Sunday, April 15, 2012

Theologian John Lamont on Rome vis-à-vis SSPX

A THEOLOGIAN'S QUESTIONS

by John R. T. Lamont

Source: Sandro Magister, www.chiesa (April 13, 2012):
In a communiqué of March 16th 2012, the Holy See has announced that Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior-General of the Society of St. Pius X, FSSPX, has been informed that the Society's response to the Doctrinal Preamble presented to them by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been judged to be "not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems that are at the basis of the rift between the Holy See and the aforesaid Society" (in the original French of the press release, "n’est pas suffisante pour surmonter les problèmes doctrinaux qui sont à la base de la fracture entre le Saint-Siège et ladite Fraternité.") The press release does not make clear whether this judgment is made on the part of the CDF and approved by the Pope, or is the judgment of the Pope himself. The judgement is the latest step in a process of discussion on doctrinal issues between the CDF and the FSSPX. The nature and seriousness of this judgment raises important questions for a Catholic theologian; the purpose of this article is to ask these questions.

The secrecy of the doctrinal talks in question makes comment on the judgment difficult. The reason for this secrecy is hard to grasp, because the topics of discussion do not concern practical details of a canonical settlement – which would clearly have benefited from confidentiality – but matters of faith and doctrine, that concern not only the parties involved but all believing Catholics. However, enough has been publicly stated about the position of the FSSPX to permit an evaluation of the situation. There are two things that need to be considered here: the rift between the Holy See and the FSSPX that has been produced by the doctrinal problems in question, and the nature of the doctrinal problems themselves.

In a response to a study of the doctrinal authority of the Second Vatican Council by Bp. Fernando Ocáriz, Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize FSSPX has listed the elements of that council that the FSSPX find unacceptable.

"On at least four points, the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are obviously in logical contradiction to the pronouncements of the previous traditional Magisterium, so that it is impossible to interpret them in keeping with the other teachings already contained in the earlier documents of the Church’s Magisterium. Vatican II has thus broken the unity of the Magisterium, to the same extent to which it has broken the unity of its object.

"These four points are as follows.

"The doctrine on religious liberty, as it is expressed in no. 2 of the Declaration 'Dignitatis humanae,' contradicts the teachings of Gregory XVI in 'Mirari vos' and of Pius IX in 'Quanta cura' as well as those of Pope Leo XIII in 'Immortale Dei' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Quas primas.'

"The doctrine on the Church, as it is expressed in no. 8 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius XII in 'Mystici corporis' and 'Humani generis.'

"The doctrine on ecumenism, as it is expressed in no. 8 of 'Lumen gentium' and no. 3 of the Decree 'Unitatis redintegratio,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius IX in propositions 16 and 17 of the 'Syllabus,' those of Leo XIII in 'Satis cognitum,' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Mortalium animos.'

"The doctrine on collegiality, as it is expressed in no. 22 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' including no. 3 of the 'Nota praevia' [Explanatory Note], contradicts the teachings of the First Vatican Council on the uniqueness of the subject of supreme power in the Church, in the Constitution 'Pastor aeternus'."

Fr. Gleize participated in the doctrinal discussions between the FSSPX and the Roman authorities, as did Bp. Ocáriz himself. We may reasonably take his statement as a description of the doctrinal points upon which the FSSPX will not compromise, and that are taken by the Holy See to inevitably give rise to a rift.


Vatican II as the reason for the rift?


The first question that occurs to a theologian concerning the FSSPX position concerns the issue of the authority of the Second Vatican Council. The article by Bp. Ocáriz discussed by Fr. Gleize, which was published in the December 2nd 2011 issue of "L'Osservatore Romano," seems to claim that a rejection of the authority of Vatican II is the basis for the rift referred to by the Holy See. But for anyone familiar with both the theological position of the FSSPX and the climate of theological opinion in the Catholic Church, this claim is hard to understand. The points mentioned by Fr. Gleize are only four of the voluminous teachings of Vatican II. The FSSPX does not reject Vatican II in its entirety: on the contrary, Bishop Fellay has stated that the society accepts 95% of its teachings. This means that the FSSPX is more loyal to the teachings of Vatican II than much of the clergy and hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

Consider the following assertions of that council:

"Dei Verbum" 11:

"Holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted."

"Dei Verbum" 19:

"The four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1)."

"Lumen gentium" 3:

"As often as the sacrifice of the cross in which Christ our Passover was sacrificed, is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried on."

"Lumen gentium" 8:

"But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element."

"Lumen gentium" 10:

"Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood are nonetheless interrelated: each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, teaches and rules the priestly people; acting in the person of Christ, he makes present the Eucharistic sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. But the faithful, in virtue of their royal priesthood, join in the offering of the Eucharist. They likewise exercise that priesthood in receiving the sacraments, in prayer and thanksgiving, in the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity."

"Lumen gentium" 14:

"Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church."

"Gaudium et spes" 48:

"By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children, and find in them their ultimate crown."

"Gaudium et spes" 51:

"Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes."

The vast majority of theologians in Catholic institutions in Europe, North America, and Australasia would reject most or all of these teachings. These theologians are followed by the majority of religious orders and a substantial part of the bishops in these areas. It would be difficult, for example, to find a Jesuit teaching theology in any Jesuit institution who would accept a single one of them. The texts above are only a selection from the teachings of Vatican II that are rejected by these groups; they could be extended to many times the number.

