clarify the positive significance and also the limits of the provision of 21 January 2009. But the question still remains: Was this measure needed? Was it really a priority? Aren’t other things perhaps more important? Of course there are more important and urgent matters. I believe that I set forth clearly the priorities of my pontificate in the addresses which I gave at its beginning. Everything that I said then continues unchanged as my plan of action. The first priority for the Successor of Peter was laid down by the Lord in the Upper Room in the clearest of terms: "You… strengthen your brothers" (Lk 22:32). Peter himself formulated this priority anew in his first Letter: "Always be prepared to make a defence to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you" (1 Pet 3:15). In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel, the overriding priority is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God. Not just any god, but the God who spoke on Sinai; to that God whose face we recognize in a love which presses "to the end" (cf. Jn13:1) – in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen. The real problem at this moment of our history is that God is disappearing from the human horizon, and, with the dimming of the light which comes from God, humanity is losing its bearings, with increasingly evident destructive effects.
Leading men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith – ecumenism – is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light – this is interreligious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love "to the end" has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity – this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical Deus Caritas Est.
So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church’s real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who "has something against you" (cf.Mt 5:23ff.) and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents – to the extent possible – in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim him and, with him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?
Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint.
Dear Brothers, during the days when I first had the idea of writing this letter, by chance, during a visit to the Roman Seminary, I had to interpret and comment on Galatians 5:13-15. I was surprised at the directness with which that passage speaks to us about the present moment: "Do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’. But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." I am always tempted to see these words as another of the rhetorical excesses which we occasionally find in Saint Paul. To some extent that may also be the case. But sad to say, this "biting and devouring" also exists in the Church today, as expression of a poorly understood freedom. Should we be surprised that we too are no better than the Galatians? That at the very least we are threatened by the same temptations? That we must always learn anew the proper use of freedom? And that we must always learn anew the supreme priority, which is love? The day I spoke about this at the Major Seminary, the feast of Our Lady of Trust was being celebrated in Rome. And so it is: Mary teaches us trust. She leads us to her Son, in whom all of us can put our trust. He will be our guide – even in turbulent times. And so I would like to offer heartfelt thanks to all the many Bishops who have lately offered me touching tokens of trust and affection, and above all assured me of their prayers. My thanks also go to all the faithful who in these days have given me testimony of their constant fidelity to the Successor of Saint Peter. May the Lord protect all of us and guide our steps along the way of peace. This is the prayer that rises up instinctively from my heart at the beginning of this Lent, a liturgical season particularly suited to interior purification, one which invites all of us to look with renewed hope to the light which awaits us at Easter.
With a special Apostolic Blessing, I remain
Yours in the Lord,
BENEDICTUS PP. XVI From the Vatican, 10 March 2009
Source: http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
That's really all I've got to say on this topic unless something new comes up.
God bless!
In Christ,
Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner
Added:
DECREE OF EXCOMMUNICATION |
From the Office of the Congregation for Bishops, 1 July 1988. |
|
Julie, you can hold a personal opinion that someone is excommunicated, but that doesn't make it true.
ReplyDeleteThe document you posted indicates that there can be a danger of schism - like the danger of catching cold. It does not say the Society 'is'in schism. Yet again, you make authoritative pronouncements that go beyond even the Pope - not something that exhibits the virtue of humility and obedience which you declared the Society lacked.
That said, it is precisely the unclear aspects of Vatican II documents as outlined by +Athansiuis Schneider, the same being used to +Walter Kasper, that are the issue that the SSPX has, Julie. And the are your issues too, although you may not understand as much. For these are the vehicles being used to allow for the odd practices/disconnects which you write about here on your blog.
So again, learn what schism actually is. You cannot hold it as a personal opinion with any credibility whatsoever for schism is not a matter of opinion.
Also, understand that there are reasons why the Popes have not proclaimed the Society to be in actual schism - because they aren't, Julie.
Again, if you can't imagine why +Lefebvre would think it necessary to consecrate 4 traditional bishops, perhaps you can look into the matter. For there is much today that we Catholics could never imagine, but that is happening despite our thoughts and even despite what the Church actually teaches.
God bless.
I'm not a supporter of the SSPX, per se, but it's hard to watch priests who follow a better form and format than 99% of the Vatican II priests receive so much negative press. I tend to view them much like the Chaldeans, Maronites, and Coptic Churches...separated but true. As far as the excommunication thing goes, that can be erased by the stroke of a pen.
ReplyDeleteJulie,
ReplyDeleteI'm with you on this. If the SSPX is not in schism, why doesn't it just come inside the Church, instead of sitting on the fence with all kinds of conditions?
Pope Benedict had extended his welcoming hand, yet SSPX rejected the preamble necessary for it to reconcile. Thank you for publishing that letter by Pope Benedict. It breaks my heart.
We love the fact that SSPX does beautiful liturgy and is faithful to doctrine. But what good is that if they're neither inside or outside of the Church?
The war is being waged more intensely inside the Church, but the SSPX prefers to help fight it by looking from the outside.
It's sad that SSPX didn't take Benedict's offer of reconciliation. With Francis at the helm, reconciliation is appearing more and more remote.
ReplyDeletePope Benedict was interpreting Vatican Council II with the Marchetti Inference and this made the Council a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.
So this is not Catholic doctrine.This is a false doctrine that the SSPX has to accept.
The hermenutic of continuity and rupture depend on the use or ommission of the irrational premise from Marchetti's Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Vatican Council II can be interpreted by the SSPX without the Marchetti Inference. Then the Council would not contradict the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.
But how can the SSPX leaders do this?
They will have to change completly their way of looking at Vatican Council II.They would have to admit that they too were interpreting the Council with the Marchetti premise. So the Council was a break with traditional doctrine on salvation, ecclesiology etc.
How can the SSPX now say that Feeneyism was correct and that the Council is Feenyite.Vatican Council II and does not contradict the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism since it does not contradict the dogma.LG 16,LG 8,UR 3 etc refer to hypothetical cases. Theoretical cases cannot be defacto exceptions to the dogma and the Syllabus in 2015.
So doctrinally they could accept Vatican Council II as traditional when the premise is not used.However their priests do not even want to discuss this.They just say that they reject Feeneyism and support Marchetti.
They have a right to canonical status since without Marchetti's mistake Vatican Council II is pro-SSPX.This was not known or accepted by Pope Benedict XVI.
-Lionel
The two hermeneutics depend on the use or omission of the irrational premise from Marchetti's letter
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/the-two-hermenutics-depend-on-use-or.html
The SSPX doesn't want to go the way of the FFI - that's why they didn't accept the offer....more than most they can read the writing on the wall.
ReplyDeleteActually, the SSPX could have come in under Benedict as you indicate, but would have had to formally accept in total all of VII statements - to include the ambiguous portions even now being pointed out as requiring clarification by +Schneider. The very same compromise formulas being used by +Kasper.
ReplyDeleteBut, knowing that they cannot stay quiet about the necessary clarifications needed in VII documents, they could not in good conscience sign a document stating that they entirely agree with that which has been the doorway to so much of what is ailing the Church.
Would you prefer the Society to lie about these problems within VII and just break their word later in speaking out against them? Or would you rather they not speak out against them and let issues fester to the detriment of others because they are okay in their own prelature?
These are the very compromise formulas that are endemic within Vatican II. The very same +Kasper admits to being there and the very same he and others are using to do precisely what is complained of- and rightfully so - on Julie's blog.
This is the crisis in the Church. And why there is so much confusion about 'what's going on?' so much so that faithful Catholics are nearly blacking out from all of the head spinning barrel rolls.
http://www.churchmilitant.tv/archive/index.php?select=vort-2013-07&vidID=vort-2013-07-12-a
The above video is yet another reason why folks like Louis Verrechio are rightfully chagrined at Michael's seeming new penchant for name calling. And yet if +Burke rejects any anticipated shenanigans that very well could happen at the next Synod, would he then brand +Burke as encouraging people to leave the Church... or of being reactionary?
Cardinal Walter Kasper made a stunning statement in the pages of L'Osservatore Romano. In offering some reflections on the challenges facing the Church and the continued (perpetual) problem of the "true implementation of Vatican II", Kasper, speaking with reference to the documents of the Council, stated:
"In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction." (Cardinal Walter Kasper, L'Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013)
In the Cardinal's statements, we basically have an affirmation of a fundamental thesis of Michael Davies and most Traditionalists: that the Council documents themselves have ambiguities in them and are subject to a multitude of interpretations. This concept of Conciliar ambiguity has been denied by many conservative/pop apologists, who insist that the Council documents are plain as day and it is only the malice of dissenters pushing a false implementation that is responsible for our current confusion.
Traditionalists, however, and ironically, Kasper, too, have insisted, however, that the destruction that followed the Council can be read back into the documents themselves. Even if the Council Fathers did not intend for the disaster that followed the Council (and most agree they did not), the documents themselves were constructed in such a way as to permit progressive interpretations when put into the hands of progressive theologians or bishops. Contra the conservative mantra of "perfect documents - imperfect implementation", Kasper affirms the Traditionalist critique of "imperfect documents lead to imperfect implementation." Benedict XVI had made the same point. There is an intimate connection between the documents and their implementation.
Please, Julie, try to understand the whole of an issue before making unfair and inaccurate proclamations.
Actually, the SSPX could have come in under Benedict as you indicate, but would have had to formally accept in total all of VII statements - to include the ambiguous portions even now being pointed out as requiring clarification by +Schneider. The very same compromise formulas being used by +Kasper.
ReplyDeleteLionel:
Cardinal Kaspar and Bishop Schneider use the Marchetti Inference and so Vatican Council II is ambigous. Omit the irrational premise and the Council changes.
___________________
But, knowing that they cannot stay quiet about the necessary clarifications needed in VII documents, they could not in good conscience sign a document stating that they entirely agree with that which has been the doorway to so much of what is ailing the Church.
Lionel:
They are interpreting Vatican Council II with Marchetti's irrationality. So their bishops, theologians and priests are still part of the problem. They do not have the solution yet even though it is there before their eyes.
______________________
Would you prefer the Society to lie about these problems within VII and just break their word later in speaking out against them? Or would you rather they not speak out against them and let issues fester to the detriment of others because they are okay in their own prelature?
Lionel:
When the premise is not used Vatican Council II changes. The inference used from 1949 changes the meaning of the text.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
ReplyDeleteThese are the very compromise formulas that are endemic within Vatican II...
Lionel:
If Cardinal Kaspar knows that the Council is traditional without the Marchetti mistake wold he announce it in public ? Would Cardinal Muller do the same? Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Di Noia informed La Stampa that in an agreement with the SSPX there would be nothing to violate good relations with the Jews ( of the Left).Now how can he say that the Council is pro-Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
____________________
This is the crisis in the Church. And why there is so much confusion about 'what's going on?'...
The above video is yet another reason why folks like Louis Verrechio are rightfully chagrined at Michael's seeming new penchant for name calling...
Lionel:
Verrecchio and Voris use the same irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council.
Voris also says outside the Church there is no salvation but never refers to 'the dogma'.He stays clear of theology.Why? Also for good relations with...?
_________________________
Cardinal Walter Kasper made a stunning statement in the pages of L'Osservatore Romano...
Lionel:
The compromise was made in 1949 and he will not talk about it.Sadly, even the SSPX is ignorant.
______________________
In the Cardinal's statements, we basically have an affirmation of a fundamental thesis of Michael Davies and most Traditionalists...
Lionel:
Michael Davis, like Archbishop Lefebvre overlooked the Marchetti Inference.It was an oversight. The liberals in Boston took advantage of this.
______________________
Traditionalists, however, and ironically, Kasper, too, have insisted, however, that the destruction that followed the Council...
Lionel:
It must be read in the false premise used in the interpretation.
___________________
when put into the hands of progressive theologians or bishops.
Lionel:
Also traditionalist bishops and priests.
_____________________
Contra the conservative mantra of "perfect documents - imperfect implementation"...
Lionel:
The documents without the premise are traditional. We now have in general an irrational interpretation of Vatican Coouncil II which has been implemented.
______________________
Please, Julie, try to understand the whole of an issue before making unfair and inaccurate proclamations.
Lionel:
The issue is still doctrinal.Use an irrational premise and any Church document will emerge non traditional and irrational.
...then Lionel, the VII documents should be clarified in and of themselves so that an outside lens isn't required.
ReplyDeleteThe clear teachings of the Church shouldn't be dependent upon whether or not one is wearing 3-D glasses.
The fullness of the faith cannot be left open to what amounts to the picking and choosing of premises.
That is why the subsequent dismissal of the Oath Against Modernism by Paul VI smacks even more confusing. For it was the Oath that strictly prohibited the notion of reinterpreting Church teaching to mean anything other than what the Church had always taught.
So ambiguous VII language combined with not having to vow to interpret doctrine in a manner in which the Church has always taught will automatically lead to the +Baldiserri evolution of teaching premise that has a Cardinal shouting down laity who are rightfully scandalized when the hierarchy attempts to redefine marriage by way of praxis while - wink, wink - leaving the 'written' doctrine in place.
These machinations fool no one, no one that is who actually takes the time to sit back and understand a situation prior to pidgeon holing others with terms they do not fully comprehend.
Patty,
ReplyDeleteFebruary 20, 2015
This was a Catholic Church gone into schism
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/this-was-catholic-church-gone-into.html
That is why, Catholic Mission, Catholics need to look to the realities of doctrine, dogma, and the Church as She is pre and post VII to understand what is going on and what constitutes schism.
ReplyDeleteThis elevating of opinion as having some basis for the pronouncement and false perpetuation of others being in 'schism' is wholly erroneous. For 'personal opinion' is precisely that which is being protested by those who chasten the 'lawful' authority for seemingly having lost their heads and/or having evil intentions.
You don't say, is the line that comes to my mind. But try to look to pecipitating causes or the roots of 'why' and everyone goes back to the conditioned response - schism. And without any understanding of what that means. And that seems to be the point. Confusing Catholics to such a degree that they toss around words and develop mental blocks to those who are actually in agreement with them.
ReplyDelete...then Lionel, the VII documents should be clarified in and of themselves so that an outside lens isn't required.