Such teachings however form part of the 95% of Vatican II that the FSSPX accepts. Unlike the 5% of that council rejected by the FSSPX, however, the teachings given above are central to Catholic faith and morals, and include some of the fundamental teachings of Christ himself.

The first question that the communiqué of the Holy See raises for a theologian is thus: why does the rejection by the FSSPX of a small part of the teachings of Vatican II give rise to a rift between that Society and the Holy See, while the rejection of more numerous and important teachings of Vatican II by other groups in the Church leave these groups in good standing and possessed of full canonical status? Rejection of the authority of Vatican II by the FSSPX cannot be the answer to this question; the FSSPX in fact shows more respect for the authority of Vatican II than most of the religious orders in the Church.

It is relevant that the texts of Vatican II that are rejected by the FSSPX are accepted by the groups within the Church that reject other teachings of that council. One might then suppose that it is these specific texts – on religious liberty, the Church, ecumenism, and collegiality – that are the problem. The rift between the Holy See and the FSSPX arises because the Society rejects these particular elements of Vatican II, not because of an intention on the part of the Holy See to defend Vatican II as a whole. The rift does not arise with the groups outside the Society that reject far more of Vatican II, because these groups accept these particular elements. But if this is the case, the first question simply reoccurs with greater force.


Problems with Catholic doctrine?


If the rift between the Holy See and the FSSPX does not arise from rejection of the authority of the Second Vatican Council by the Society, it could be the case that the rift arises from the doctrinal position of the FSSPX in itself. There are after all two sides to the position of the FSSPX on Vatican II. One side is the claim that certain statements of Vatican II are false and should not be accepted; this is the side that refuses the authority of the council. The other side is the positive description of the doctrines that should be accepted in the place of these supposedly false statements. This latter side is the more important aspect of the debate between the FSSPX and the Roman authorities. After all, the purpose for the existence of magisterial teachings is to communicate true doctrines to Catholics, and their authority over Catholics stems from this purpose. This side of the FSSPX's position consists in positions on the doctrines that Catholics should believe, positions that do not in themselves make claims about the content or authority of Vatican II. We must consider whether these positions can give rise to a rift between the Holy See and the FSSPX.

In judging the doctrinal position of the FSSPX, it must be remembered that there is an essential difference between the position of the FSSPX on Vatican II and the position of those elements within the Church who reject the teachings from "Dei Verbum," "Lumen gentium," and "Gaudium et spes" listed above. The latter group simply holds that certain doctrines of the Catholic Church are not true. They reject Catholic teaching, full stop. The FSSPX, on the other hand, does not claim that the teaching of the Catholic Church is false. Instead, it claims that some of the assertions of Vatican II contradict other magisterial teachings that have greater authority, and hence that accepting the doctrines of the Catholic Church requires accepting these more authoritative teachings and rejecting the small proportion of errors in Vatican II. It asserts that the actual teaching of the Catholic Church is to be found in the earlier and more authoritative statements.

The positive doctrinal position of the FSSPX, then, consists in upholding the teachings of part magisterial pronouncements. The most important of the pronouncements in question are listed by Fr. Gleize: Gregory XVI's encyclical "Mirari vos," Pius IX's encyclical "Quanta cura" and his "Syllabus," Leo XIII's encyclicals "Immortale Dei" and "Satis cognitum," Pius XI's encyclicals "Quas primas" and "Mortalium animos," Pius XII's encyclicals "Mystici corporis" and "Humani generis," and the First Vatican Council's Constitution "Pastor aeternus." These are all magisterial pronouncements of great authority, and in some cases they include infallible dogmatic definitions – which is not the case with the Second Vatican Council itself.

This raises the second question concerning the position of the Holy See on the FSSPX that suggests itself to a theologian: how can there be any objection to the FSSPX upholding the truth of magisterial pronouncements of great authority?

This question really answers itself. There can be no such objection. If the position of the FSSPX on doctrine itself is to be judged objectionable, it must be claimed that this position is not what these magisterial pronouncements actually teach, and hence that the FSSPX falsifies the meaning of these pronouncements. This claim is not easy to sustain, because when these earlier pronouncements were promulgated, they gave rise to a very substantial body of theological work that aimed at their interpretation. The meaning that the FSSPX ascribes to them is derived from this body of work, and corresponds to how these pronouncements were understood at the time they were made.

This fact gives more point and urgency to the third question that occurs to a theologian: what do these pronouncements actually teach, if it is not what the FSSPX say that they teach?

The answer that many will offer is that the real meanings of these pronouncements are given by, or are at least in harmony with, the texts of the Second Vatican Council that the FSSPX rejects. We can accept this answer as true, but that will not help in answering the question. The texts of Vatican II do not offer much explanation of the meaning of these previous pronouncements. For example, "Dignitatis humanae" simply states that its teaching "leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ." This offers no explanation of the content of this doctrine.

The inadequacy of this answer leads to the fourth question, which is: what is the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church on the points that are in dispute between the FSSPX and the Holy See?

No doubt the doctrinal discussions between these two parties involved an examination of this question, but the confidentiality of these discussions leaves the rest of the Church in the dark on this subject. Without an answer to this fourth question, there is no prospect of an answer to the fifth question, which is: why do the doctrinal positions of the FSSPX give rise to a rift between the Society and the Holy See?