Lionel:
If the SSPX does not clarify it what can be done?! I have been saying the same things for the last few years on my blog.
______________
The clear teachings of the Church shouldn't be dependent upon whether or not one is wearing 3-D glasses.
Lionel:
Vatican Council II's teachings have become dependent on whether your using a premise in the interpretation or not. This is the reality.
___________________
The fullness of the faith cannot be left open to what amounts to the picking and choosing of premises.
Lionel:
Yes and this has been the defacto situation after the 1949 error.Now Catholics marry Protestants and Muslims and they are not told that they are in adultery and in mortal sin.They are on the way to Hell. Instead it is assumed that there is known salvation outside the Church and the traditional dogma is no more valid. They support this error with Vatican Council II interpreted with the premise.This has been implemented in the Church .
CONTINUED
February 20, 2015
Liberals and traditionalists agree Vatican Council II is a break with the past. None of them realize that the cause is the premise
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/liberals-and-traditionalists-agree.html
That is why, Catholics need to look to the realities of doctrine, dogma, and the Church as She is pre and post VII to understand what is going on and what constitutes schism.
ReplyDeleteLionel:
The SSPX must especially do so.
For the SSPX the magisterial teachings are accepted with regard to the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949 but the magisterium is rejected with reference to Vatican Council II ( with the premise).
The SSPX accepts that the baptism of desire can be an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. However they do not accept that Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when it suggests that those persons saved in invincible ignorance are known to us in the present times, to be exceptions to the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Yet they do not accept that Lumen Gentium 16 refers to known cases in the present times, to be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Is this not a contradiction and irrational? So what is the SSPX position on doctrine?
The SSPX accepts the Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani inference in 1949 which indicates that people in Heaven can be visible and known to us in the present times( 1949 for him and 2015 for us ). So they are exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors which says all need to convert into the Church for salvation.
Yet the SSPX does not accept Vatican Council II (LG 16,LG 8, NA 2,UR 3 etc). They infer that these cases are explicit exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors.
Don't you think there is something wrong with the SSPX doctrinal policy. Should this not be clarified by them?
The SSPX General Chapter Statement 1 said that they accept extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions. While the SPPX USA's Angelus Press, is selling a book written by Fr. Francois Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic ?. It affirms the Marchetti error. It says that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.In other words these cases are visible and known to us to be exceptions.
So the SSPX USA contradicts the SSPX General Chapter Statement.
Inspite of writing about this so many times on my blog no one from the SSPX wants to comment.
______________________________
This elevating of opinion as having some basis for the pronouncement and false perpetuation of others being in 'schism' is wholly erroneous.
Lionel:
The onus for clarifying this doctrinal confusion lies with the SSPX.For them doctrine is important.Also their doctrinal position will decide if they will receive canonical status.
________________________
For 'personal opinion' is precisely that which is being protested by those who chasten the 'lawful' authority for seemingly having lost their heads and/or having evil intentions.
Lionel
The SSPX and the lawful authority are both in the same leaky boat on this issue.They both accept the Marchetti Confusion.
_________________________
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
ReplyDeleteYou don't say, is the line that comes to my mind. But try to look to pecipitating causes or the roots of 'why' and everyone goes back to the conditioned response - schism.
Lionel:
For the leftist forces within and outside the Catholic Church Vatican Council II must be accepted as a break with the past.So it has to be interpreted with the irrational premise.This is a schismatic position doctrinally.The magisterium is in schism.
Those who do not accept this heresy and irrationally with reference to doctrine, will politically be dubbed schismatic , reactionary etc.Cardinal Muller says the SSPX is in schism...
Those who do not accept extra ecclesiam nulla salus without the irrational premise, also will be called Feeneyite, Anti-Semtic, haters etc.
So if the SSPX says that they accept Vatican Council II without the premise, they would still be persecuted. There would be legal threats.
The SSPX avoided the anti-Semitism charge and so disassociated them self from Bishop Richard Williamson. They also removed priests (SSPX-SOS-Resistance) who criticized the Masons and the Jewish Left.
Now how will the SSPX say that Vatican Council II is Feeneyite ? They will persecuted, as was Robert Sungenis, Bishop Williamson and others.
____________________________
And without any understanding of what that means. And that seems to be the point. Confusing Catholics to such a degree that they toss around words and develop mental blocks to those who are actually in agreement with them.
Lionel:
Lay Catholics must see the truth for them self on this subject. They should not depend on the bishops and priests, liberals and traditionalists.Since they are protecting their churches ,instituions, work etc.
They must know basically that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual error. There are no known exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Humanly speaking there cannot be any known exception, since we cannot see people who are in Heaven. So there cannot be any exception, mentioned in Vatican Council II, to the strict interpretation of the dogma.
Also when the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) says God is not limited to the Sacraments, this statement comes directly from the Cardinal Marchetti mistake. The cardinal assumed there is known salvation outside the Church and so God is not limited to the Sacraments.
-Lionel Andrades
1
http://www.dici.org/en/news/society-of-st-pius-x-general-chapter-statement/
There's a lady I know of whose petition for her marriage annulment has been turned down by the official diocesan tribunal.
ReplyDeleteSomeone has suggested to her to address her petition to SSPX, saying they have their own tribunal that can grant annulments. Is this true?
If true, isn't that a case of having an "extra ecclesiam?" A parallel Magisterium? A separate, therefore, schismatic church?
So is SSPX in schism or not? Or not in schism but just schismatic?
At any rate, Patty, explain to us these last words by Pope Benedict following his lifting of excommunication of SSPX bishops:
"Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers — even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty — do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”
Marie, I have not heard nor do I know of an SSPX marriage tribunal. If you want to know for certain, you should go to the horse's mouth and ask before adhering to gossip. Gossip which in your mind seems to equate to reality.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet even if this supposed tribunal were in fact real outside perhaps the society's working in union with diocesan marriage tribunals and/or acknowledging that an invalidly contracted marriage (say a civil marriage of a Catholic already being invalid) if the diocese declined an annulment the idea of seeking one from a traditional Catholic community would be a joke.
(You may be confusing the Society with the Sedevecantist movement. I don't know.)
As to the remainder of your comment about 'schism', Marie, I'll leave you with the most thorough commentary posted on one of Julie's other threads:
ReplyDeleteKevin Morris said...
"This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."
So, Julie, do you really understand what this means? Benedict is affirming that the distinction needs to be made between the disciplinary and doctrinal levels. As a matter of discipline, they are not excommunicated, they are without canonical status.
As a mater of doctrine (remember, doctrine NOT dogma) certain issues need to be worked out regarding Vatican II. On this point, we must remember that Vatican II never introduced any new Dogmas of the faith, it was a pastoral counsel.
In this respect, your references here to the SSPX as being "outside the Church" are completely inappropriate. They are inside the Church, but without excising legitimate ministry. This is absolutely not the same as Luther questioning Dogma's and leaving the Church, as well as completely changing the Mass (he was never consecrating the Body and Blood of Jesus after he changed the words of the consecration).
Further, Luther also questioned things like Mandatory Celibacy and the doctrine (teaching) of Limbo. Many Catholics today question Mandatory Celibacy. Most Catholics today also deny Limbo. Just. Like. Luther.
Your comparisons to Luther are simply inadequate. The SSPX are in talks even as we speak, the solution is simple, reach an agreement and regularize their canonical status as a society. What are we to do about it? Write books about how they are "more holy than the pope"? NO. Like Louie Verrecchio said, we are to pray and fast that this situation is resolved.
And, Marie, as to the rest regarding actual 'schism' not a schismatic act, but the reality of formal schism, here goes:
ReplyDeletehttp://sspx.org/en/faq-page/isnt-sspx-schismatic-1995
So when Julie, admittedly not understanding the issues and/or Louis Verrchio's video response to Michael Voris's invention of 'reactionaries' and/or 'material schism', says such things as:
"...Well intentions will never trump obedience.
We must obey authentic Church authority- not those who break away in disobedience because they refuse to submit to the authority of Christ’s Bride.
Keep away from the SSPX until they humble themselves in submission to Christ's Bride. There is only ONE Church on earth that Jesus Christ gave authority to, and if you are in opposition to Her, you are in opposition to Him.
He will not forsake His Bride."
She discounts herself for she is *not* obeying authentic Catholic authority by her own definition. By casting stones at the SSPX for not obeying that which is ambiguous, she is also calling herself out for not obeying the lawful authority in her own parish and at the Vatican for how they conduct themselves while enjoying the self-same *authority* she criticizes regularly (And rightfully so, in my view. So good on ya, Julie!)
But let's not throw around terms like schismatic or make pronouncements without *understanding*. That said, if you don't understand Louie Verrechio's video, Christian charity would be to ask the man for clarification-much like it would be charitable for Michael Voris to give those he would bash and label an opportunity to speak the reality of their position instead of hiring talking heads with no authority whatever, to include himself.
Patty,
ReplyDeleteIn this link do you think that Bishop Fellay was not aware of the irrational premise?
Do you think he made an objective mistake?
April 23-Sept.11,2014 - still no clarification from the SSPX
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/april-23-sept112014-still-no.html
Marie,
ReplyDeleteThe dogma says there is no salvation outside the Church and also Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation. When a Catholic marries a non Catholic then they are living in adultery. Yet this is not told to the couple.
So if Bishops who do not believe in the dogma, grant an annulment or dispensation it is not traditional. It is not valid.
Since the couple are still living in an objective state of sin.
It is like Cardinal Kaspar and the pope proposing that Holy Communion be given to the divorced and re married, after a ritual of penance.
That exercise of penance would be the same as the annulment or approval of a Catholic inter faith marriage.
We have the objective rejection of the dogma. In theory and practice the dogma has been rejected. This is schism. It is magisterial schism.
We do not know of any one saved outside the Church, that is without faith and baptism. So there are no known exceptions to the dogma.
"Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers — even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty — do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.”
Yes, the SSPX must clarify precisely that the magisterium is using an irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II thus creating a new doctrine and rejecting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is heresy and mateial schism. They cannot accept it.
Doctrinally, they should ask the magisterium to interpret Vatican Council II without the premise. Then Vatican Council II will be in agreement with the traditional strict interpretation of the dogma. Then it can be clearly said that those Catholics who marry non Catholics are living in sin and they should get their marraige regulartised. Their non Catholic spouse should convert into the Catholic Church.
Since extra ecclesiam nulla salus is not contradicted it would mean Vatican Council II does not contradict the traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities not being paths to salvation.
Marie
ReplyDeleteSince extra ecclesiam nulla salus is not contradicted it would mean Vatican Council II does not contradict the traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities.They are not paths to salvation.
Then should they ask the Vatican to accept this rational interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Would the Vatican be willing to say that Vatican Council II says all Hindus, Buddhist, Jews, Muslims and Christians need to formally convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
This is presently the SSPX view but they are not citing Vatican Council II (without the premise) to support their view.
The magisterium is taking advantage of their ignorance.
Catholic Mission,
ReplyDeleteIt is my view that Bishop Fellay stated precisely what he intended to say. But, again, in charity, I would say that you should pursue clarification at the source. Anything less would be conjecture and likely add to confusion.
That said, if you hold the view that this misperception of '49 is 'the' pivot point for breaking from what the Church has always taught, I suggest, instead of stating what the Society must do, that you take the onus to do it yourself.
You'd rather be barking up the wrong tree in expecting someone you believe misguided on such a critical issue to take up your banner and pursue Rome.
Again, that's just my take on it. Not gospel...and no finger wag by any means.
And interesting interview:
ReplyDeletehttp://angelqueen.org/2015/02/22/michael-voris-interviews-the-expert-on-the-sspx-louie-verrecchio/
...especially since now Mr. Voris chooses to denounce, not take ownership, and falsely brand those who just two short years ago he welcomed in charity.
And perhaps some clarification for those who do not understand what Louis Verrechio's video was all about.
Patty,
ReplyDeleteIn this link do you think that Bishop Fellay was not aware of the irrational premise?
Do you think he made an objective mistake?
April 23-Sept.11,2014 - still no clarification from the SSPX
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/april-23-sept112014-still-no.html
_________________
Pattysaid...
It is my view that Bishop Fellay stated precisely what he intended to say.
Lionel:
'The same declaration (LG. 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities' and the SSPX bishop concludes that '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.'
Patty the dogma says all need to formally enter the Church and it does not mention any exceptions. So how is LG 8 an exception to the dogma for Bishop Fellay and the SSPX ?
Do you know of any any exceptions to the dogma? Can you name them? Would Bishop Fellay be able to name any case ?
Do you see what I mean ? This is an issue of doctrine. It is at the center of the SSPX canonical status.
Doctrine has not changed unless you use a false premise.
The false premise is that we can see and known in the present times people who are in Heaven.
So the false conclusion is that these deceased now in Heaven are living, explicit, objective exceptions to all needing faith and baptism for salvation.
Bishop Fellay uses a false premise when he assumes LG 8 refers to visible in the flesh cases.
Bishop Fellay does not realize that there are no exceptions to the dogma in Vatican Council II.There can never be an exceptions since we cannot see the dead who are now in Heaven.
____________________________
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
ReplyDeleteBut, again, in charity, I would say that you should pursue clarification at the source. Anything less would be conjecture and likely add to confusion.
Lionel:
I don't know how to do it.I have been sending regular e-mails to the SSPX sources in the USA , Econe, Italy etc for the last few years.They still don't know what I am talking about.They are full of the Marchetti theology.
The Vatican knows precisely what I am saying. They are keeping silent. They are not going to say that the Council affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Rome Vicariate is preventing priests from speaking about this including those who offer the Traditional Latin Mass. This issue is monitoried by the Jewish Left here.
______________________________
That said, if you hold the view that this misperception of '49 is 'the' pivot point for breaking from what the Church has always taught, I suggest, instead of stating what the Society must do, that you take the onus to do it yourself.
Lionel:
I have been writing about this subject on my blog.I have been posting material on this subject to different people.I have visited Vatican offices.
On the other hand this is not a personal theology or a point of view.
It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead who are now saved in Heaven.This is a given.