But this fifth question, significant as it is, does not have the importance of the fourth question. The nature of the teaching of the Catholic Church on religious freedom, ecumenism, the Church, and collegiality, is of great importance to all Catholics. The questions raised by the discussions between the Holy See and the FSSPX thus concern the whole Church, not merely the parties to the discussion.
John Lamont holds a degree in philosophy from Oxford and in theology in Ottawa with the great Dominican theologian Jean-Marie Tillard. He lives in Australia and teaches in Sydney at the Catholic Institute and at the University of Notre Dame, with the canonical mandate of the archdiocese for the teaching of theology.

His previous articles include
:Updates on the CDF-SSPX discussions may be found HERE.


30 comments:








Catholic Mission

said...

Saturday, April 14, 2012
LIGHT OF THE WORLD ERROR SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO REAL DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE VATICAN AND THE SSPX
Once we realize that we cannot telephone or fax someone saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience the problem is resolved.We have to look at Vatican Council II in a different way.


Why cannot all Catholic religious communities Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, Society of St.Pius X etc affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also implicit baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience, the seeds of the Word etc?


The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has just to take the first step to resolve the Society of St.Pius X problem by announcing that :
‘the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience, the seeds of the Word etc are known only to God.’

This is obvious! It is a non controversial statement.Other misundestandings will end.


Example, in the following analysis written by John R. T. Lamont expressly for www.chiesa there are four points of seemingly disunity. (1) In reality there is no disunity.


1.
John R. T. Lamont "The doctrine on religious liberty, as it is expressed in no. 2 of the Declaration 'Dignitatis humanae,' contradicts the teachings of Gregory XVI in 'Mirari vos' and of Pius IX in 'Quanta cura' as well as those of Pope Leo XIII in 'Immortale Dei' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Quas primas.'





Lionel:
N.13 Mirari Vos states :'Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained…'



Vatican Council II does not opppose the encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI (1832) on this point of religious indifferentism. Since Ad Gentes 7 states all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (to avoid Hell).This is the same teaching as the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There are no known exceptions to this teaching since we do not know any case on earth of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience(LG 16). We accept the possibility of a non Catholic being saved in invicible ignorance but just like the Church Fathers, popes, Councils and saints we do not claim that there are defacto known cases. Vatican Council II also does not make this claim.So the Vatican Council II text does not promote religious indifferentism.


continued





Catholic Mission

said...

continued
14 Mirari Vos . 'This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone.'


Note well that it is the religious indifferentism which gives rise 'to claims of liberty of conscience' which 'must be maintained for everyone.'



Once we are clear that outside the church there is no salvation and there are no known exceptions (AG 7,LG 14) and that Catholics are 'the new people of God '(NA 4) we realize that everyone is physically free (according to the present laws in many countries) to defacto follow their conscience.However in principle (de jure) every one on earth needs to be a Catholic for salvation(to avoid Hell) according to Vatican Council II (AG 7).



So we accept the Social Reign of Jesus Christ, that Jesus must be the centre of all political and social institions. In principle we hold this belief and in this manner interpret Dignitatis Humane 2.i.e outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and we have the liberty of conscience to express this ancient teaching ,in principle, while ackowledging that many political states in the present times permit a person to follow his conscience while other countries do not (Islamic,Communist etc).



Vatican Council II states that a non Catholic is free to follow his conscience in the sense that God also leaves us free to follow our conscience good or bad.The Council does not say that we have an obligation to follow evil and a bad conscience.Much of the Council’s writing is positive and orients us towards God and a good conscience. So this is what we need to emphasize.Everyone knows what is good in their heart and we should follow it, we follow the natural law and the teaching of a good conscience. We reject the teaching of a bad conscience and no where does Vatican Council II state that we must follow a bad conscience.

2.
John R. T. Lamont "The doctrine on the Church, as it is expressed in no. 8 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius XII in 'Mystici corporis' and 'Humani generis.'



Lionel:
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has clarified that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church (subsistit it).


When Lumen Gentium 8 refers to ‘elements of sanctifciation’ we accept it as a possibility. Only God can know who is saved with elements of sanctification. Since we cannot judge these cases on earth it does not contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

continued





Catholic Mission

said...

continued
3.
John R. T. Lamont
"The doctrine on ecumenism, as it is expressed in no. 8 of 'Lumen gentium' and no. 3 of the Decree 'Unitatis redintegratio,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius IX in propositions 16 and 17 of the 'Syllabus,' those of Leo XIII in 'Satis cognitum,' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Mortalium animos.'


Lionel:
Unitatis redintegratio n.3 like Lumen Gentium 8 refers to goodness and sanctification which can be founded among Christians. We accept that a Protestant or Orthodox Christian can be saved ‘in certain circumstances’(Letter of the Holy Office 1949) and it will be known only to God. The ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (AG 7).All Christians need Catholic Faith for salvation (to avoid Hell) (AG 7).So there is no contradiction between UR 3,LG 8 and ‘the dogma’, which Pope Pius XII called an an ‘infallible’statement.(Letter of the Holy Office 1949). The dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence states Jews, heretics (Protestants) and schismatics (Orthodox Christians) need to convert into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.


4.
John R. T. Lamont
"The doctrine on collegiality, as it is expressed in no. 22 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' including no. 3 of the 'Nota praevia' [Explanatory Note], contradicts the teachings of the First Vatican Council on the uniqueness of the subject of supreme power in the Church, in the Constitution 'Pastor aeternus'."