So how can Marchetti and the SSPX ( and you?) imply that the baptism of desire- cases are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
We are back to the questions I asked earlier. Where are these exceptions in 2015? What are their names and surnames?
How can people in Heaven be explicit exceptions to the dogma on earth?
They would have to exist in our reality to be exceptions.
If you Patty infer that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma, then it is a factual error. You are saying that the deceased are living exceptions to the traditional teaching. In other words that you and all of us can see and know the dead.
Do you follow me? Do you agree?
I asked you those questions to see if you had understood what I had said.
__________________________________
You'd rather be barking up the wrong tree in expecting someone you believe misguided on such a critical issue to take up your banner and pursue Rome.
Lionel:
It is not my banner. It is something objective and known to all people that we cannot see or know in the present times(2015) people in Heaven who could be exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation.
This only has to be understood!
__________________________________
Again, that's just my take on it. Not gospel...and no finger wag by any means.
Lionel:
I understand.
Lionel - I am not posting here to debate Baptism of Desire. My posts here are rather to ask others to exercise charity with regards to issues that they admittedly do not understand or seek to understand fully.
ReplyDeleteAlso, to encourage some to not make slanderous pronouncements that are beyond their scope of authority on public forums - again, without having the understanding and/or the authority with which to do so. And especially while at the very same time rebelling against and/or criticizing the same 'lawful' authority they insist others must humble themselves before.
It adds to confusion and helps no one.
God bless.
Don't be duped:
ReplyDelete[in part]
b. While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265). In the strict sense there are no "lay members" of the Society of St. Pius X, only those who frequent their Masses and receive the sacraments from them.
While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.
It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X.
b. Thus far the Church has not officially declared what Constitutes "formal adherence to the schism" inaugurated by the late Archbishop Lefebvre (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), but the Code of Canon Law defines schism as "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (canon 751). The above citation together with the other documentation which you have included in your dossier and your own exchange of correspondence with Father Violette clearly indicate the extent to which many in authority in the Society of St. Pius X corroborate that definition.
d. We reiterate what we stated above: "The Pope is the Supreme legislator in the Church." Communion with him is a fundamental, non-negotiable hallmark of Catholicism which is not determined by those who set themselves up to judge him, but by the Pope himself (cf. Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium #22-25).
f. You want to know how authoritative our responses are. We Must indicate to you that this letter accurately reflects the practice and pastoral solicitude of this Pontifical Commission, but it is not an official declaration of the Holy See. Those declarations are fundamentally limited to Quattuor abhinc annos of 3 October 1984 and Ecclesia Dei of 2 July 1988, both of which were published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. The Holy Father does not ordinarily make detailed statements on very specific questions such as those which you have submitted. He entrusts such responses to the variou dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which have competence in particular areas. With regard to the matters which you have brought up, the competence belongs to this Pontifical Commission.
g. The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts rules primarily on the interpretation of the law. Any more Authoritative response to your questions than the one we have given would be more likely to come from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The fact that that Congregation has transmitted your dossier to us indicates that at this time our response should be sufficient. Statements of dicasteries and organisms of the Holy See which touch on faith and morals are not considered infallible, but should be taken as norms of moral certitude.
i. Our response to your questions may be made public.
With prayerful best wishes I remain,
Sincerely yours in Christ,
(signed) Msgr. Camille Perl
Secretary
Link: http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CEDSSPX2.HTM
SSPX leaders still in schism, says Vatican
ReplyDelete24 December 2013 23:34 by James Roberts
The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has said that the leaders of the traditionalist Society of St Pius X (SSPX) are in schism, and remain suspended from the sacraments.
In an interview with the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, Archbishop Gerhard Müller said that although Pope Benedict XVI lifted the canonical excommunication of SSPX prelates, they remain suspended from the sacraments because “by their schism they have broken away from communion with the Church”.
However, Archbishop Müller said even though talks with the SSPX have currently reached an impasse, the Vatican will not close the door to reconciliation. He said for full communion to be restored, the SSPX would have to accept the authority of the Church and of the Pope.
Source: http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/259/112/sspx-leaders-still-in-schism-says-vatican
Then, Julie, don't be duped into continuously steeping distrust in the lawful authority by posting what you do here on a regular basis for you are again not humbly submitting to the lawful authority. Rather you are stirring up doubt with regard to the proper exercise of said authority.
ReplyDeleteYou cannot in all humility or consistency engage in such activity and at the same time attempt with any credibility to cast judgment, that which is above your understanding and/or jurisdiction, against anyone - despite what you read on EWTN or hear on CMTV. After all, even +Burke said he would resist if the 'lawful' authority attempted to assert certain novelties at the Second Synod in October 15.
So do not be duped is absolutely correct. Do not be duped into casting stones at those who, in reality, hold the same steadfast position for 'the' Faith, whole and entire.
For further clarity of the issues at hand, you may want to again go to the horse's mouth
You simply can't seem to understand Patty.
ReplyDeleteI will ALWAYS submit to Church authority no matter who the pope is. While I will never like comment like "who am I to judge" coming from a pope when asked about gays, I will still submit to the Seat of Peter.
I can love the pope without LIKING his papacy, style or off the cuff remarks. I can (as can anyone else) look at ANY pope in the history of the Church and have an opinion as to whether or not they were a good pope who did great things for the Church, or a not so good pope who caused confusion and chaos.
Pope is pope. God allowed each and everyone of them for HIS own reasons and that is good enough for me. Jesus hand picked Judas...that says a lot.
I would not and will not send people running for OUTSIDE institutes that disobey Papal Authority - that's what Martin Luther did.
Again I say, stay with the Church in good times and bad.
You want to run out of the Church Jesus Christ founded on earth that is YOUR choice and if you lead others out as well, you will one day answer to Christ for it.
You have a blessed day.
In Christ,
Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner
Also please note, Julie, the particulars of what the letter you posted states:
ReplyDelete"...While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith."
*******
1) There is no schism
2) A schismatic mentality is precisely what is being promoted when those such as +Baldiserri intimate that dogma evolves- that is against what the Church has always taught
3)VII has problems in it, the very same being exploited by +Kasper for innovation and the very same +Schneider indicates require firm and written clarification.
4)+Mueller can say that that the Society is 'in schism' but without the requisite declaration and/or evidence to back his statement there is no actual schism.
5)And even if the Society were in schism, which it is not, Pope Francis himself received blessing from the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church and indicated that as a boy he fulfilled his Sunday obligation at the Orthodox Church
So which is it? If there is no schism then why the dire warning from Connecticut Catholic? If there is schism, and you desire to yield to the Pope, then where is your charitable ecumenical approach? You should be encouraging going to the SSPX if only for outreach?
Louis Verrechio has made another excellent video explaining just one aspect of what is 'novel' in the Vatican II documents. I hope you watch it because those who actually desire the Catholic Faith, whole and entire, should not sabotage each other by passing rumors and resorting to scare tactics - and most assuredly not without the attempt to fully understand.
ReplyDeleteFor while you are rightfully fighting for that which is Catholic in your parish, there is a reason 'why' you are having to fight for it. This mess of what you report on has a nasty underbelly. Understanding the roots of it, will aid you in your fight, Julie. And also help you recognize your true friends.
https://harvestingthefruit.com/tw26/
Julie, nobody is advocating running away from the Church. Quite the contrary. But Catholics need to know the Faith, especially during times of crisis. So stating that 'I' do not understand that you will remain faithful is more of an affirmation for yourself - and that's great.
ReplyDeleteI hope you do not have to submit to the Pope if he allows communion to be given to Catholics who have divorced and remarried without benefit of annulment. (Cardinal Burke says he will resist - and that's not running away from the Church or not submitting. For we are called to obey in all things except sin. That is a lawful authority can ask one to do that which is unlawful and one, to be truly obedient, must resist such an
You may not understand, but Popes have not always been good, nor adhered to what the Church actually teaches. In those times, one must cleave to what the Church actually teaches. There were 3 claimants to the Papacy at the time of the Great Western Schism -a time when keeping 'the' Faith was paramount,not picking the 'right' Pope.
As for myself, you again are assuming that I have 'run' from the Church. All I've stated, Julie, is that we should be prudent and seek understanding before calling others schismatic. And yet while you claim that you will *always* submit to Church authority you are instigating rebellion and distrust by what you post here.
That is what Martin Luther did when he posted his grievances on the Church door.... THAT is what YOU are doing, Julie. But without backing up why and how you think you have a right to do as much. Perhaps if you understood that it is precisely fidelity that is at the root of what you falsely brand schismatic you will understand the reasons why you can post the things you do.
Patty,
ReplyDeleteYou still have not understood me. I only refer to the baptism of desire to show how an irrational premise is used.
Let me try again.
FANTASY PREMISE
For instance Catholics will accept the Letter of the Holy Office which infers that salvation in Heaven is known and visible on earth and so there are cases of persons dead who are living exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. Where does it say it ? The text does not mention it?
No not directly.Though this is implied by the Letter and is accepted in general.
Ask yourself- how could the baptism of desire for instance be an exception to the traditional teaching on salvation by Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center ? It was an exception since it was implied that in 1949 there were exceptions. There were exceptions in 1949 who were saved without the baptism of water and they were known to the Holy Office and the Archbishop of Boston. If there were no such people alive how could there be exceptions? They would have to be known. This is implied.
STRANGE INFERENCE
So this was the inference.The problem is that there were no exceptions and there cannot be an exception. Period. 1) Since those saved with the baptism of desire are in Heaven. 2) We also cannot say that any particular person will be saved without the baptism of water.So exceptions are physically not visible.They are humanly not there.
There could not have been exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Impossible. Whatever be Fr.Feeney's theology or opinion on whatever,it is a fact of life that we cannot see persons in Heaven.Nor can we predict that someone will be saved without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
IRRATIONAL REASONING
There being exceptions is the irrational reasoning used to interpret Vatican Council II by John Vennari, Chris Ferrara, John Salza and Louie Verrecchio and other traditionalists.
Connecticut Catholic Corner says
ReplyDeleteI will ALWAYS submit to Church authority no matter who the pope is. While I will never like comment like "who am I to judge" coming from a pope when asked about gays, I will still submit to the Seat of Peter.
Lionel:
1.The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257 says the Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water and it (CCC 1257) ALSO SAYS God is not limited to the Sacraments. So which is it for you ?
2.If God is not limited to the Sacraments and there is salvation outside the Church, then Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the lawful authority.
If there are no exceptions, then Vatican Council II supports the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. Which of the two is it for you ? What is the position of the lawful authority ?
3.If there are no exceptions, then the lawful authority has made an objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.It would be non traditional and heretical.Since Vatican Council II would be traditional on other religions and ecumenism.With exceptions it is not.
Also to say that there are exceptions when there are none is rejecting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is heresy. This is being done by the lawful authority.
They are also penalising the SSPX for not accepting this heretical version of the Council.
I could give other examples too ...
2) A schismatic mentality is precisely what is being promoted when those such as +Baldiserri intimate that dogma evolves- that is against what the Church has always taught
ReplyDeleteLionel:
He denies the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, changes the Nicene Creed in the process and interprets Vatican Council II with an irrationality. This is first class heresy according to the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II. It is a mortal sin. Yet he is allowed to offer Mass, has jursidiction, canonical status etc, etc and is not considered to be in schism.
He is not in schism according to the present Magisterium, since he has accepted Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise which results in a false ( non traditional) conclusion.
The SSPX are interpreting Vatican Council II with the same irrational premise but are refusing the accept the result.
______________________________
3)VII has problems in it, the very same being exploited by +Kasper for innovation and the very same +Schneider indicates require firm and written clarification.
Lionel:
There is the same rejection of Church documents by Cardinal Kaspar and he is allowed to offer Holy Mass.
For political reasons he is not considered to be in schism.
________________________
4)+Mueller can say that that the Society is 'in schism' but without the requisite declaration and/or evidence to back his statement there is no actual schism.
Lionel:
Cardinal Muller in an interview with Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register indicated there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He does not know of any exception. Yet there are exceptions for him.
This is heresy.
It is the magisterium which is in heresy.
Cardinal Muller wants the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and only then he will not use the schism whip.
______________________
Patty:
ReplyDeleteLouis Verrechio has made another excellent video explaining just one aspect of what is 'novel' in the Vatican II documents..
Lionel:
There being exceptions is the irrational reasoning used to interpret Vatican Council II by John Vennari, Chris Ferrara, John Salza and Louie Verrecchio
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/there-being-exceptions-is-irrational.html
Patty,
ReplyDeleteHere is an interpretation of Vatican Council II which the SSPX and Louie Verrecchio have never discussed.
Neither would it be welcome to Cardinal Muller.
This is Vatican Council II not interpreted without the false premise.
VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS ALL MUSLIMS, JEWS IN ROME, ITALY ARE GOING TO HELL
Contrary to what your parish priest has been saying Vatican Council II indicates that all Muslims and Jews in Rome and Italy are on the way to Hell.
So get this message across to the people so that they can conduct Catholic Mission and evangelization based on the truth.
Do not hide it from Catholics in the parishes that the Bible, the Church and of course Vatican Council II says Jews and Muslims need to convert into the Catholic Church to go to Heaven. All of them.
The Council says this is in two important places .In Ad Gentes 7 it says all people need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation. All means everyone with no exceptions.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.
Then Ad Gentes 7 also says those who know about Jesus and the Catholic Church and yet do not enter are on the way to Hell. In Italy Muslims and Jews know about Jesus and the Catholic Church. It is a mortal sin of faith when they do not enter the Catholic Church.
Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.- Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
So ask your parish priest why has he not spoken on this subject?
Is he trying to protect someone?
So many people are going to Hell and he does not speak or write about it? Is he protecting himself?
______________
February 23, 2015
IL CONCILIO VATICANO DICE TUTTI I MUSALMANI, EBREI A ROMA,ITALIA STA ANDANDO AD INFERNO / VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS ALL MUSLIMS, JEWS IN ROME, ITALY ARE GOING TO HELL
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/il-concilio-vaticano-dice-tutti-i.html
Again, Lionel, I am not here to debate Feenyism. And again, I am not here despite the fear mongering of some, to encourage anyone to run from the Church.