Lionel:
‘All men are called to this union with Christ, who is the light of the world, from whom we go forth, through whom we live, and toward whom our whole life strains.’-Lumen Gentium 3. Yes, as Dominus Iesus 20 says Jesus died for all men and salvation is open to all, it is universal, however to receive it, all need to respond by entering the Church; the Church is necessary. The ordinary means of salvation is the Catholic Church.(AG 7, Redemptoris Missio 55 etc). So there is no contradiction between the First and Second Vatican Council II on this issue. Similarly collegiality as expressed in LG 22 does not conflict with the Church teaching that ‘submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.’(Letter of the Holy Office 1949).
-Lionel Andrades


1.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350219?eng=y

_______________________________________________

Friday, April 13, 2012
'Light of the World' p.107 expresses Pope Benedict’s personal opinion or is the ordinary magisterium: the pope wrongly assumes those saved in invincible ignorance are known exceptions to the dogma and the SSPX position on ecumenism and non Catholic religions
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/light-of-world-p107-expresses-pope.html


Friday, April 13, 2012
So would the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Vatican excommunicate me when I say I reject the liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II but accept Vatican Council II according to Tradition and a continuation with the defined dogma ? I can accept the SSPX's position on other religions as being the teaching of Vatican Council II.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/so-would-congregation-for-doctrine-of.html

Tuesday, April 10, 2012
HOLY FATHER ASSUMES THOSE SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE ARE KNOWN TO US: CONTRADICTS VATICAN COUNCIL I AND II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/holy-father-assumes-those-saved-in.html
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/light-of-world-error-shows-that-there.html





Catholic Mission

said...

continued
3.
John R. T. Lamont
"The doctrine on ecumenism, as it is expressed in no. 8 of 'Lumen gentium' and no. 3 of the Decree 'Unitatis redintegratio,' contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius IX in propositions 16 and 17 of the 'Syllabus,' those of Leo XIII in 'Satis cognitum,' and those of Pope Pius XI in 'Mortalium animos.'


Lionel:
Unitatis redintegratio n.3 like Lumen Gentium 8 refers to goodness and sanctification which can be founded among Christians. We accept that a Protestant or Orthodox Christian can be saved ‘in certain circumstances’(Letter of the Holy Office 1949) and it will be known only to God. The ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (AG 7).All Christians need Catholic Faith for salvation (to avoid Hell) (AG 7).So there is no contradiction between UR 3,LG 8 and ‘the dogma’, which Pope Pius XII called an an ‘infallible’statement.(Letter of the Holy Office 1949). The dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence states Jews, heretics (Protestants) and schismatics (Orthodox Christians) need to convert into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.


4.
John R. T. Lamont
"The doctrine on collegiality, as it is expressed in no. 22 of the Constitution 'Lumen gentium,' including no. 3 of the 'Nota praevia' [Explanatory Note], contradicts the teachings of the First Vatican Council on the uniqueness of the subject of supreme power in the Church, in the Constitution 'Pastor aeternus'."


Lionel:
‘All men are called to this union with Christ, who is the light of the world, from whom we go forth, through whom we live, and toward whom our whole life strains.’-Lumen Gentium 3. Yes, as Dominus Iesus 20 says Jesus died for all men and salvation is open to all, it is universal, however to receive it, all need to respond by entering the Church; the Church is necessary. The ordinary means of salvation is the Catholic Church.(AG 7, Redemptoris Missio 55 etc). So there is no contradiction between the First and Second Vatican Council II on this issue. Similarly collegiality as expressed in LG 22 does not conflict with the Church teaching that ‘submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.’(Letter of the Holy Office 1949).
-Lionel Andrades


1.
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350219?eng=y

_______________________________________________

Friday, April 13, 2012
'Light of the World' p.107 expresses Pope Benedict’s personal opinion or is the ordinary magisterium: the pope wrongly assumes those saved in invincible ignorance are known exceptions to the dogma and the SSPX position on ecumenism and non Catholic religions
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/light-of-world-p107-expresses-pope.html


Friday, April 13, 2012
So would the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Vatican excommunicate me when I say I reject the liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II but accept Vatican Council II according to Tradition and a continuation with the defined dogma ? I can accept the SSPX's position on other religions as being the teaching of Vatican Council II.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/so-would-congregation-for-doctrine-of.html

Tuesday, April 10, 2012
HOLY FATHER ASSUMES THOSE SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE ARE KNOWN TO US: CONTRADICTS VATICAN COUNCIL I AND II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/holy-father-assumes-those-saved-in.html
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/light-of-world-error-shows-that-there.html





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear Dr. As the Abbe de Nantes pointed out lo these many years ago, 88, eighty eight, Bishop voted against Nostra Aetate and yet they left the Council in union with the Pope;

A study, from the doctrinal angle, by Mgr Carli, Bishop of Segni, failed to influence the bishops and on 28th October, the day of its promulgation, the opposition had, in the presence of the Pope, dwindled to 88 against 2221.

...We must declare our solidarity with those Council Fathers who persisted in opposing the text. At least the fact that neither the Pope nor the Council issued any formal condemnation against them for refusing to accept their reinterpretation of Scripture and Tradition shows that the Church’s infallibility remains…


If 88 Bishops participating at the Council were at liberty to reject one or more of the Documents (Fr Harrison has also noted Bishops voting against other Documents) and were permitted to leave the Council having not beem constrained to change their vote or be excommunicated then why is the SSPX being constrained to accept all of the council?

Is it because the 88 Bishops rejection of at least part of V2 has been accomplished sub rosa whereas the SSSPX's rejection is public?

It can not be that silly of a reason, can it?

I agree that by their nature, all ecumenical councils are infallible, and so, for me at least, the proof of infallibility is that the Holy Ghost led them to teach in a pastoral and not a doctrinal way that would be binding on all

If 88 Bishops can vote against Nostra Aetate while maintaining unity, then the Magisterium must take a decision to tell us just what it and is not binding in V2 ; as it now stands, then telling us that it is all binding when it clearly was not is clearly wrong





Alan Aversa

said...

He seems like a very good theologian. As I posted on this Rorate Cœli post:

Also, check out some of Lamont's The Thomist articles:

"DETERMINING THE CONTENT AND DEGREE OF
AUTHORITY OF CHURCH TEACHINGS
" 72 (2008): 371-407
"CONSCIENCE, FREEDOM, RIGHTS:
IDOLS OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT RELIGION
" 73 (2009): 169-239


He's certainly a Gherardinian.





Anonymous

said...

This is at variance with Rorate Caeli's posts, which seem to indicate that an agreement may be forthcoming.

The issues outlined here are the same they have always been.





Ralph Roister-Doister

said...

I don't expect John Lamont to come out and say it, nor do I claim any special ability to read his mind, but IMO it would be hard for a man of his capacity not to at least appreciate the view that, given the consternation that V2 has caused, not only through the dishonesty of some of its promoters, but also through its own internal contradictions, it would be better for the Church if the windows had never been thrown open, the buds of the great springtime had been frozen in place, and the council cancelled in favor of a collegial, team-building, you-fall-and-I'll-catch-you exercise for ecclesial middle managers. Regardless of what happens in the current round of talks, the burden of this council will weigh heavily on the Church for decades to come.





Anonymous

said...

Shout-out to Spartacus: I haven't heard a reference to Bishop Carli of Segni in a long time!





I am not Spartacus

said...

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has clarified that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church (subsistit it).

Dear Catholic Mission. The CDF has produced conflicting explanations in trying to nail down the meaning of that word. In the more than forty years since the end of the bestest council ever, the Magisterium clearly has not clarified anything as it pertains to subsists; it is yet one more example of the flux and fog that has followed this council in its non-infallible doctrinal novelties.

http://tinyurl.com/c4hhwrd

No such difficulty would exist had the Council clearly taught that the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church. PERIOD!!!

There is only one true Church. All other christian entities are not worthy of the name Church, least of all the orthodox entity.





JM

said...

emExactamundo!

"The FSSPX does not reject Vatican II in its entirety: on the contrary, Bishop Fellay has stated that the society accepts 95% of its teachings. This means that the FSSPX is more loyal to the teachings of Vatican II than much of the clergy and hierarchy of the Catholic Church.





Catholic Mission

said...

subsistit it


MONDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2012
CARDINAL DESIGNATE FR. KARL BECKER SAYS THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ONLY
Fr. Karl Josef Becker, S.J.,cardinal designate says the Church of Christ is identified with the Catholic Church. The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. (1)

The Jesuit priest who is to be made a cardinal this week is saying extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The true Church of Christ exists in only the Catholic Church he says and elements of this one true Church could exist in the Orthodox Christian churches and those in partial communion with the Catholic Church.(2)

The cardinal designate is affirming the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says all need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. The dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence specifically mentions the Orthodox Christians and Protestants.

According to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.

Lumen Gentium 8 and 16 suggest that there is the possibility of a non Catholic being saved however since these cases are not defacto known to us Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma.-Lionel Andrades

1.
An Examination of Subsistit in: A Profound Theological Perspective
Fr. Karl Josef Becker, S.J. http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/subsistitin.htm

2.

But the Council had chosen the word subsistit exactly in order to make clear that one sole 'subsistence' of the true Church exists, whereas outside her visible structure only elementa Ecclesiae exist; these —
being elements of the same Church — tend and conduct toward the Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium, n. 8)".
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/02/cardinal-designate-fr-karl-becker-says.html





Catholic Mission

said...

Msgr. Guido Pozzo could announce Vatican Council II agrees with literal interpretation of dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus while Nostra Aetate says Catholics are the ‘new people of God’ : pope made an error in Light of the World- all this is relevant to the Vatican-SSPX differences

For political reasons Ecclesia Dei is not admitting the truth about Vatican Council II.


Msgr. Guido Pozzo Secretary of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” – the Vatican body charged with helping to bring reconciliation with the SSPX - said “we haven’t yet received a response” but he added that the fraternity have “preannounced they will arrive at a final clarification, therefore I am hoping that at the beginning of next week we’ll be able to know their position and then take consequent positions.” (1)

NO DOCTRINAL DIFFERENCES

There are no doctrinal differences between the Vatican and the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) if Ecclesia Dei announces that Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) (2) is in agreement with the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also with Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II on invincible ignorance and those saved with a good conscience (3).

LG 16 is not an explicit exception to the dogma or AG 7.Since we do not know any case saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience.We accept these cases as possibilities. Defacto we can never know anyone saved with a good conscience etc.They are known only in Heaven.


Secondly Nostra Aetate 4 says Catholics are the ‘new people of God’.Catholics are the Chosen People now.