ReplyDeleteBut to be properly equipped to fight *for* the Church, one has to understand one's opponent, their methods, and the strongholds gained (ambiguities within VII documents) and subsequently used to foment rot from within. Otherwise, the perpetual intimation that there is evil afoot is a no brainer. We know there is evil afoot. But if we do not understand how that evil is allowed to operate under 'full authority', we will only be subject to more of the same - that is evil propositions that attempt to degrade what the Church has always taught.
And while we WILL be accountable to Our Lord for our actions at our time of judgment, we will also be responsible for acting and/or not acting according to what we know/understand. (Again, nobody is advocating leaving the Church, but disparaging others who have been fighting this evil far longer than they is rather prideful.)
So whereas some may cast stones precisely because they 'do not know or understand' those who do understand the root of problems will be held accountable on that level as to why they did and/or did not correspond to the understanding they had.
IOW: Even if the Pope stated we need to stay outside of St. Peters, if one viewed children screaming from the upstairs windows and smoke pouring out, one would be held accountable for not attempting to save them. Obedience does not require that we ignore the primary duty of saving souls.
And posting notices that there is a fire in the Vatican and souls could be dying in there is a rather moot point if the objective is to just blindly submit.
Patty,
ReplyDeleteCorrection!
This is Vatican Council II interpreted without the false premise.
VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS ALL MUSLIMS, JEWS IN ROME, ITALY ARE GOING TO HELL
Contrary to what your parish priest has been saying Vatican Council II indicates that all Muslims and Jews in Rome and Italy are on the way to Hell.
So get this message across to the people so that they can conduct Catholic Mission and evangelization based on the truth.
Do not hide it from Catholics in the parishes that the Bible, the Church and of course Vatican Council II says Jews and Muslims need to convert into the Catholic Church to go to Heaven. All of them.
The Council says this is in two important places .In Ad Gentes 7 it says all people need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation. All means everyone with no exceptions.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.
Then Ad Gentes 7 also says those who know about Jesus and the Catholic Church and yet do not enter are on the way to Hell. In Italy Muslims and Jews know about Jesus and the Catholic Church. It is a mortal sin of faith when they do not enter the Catholic Church.
Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.- Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
So ask your parish priest why has he not spoken on this subject?
Is he trying to protect someone?
So many people are going to Hell and he does not speak or write about it? Is he protecting himself?
______________
Patty:
ReplyDeleteAgain, Lionel, I am not here to debate Feenyism.
Lionel:
I am not using the apologetics of Fr.Leonard Feeney's community. The St.Benedict Centers, traditionalists, also use the irrational premise to interpret Vatican Council II, just like the SSPX.
It is like interpreting Vatican Council II with blue or red tinted glasses. You are still using the red tinted glasses, like the rest of them.
Bishop Fellay is using it.It can be seen clearly for me ( blue tinted).
You still have not understood what I mean by a false premise and a false conclusion with respect to Vatican Council II.It is a subtle error.
_______________________
And again, I am not here despite the fear mongering of some, to encourage anyone to run from the Church.
Lionel:
I understand.Michael Voris got it wrong about Verrechio, Vennari, Ferrara and the others
Also Michael would not be able to identify the false premise since for him the magisterium cannot make a mistake.
____________________
But to be properly equipped to fight *for* the Church, one has to understand one's opponent, their methods, and the strongholds gained (ambiguities within VII documents)
Lionel:
Patty red tinted glasses here!
If there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, there is no ambiguity. It is the premise which creates the ambiguity.
___________________________
and subsequently used to foment rot from within.
Lionel:
The rot has entered with Marchetti's irrational premise which has not been checked by the magisterium.
__________________
Otherwise, the perpetual intimation that there is evil afoot is a no brainer.
Lionel:
It's important to know the source.The false premise is the source. It has derailed theology in the Catholic Church.
______________________
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
ReplyDeletePatty:
We know there is evil afoot. But if we do not understand how that evil is allowed to operate under 'full authority', we will only be subject to more of the same - that is evil propositions that attempt to degrade what the Church has always taught.
Lionel:
I agree. This is why I keep writing on this subject and I had hoped you would have understood what I had written.
________________________
And while we WILL be accountable to Our Lord for our actions at our time of judgment, we will also be responsible for acting and/or not acting according to what we know/understand. (Again, nobody is advocating leaving the Church, but disparaging others who have been fighting this evil far longer than they is rather prideful.)
Lionel:
From my point of view the traditionalists are supporting the error of the liberals, i.e the Marchetti error.
___________________
So whereas some may cast stones precisely because they 'do not know or understand' those who do understand the root of problems will be held accountable on that level as to why they did and/or did not correspond to the understanding they had.
IOW: Even if the Pope stated we need to stay outside of St. Peters, if one viewed children screaming from the upstairs windows and smoke pouring out, one would be held accountable for not attempting to save them. Obedience does not require that we ignore the primary duty of saving souls.
Lionel:
Yes.I agree.
It is difficult for me but I have to keep saying that the Magisterium made a factual mistake. I have always respected and supported the Magisterium.
I think the SSPX and the Magisterium can still correct this error and move forward.
______________________
And posting notices that there is a fire in the Vatican and souls could be dying in there is a rather moot point if the objective is to just blindly submit.
Lionel:
There is a fire in the Church and its cause is precise. It comes from 1949.
ReplyDeletePatty,
Here I will define my terms.
If a pope uses the irrational premise and comes to an irrational conclusion it still is an objective error, even if he is the pope.
What premise, what conclusion, what theology, what Tradition.
Lionel:
what premise ?
The irrational premise is “The dead are visible to us on earth”.
____________________
what conclusion ?
The conclusion is since the dead are visible to us on earth those who are saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are explicit ( visible in the flesh) exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
___________________________
what theology,
So the post -1949 theology says every one needs to enter the Catholic Church except for those in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire.
Defacto there are known exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
_________________________
what Tradition?
Pre- 1949 Catholic Tradition, on salvation ( soteriology) says there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. The three dogmas on extra ecclesiam nulla salus ,defined by three Church Councils do not mention any exception. The text also does not mention the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance.I am referring to Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441.
Also Mystici Corporis and the Council of Trent mention implicit desire etc but do not state that these cases are known to us, to be exceptions to the dogma .Neither do they state that there are exceptions to the dogma.
Yet with the false premise and false conclusion this is how the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc are interpreted.
If a pope uses the irrational premise and comes to an irrational conclusion it still is an objective error, even if he is the pope. It is a fact of life that we cannot see persons in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire. We do not know any one this year saved without the baptism of water. So so how can these cases be postulated as exceptions?
Here is Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise. The SSPX could affirm this rational interpretation of the Council and ask Cardinal Muller to respond.The Prefect ff the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s present interpretation of the Council is irrational since he depends on the Marchetti premise.
ReplyDeleteThis interpretation is specifically related to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II.It is in line with the traditional understanding of other religions and Christian communities.
_____________________
VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS WE REALLY CANNOT HAVE A REASONABLE HOPE THAT ALL MEN ARE SAVED
Vatican Council II indicates that most people are on the way to Hell. Since most people die without ‘faith and baptism'(Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II). There may be good things in other religions but the religions are not paths to salvation.Their members die without ‘faith and baptism’.