These two points are in agreement with the SSPX position that all non Catholics need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.This was the traditional teaching and it is the teaching after Vatican Council II.Msgr. Guido Pozzo needs to announce that this is the teaching of Vatican Council II according to the text and the Catholic Church.

This very message in a comment on Rorate Caeli was pulled down on April 14,2012. (4)

If Mnsgr. Guido Pozzo makes the required announcment then many people will realize that rationally there can only be one interpretation of Vatican Council on this subject. Since the former interpretation, the liberal one, assumes LG 16 etc are explicit exceptions to the dogma which says all need to convert into the Church for salvation.

The Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI wrongly assumes in Light of the World p.107 that those saved in invincible ignorance etc are known to us and so they are exceptions to the traditional understanding of the dogma.(6)

Pope Benedict XVI also approved two theological papers of the International Theological Commission (ITC) in which the same factual error has been made. The error was that Vatican Council II metnions exceptions to the traditional teaching of exclusive salvation being there only in the Catholic Church.(7)

T
Lionel Andrades


1
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/vatican-hoping-to-make-sspx-announcement-early-next-week

continued





Catholic Mission

said...

continued
The President of the ITC was Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, who is now the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican.While the Secretary of the ITC was Bishop Morerod. They both represented the Vatican in talks with the SSPX. There were differences on ecumenism and other religions since the Vatican-side used a false premise (that of visible cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance).So they postulated wrongly that Vatican Council II contradicts AG 7 and the dogma.They assumed that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on other religions and ecumenism after Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

This is also the Rabbi Rosen-ADL interpretation of Vatican Council II. So for political reasons the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith may not want to make this announcement.It would be ‘peaceful’ to accept the false interpretation of Vatican Council II which is objectively wrong regarding LG 16, since physically, in real life, we cannot identify any such case saved in invincible ignorance.

Members of the SSPX and other Catholics can hold Press Conferences and peaceful demonstrations appealing to the pope to uphold Vatican Council II.
Lionel Andrades



1
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/vatican-hoping-to-make-sspx-announcement-early-next-week


2.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:45), "neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4:12). 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.

continued





Catholic Mission

said...

continued
3.
Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.



4.
Sunday, April 15, 2012

RORATE CAELI PULLS DOWN COMMENT: 'WHY CANNOT ALL CARDINALS,BISHOPS, RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES AFFIRM THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS AND ALSO IMPLICIT BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND BEING SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE'
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/rorate-caeli-pulls-down-comment-why.html

6.
Pope Benedict XVI’s objective,factual error in Light of the World(Ignatius) p.107 is contributing to widespread liberalism and dissent in the Catholic Church.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/search/label/Light%20of%20the%20World


7.
International Theological Commission (ITC) makes an objective, factual error in two of its published documents. Could they also be wrong about Limbo?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commission_2687.html

VATICAN'S INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION MAKES AN ERROR IN ITS POSITION PAPER CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/vaticans-international-theological.html#links

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION USES PREMISE THAT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT : LIMBO
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commission_29.html

The International Theological Commission's position paper Christianity and the World Religions 1997 has an objective factual error and is approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger : invincible ignorance is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commissions.html

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION ASSUMES ‘SEEDS OF THE WORD’ (VATICAN COUNCIL II ) IN OTHER RELIGIONS ARE KNOWN TO US AND THIS IS AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/international-theological-commission.html

VATICAN'S INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION MAKES AN ERROR IN ITS POSITION PAPER CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/vaticans-international-theological.html

VATICAN COUNCIL II REJECTS THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/vatican-council-ii-rejects-theology-of.html

Former Secretary of the International Theological Commission holds that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are known to us and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/02/secretary-of-international-theological.html#links





Catholic Mission

said...

VATICAN COUNCIL II IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SSPX POSITION ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, ECUMENISM AND OTHER RELIGIONS
The Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) has criticized the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) recent document on religious liberty.Here is the text of their review with brief comments.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/vatican-council-ii-is-in-agreement-with.html





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear Anonymous, they don't make men like Bishop Carli anymore.

Here he is during the Council speaking the truth about The Jews:

http://tinyurl.com/6wsbxhs

and here he is after the Council still speaking the truth about The Jews and which truths did not amuse the Jews

http://tinyurl.com/7a9nu65

Bishop Carli was a man whose Theology was the same before, during, and after the Council; that is, his was not a theology of rupture but a theology of continuity in synch with Tradition and yet he was not declared a schismatic or, officially, condemned as not be in full union with the Pope, whereas the SSPX is.

C'est la vie.

In this execrable ecclesiastical epoch, it must be written by those of us born into the Catholic Church prior to V2 that our existence is a bit like a script scenario pitched to the producers of "Twilight Zone," but rejected as "too weird" even for that show; I mean a scenario in which the Cradle Catholics sees that everything is different while at the same time he is being told that nothing has changed.





Sam Schmitt

said...

"No such difficulty would exist had the Council clearly taught that the Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church. PERIOD!!!"

Then there is the problem of explaining how "some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church" as the Decree on Ecumenism #3 says. Saying that the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are co-terminous would exclude (at last by implication) the Orthodox having all seven sacraments, for example.





Catholic Mission

said...

VATICAN COUNCIL II IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SSPX POSITION ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, ECUMENISM AND OTHER RELIGIONS
The Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) has criticized the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) recent document on religious liberty.Here is the text of their review with brief comments.

“Our First,Most Cherished Liberty”:

A problematic document

The USCCB’s Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty has just published “A Statement on Religious Liberty” titled, “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty”. This exhortation is filled with erroneous statements and tragic historical examples from our country’s history when certain Catholic principles were compromised – which the USCCB holds up as shining examples of Catholicism.

In the first place, the Faith teaches that our most cherished liberty is our liberation from Original Sin and the consequences that follow (eternal death), which Our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ has obtained for us through His Passion, Death, and Resurrection.

Lionel: Yes our most cherished liberty is our liberation from Original Sin and the consequences that follow and this is also the message of Vatican Council II (AG 7).

As for man’s “liberty”, mankind has been endowed with free will, but only to use for good – that which corresponds with Truth (i.e., Christ and His Church) – but not to do evil. Or as the Catechism asks: “Why did God create you?” Thus error never has any rights. However, the secularistic and anti-Catholic principle of religious liberty denies this reality and instead, makes error equal to Truth.

Lionel:Dignitatis Humanae,Vatican Council II can be interpreted as saying man has the freedom to use his conscience wisely, to use his good conscience.

Certainly we must fight for the liberty of the Catholic Church – that is, the ability for her to fulfill her divine mission to save souls, promote the faith (particularly in society) and enact the corporal acts of mercy. However, this is a much different thing than defending religious liberty, a false notion that originated with the Protestants and condemned as an error under the generic title of “Liberalism”.[1]

Unfortunately, the USCCB is exhorting Catholics to legitimately defend the Church’s liberty via the false principle of “religious liberty” – and in doing so, has presented a series of historical fallacies from our country’s ecclesiastical history which exemplifies another error: “Americanism”, condemned by Pope Leo XIII in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae.

Regarding these historical examples of Americanism, we refer our readers to the excellent articles of the late Dr. Justin Walsh published in The Angelus magazine from February 1999 to September 2000[2]; chief amongst them is “Heresy Blossoms Like a Rose”.

Dr. Walsh’s articles deal specifically with the historical infection of Americanism amongst the United States hierarchy and many of their practical consequences. From these it is easy to see how the Americanist error eventually crossed the Atlantic and strongly influenced the Second Vatican Council’s document on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, which most of the American hierarchy strongly supported and advocated.

Lionel : Dignitatis Humanae can also be interpreted as a continuity with Tradition.

continued
CONTINUED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/vatican-council-ii-is-in-agreement-with.html





Catholic Mission

said...

continued
Since there is only salvation in the Catholic Church and we believe that there are no known exceptions on earth and this being the message of Vatican Council II we believe in in principle there should be no separation of Church and State.All political and social institutions should be subject to the pope or his representative and be based on the teachings or ethos of the Catholic Church.


De jure in principle this is what we maintain and how we interpret Dignitatis Humanae while recognizing that secular political governments have the defacto right to make laws, even though they are opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church.Defacto the Church has no power as in the past.


It is tragic that the United States’ bishops who attended the Council (and those who came after) did not heed their fellow American, Msgr. Joseph Fenton (+1969), who vigorously fought the errors of religious liberty via his editorship of the American Ecclesiastical Review and his books. Instead the hierarchy thought that cozying up to the liberal establishment would bring to the American Church peace. But as it was not based upon Truth, it was ultimately a false peace and doomed to fail as we are seeing today.


Lionel: Bishops who attended the Council and also Msgr.Joseph Fenton unfortunately did not realize the error of visibly known invincible ingnorance and the baptism of desire. They did not realize that they are not explicit exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the error picked up also by the SSPX priests Fr.Peter Scott and Fr.Francois Laisney.


When they considered that there were defacto exceptions to the dogma, then they had to assume that Vatican Council II contradicts this defined dogma. Then they have to accept liberals making the same error and saying that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching on the dogma. So the SSPX position on ecumenism and inter religious dialogue is rejected. So is their position on religious liberty.


In reality Vatican Council II is in agreement with the SSPX position on ecumenis, inter religious dialogue and religious liberty.It's how you interpret Vatican Council II.


It is thus that we are today witnessing the fulfillment of the famous quip “the revolution eats it own”. We are now face-to-face with the outcome of the American bishops’ support of religious liberty as they are being coerced to jettison the Church’s moral teachings. Furthermore, the USCCB’s unstinting praise and support of our country’s supposed religious liberty doctrine is paradoxically ironic, as this has always been elusive for American Catholics.


From the first – starting with Lord Baltimore’s Maryland colony before it even left the English dockside - the principle of religious liberty was applied unequally to the Protestants. These same Protestants – while enjoying religious freedom - also ensured that the local colonial laws in our country generally forbade Catholics from practicing their religion in public or holding civil office. But even worse, they supplanted America’s original Catholic soul (paid with the blood of first Spanish, then French missionaries) and heritage with their heretical Calvinist one.[3]

Despite all this, for the defense and continuance of America's religious liberty the USCCB has requested:

the fourteen days from June 21—the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More—to July 4, Independence Day, be dedicated to this "fortnight for freedom"—a great hymn of prayer for our country. Our liturgical calendar celebrates a series of great martyrs who remained faithful in the face of persecution by political power—St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More, St. John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, and the First Martyrs of the Church of Rome. Culminating on Independence Day, this special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action would emphasize both our Christian and American heritage of liberty.
continued





Catholic Mission

said...

continued
This suggestion is astonishing because all of these saints opposed the error of religious liberty – in fact, one could say they died because of this error since they were martyred for Christ, Who is the only Way and Truth. Thus they were unwilling to compromise – either morally and more importantly, doctrinally – or to admit that any other way (“paths to salvation” as Vatican II puts it) was acceptable.