So according to Vatican Council II we really cannot have a reasonable hope that all men are saved.
Vatican Council II says all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church ( with faith and baptism) and it does not state that we personally know or can know in future any one saved without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. So there are no exceptions to the Council’s teachings on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
We cannot meet anyone on the streets of Rome, who we know will be saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) , a ray of the Truth which enlightens all men (NA 2),elements of sanctification and truth(LG 8),imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3), seeds of the Word(AG 11) etc.
Vatican Council II contradicts Hans Von Balthazar.
-Lionel Andrades
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/02/dare-we-hope-that-all-will-be-saved.html
_________________________
VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS ALL MUSLIMS, JEWS IN ROME, ITALY ARE GOING TO HELL
Contrary to what your parish priest has been saying Vatican Council II indicates that all Muslims and Jews in Rome and Italy are on the way to Hell.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
ReplyDeleteSo get this message across to the people so that they can conduct Catholic Mission and Evangelization based on the truth.
Do not hide it from Catholics in the parishes that the Bible, the Church and of course Vatican Council II says Jews and Muslims need to convert into the Catholic Church to go to Heaven. All of them.
The Council says this is in two important places .In Ad Gentes 7 it says all people need Catholic Faith and the Baptism of water for salvation. All means everyone with no exceptions.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself “by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II.
Then Ad Gentes 7 also says those who know about Jesus and the Catholic Church and yet do not enter are on the way to Hell. In Italy Muslims and Jews know about Jesus and the Catholic Church. It is a mortal sin of faith when they do not enter the Catholic Church.
Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.- Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council IIWhosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
So ask your parish priest why has he not spoken on this subject?
Is he trying to protect someone?
So many people are going to Hell and he does not speak or write about it?Is he protecting himself?
__________________________
February 25, 2015
Vatican Council says we really can have a reasonable hope that all men are saved
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/vatican-council-says-we-really-cannot.html
Correction that last link should read 'cannot have a reasonable hope that all men are saved'.
ReplyDeleteFebruary 25, 2015
Vatican Council says we really cannot have a reasonable hope that all men are saved
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/vatican-council-says-we-really-cannot.html
Patty..you are AWESOME! God bless you!!!
ReplyDeleteSusan, thank you and God bless you, too. That said, folks who love and want the Faith whole and entire should look to the old saying, "Divide and conquer." For that is the tactic being used against us.
ReplyDeleteThe more those in *authority* promote fear without any basis whatever in Canon Law (something they know, but most regular folk do not) the more they are able to divide those who could otherwise join forces and be strong.
The Magisterium promotes heresy for political reasons ?
ReplyDeleteThe popes, the teaching authority of the Catholic Church ( magisterium) pleases the political Left. It does not identify the Marchetti heresy.It has allowed an irrationality to enter theology.
It does not correct the false inference from 1949.Instead it has made the error the basis of a 'new theology'. It is a factual error. The error ( new theology) is linked to Pope Pius XII.The pope who cannot be beatified because the Jewish Left objects.
They have welcomed the beatification of Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI, who opened and closed Vatican Council II.This was Vatican Council II interpreted with the Marchetti premise.Without the premise the Council would be Feeneyite and objectionable for them.
There are two important points that Pope Francis and Pope Benedict may have intentionally overlooked. It could be intentional since there are so many reports on the Internet which identify it. To please the political Left they do not clarify these two points.
1) Before 1949 no Church document stated that there were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It was never said that salvation in Heaven in any form, was explicit in personal cases.Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 inferred this.
2) In 1949 no one personally knew of any one saved outside the Church i.e without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7).They could not name anyone.
So to reject a defined dogma,defined by three Church Councils, with this irrational reasoning is heresy.It also changes the interpretation of the Nicene Creed and Vatican Council II. This is magisterial heresy.
The Magisterium does not announce that Vatican Council II really says all need to convert into the Church and Catholics are the new people of God, the Chosen People. Vatican Council II indicates that we really cannot have a reasonable hope that all men are saved, and that all Jews, Muslims and Christians ( non Catholics) in Rome, are on the way to Hell ,unless they convert into the only Church Jesus founded.1
Instead the Curia at Vatican City assumes that Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance) etc refer to known cases in the present times (1965-2015).So they have an explicit exception, in LG 16, to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. This results in a new theology, a new ecclesiology.
They dead who are now saved and are safe in Heaven are explicit exceptions on earth! They are explicit exceptions (to all needing 'faith and baptism' )for the popes and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
So 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' (Nicene Creed) is changed into 'I believe in three or more KNOWN baptisms for the forgiveness of sins. They are the baptisms of desire, blood, seeds of the Word (AG 11), elements of sanctification and truth (LG 8), invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) etc.These are baptisms without the baptisms of water since there are is known salvation outside the Church.'
This is irrational, non traditional and heretical.It is a first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths.
This is magisterial heresy which the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX), Franciscans of the Immaculate,traditionalist and conservative Catholics have to accept to avoid being labelled schismatic, heretical, etc.
-Lionel Andrades
1
VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/vatican-council-ii-says.html
What was Fr. Hardons error that Cd. Burke approved? Just trying to keep up.
ReplyDeleteLionel:
Fr.John Hardon's error was that he made an irrational inference. He assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance or with implicit desire referred to personally known, nameable cases in the present times.This was a false inference.This then became a false premise for him. Since he concluded that these cases of persons saved, this category of people, now in Heaven, were explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water, in the present times.They were exceptions to all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. So based on the wrong premise, he wrongly concluded that every one did not defacto, in the present times, need to enter the Church for salvation. He used an irrational premise ( the dead-saved are visible on earth) which resulted in an irrational conclusion ( everyone does not have to defacto enter the Church).
Since he assumed that salvation in Heaven is explicit for us, those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance, became exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So for him every one did not have to become a formal member of the Church, but only they had to, who were not in invinciblle ignorance.While those who knew about Jesus and the Church and yet did not enter were on the way to Hell.So he changed the original teaching which said all with Original Sin need the baptism of water.
This was the original mistake made by the Holy Office and the Archdiocese of Boston in 1949 when they assumed that a category of people now in Heaven were objective exceptions on earth to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Fr.Hardon wrote an article on outside the Church there is no salvation in which he repeated this mistake.Also as a consultant to the Holy See on the Catechism of the Catholic Church he let this error pass conspicuously in CCC 1257 (The Necessity of Baptism) and with confusion in CCC 846 (Outside the Church No Salvation).
Cardinal Raymond Burke approved this article by Fr.Hardon. Cardinal Buke also recommends the Catechism of the Catholic Church which incorporates this confusion while he has never affirmed the traditional strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is also observed in Cardinal Raymond Burke's criticism of Vatican Council II. Salvation in Heaven is an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma. So LG 16,LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to visible in the flesh cases in 2015. Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors for Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke. It is a break with the traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities.This was also Fr.John Hardon's mistake.
If salvation in Heaven was not explicit, seen in the flesh for them, then there would be nothing in Vatican Counicl II to contradict the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Vatican Council II would be Feeneyite.It would not contradict the traditional teaching on non Catholics needing to convert into the Church to avoid Hell. Since the ecclesiology would still be traditional.-Lionel Andrades