Lionel: True the saints refused to accept that there are 'other paths to salvation'. However when the SSPX assumes that those saved in invincible ignorance etc are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus then they too imply that there are 'paths to salvation' and every one on earth does not have to enter the Church.

Secondly no where in Vatican Council II is it said that other religions are paths to salvation equal to the Catholic Church or that there are cases known in other religions who are exceptions to the Church teaching that every one needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation?

We must pray – particularly to the saints that the USCCB suggests - that the American bishops will clearly speak with the authority of the Church that has been bestowed upon them to defend the true and only Ark of Salvation against her enemies with her own principles rather than of her opponents.


-Lionel Andrades
http://www.sspx.org/news/our_first_cherished.htm





Catholic Mission

said...

Sam

Ad Gentes 7 Vatican Council II says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (to avoid Hell).
The Orthodox Christians and the Protestants do not have Catholic Faith.





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear Catholic Mission. I see you have solved all of the Doctrinal disputes now existing twixt The SSPX and The Magisterium.

Congrats.

Please contact Bishop Fellay. I am sure he'd be delighted to hear the news.





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear Mr Schmitt. I dunno what one ought call them.

I know that my preference- The schismatic heretics who are the seed beed of heresy and iconoclasm and who reject the majority of the ecumenical councils and who wildly err in understanding those councils that they do accept - is a bit unwieldy.

But I do know the last thing Holy Mother Church needs right now is to absorb them and all of there heresies and strange theology.





Catholic Mission

said...

DOMINICAN, FRANCISCAN FRIARS OF THE IMMACULATE AND DIOCESAN PRIESTS NEGATE POPE BENEDICT’S OVERSIGHT AND THAT OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

The pope could correct the oversight if someone asks him if we really know personal cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and the baptsm of desire.


Catholic priests in Rome have corrected an ovesight of Pope Benedict XVI and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). An error, the priests themself could have made unknowingly.


The Catholic priests, most of whom offer the Novus Ordo Mass, confirm that we do not know a single case of somone saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience etc (L G 16). This is y known only to God.


This error has been made by Pope Benedict XVI in Light of the World p.107 and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the International Theological Commission (ITC),Vatican published papers, available on the ITC website.


It was based on this error that they assumed that Vatican Council II and Pope Pius XII contradicted the ancient teaching on exclusive salvation being there in only the Catholic Church.This error was also the basis for speculation on Limbo.


This same false assumption, of visible baptism of desire and personally known cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance, is made by the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) and on this basis they refute the liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II on ecumenism and inter religious dialogue.It is also the cause of confusion on the issue of religious liberty.
continued

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/dominican-franciscan-friars-of.html#links





I am not Spartacus

said...

Dear Catholic Mission. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

What I do know is that the novel praxis of Popes Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI is the exegesis of the Conciliar Documents.

What they do in the doctrinal areas under dispute actualises the meaning of the various disputed documents and your idea that the SSPX and The Magisterium are in agreement about the meaning of those Documents is so wildly wrong as to be incapable of being addressed.

That is, your claims, however well-intioned they may be, are delusional and delusions are not capable of being corrected by reason.

Pope Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict have both, repeatedly, publicly stated that the Council was a great blessing and that they are implementing it; and I certainly agree that they are implementing in it in their actions and their actions speaker much louder than their claims about ecclesiastical and theological continuity.

The plain and simple truth is that Pope Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have done things that not one of the 261 Popes who proceeded V2 would have been caught dead doing; Pope Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have been trying to concretise a novel Papal Praxis that would be denounced by every single one of the 261 Popes whose reigns preceded V2.

As Saint Yogi Berra observed: "You can see a lot just by looking," and everyone with eyes to see can see that The SSPX and The Magisterium remain at loggerheads over several of the Conciliar Documents.





Catholic Mission

said...

I am not Spartacus
What they do in the doctrinal areas...so wildly wrong as to be incapable of being addressed.
Lionel
The SSPX’s traditional position on ecumenism, inter religious dialogue and religious liberty is in agreement with the text of Vatican Council II when the Council is interpreted as a continuation of Tradition and with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The SSPX rejects a Vatican Council II as interpreted by the liberals with a break from Tradition and the rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So when the SSPX says they reject Vatican Council II they mean they reject Vatican Council II as interpreted by the liberals including Cardinal Ladaria the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Then why has the SSPX not been able to express its agreement with the Magisterium with whom it was negotiating, on the issue of Vatican Council II ?
Since the SSPX perhaps unknowingly has picked up one of the liberal errors and is using it to interpret Vatican Council II and so assumes that the Council contradicts Tradition.
This is an error that is specific, it can be erradicated immediately and every thing will be clear.
The error is that the SSPX like Cardinal Ladaria and also Pope Benedict XVI assumes that there can be non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. So far so good! This is true! However the SSPX like the Cardinal goes one step further and assumes that these cases are known to us in real life. They are known to us personlly and so they contradict the dogma!?. (This can be confirmed in the writings of Fr.Peter Scott and Fr.Francois Laisney of the SSPX and on pro SSPX traditionalist forums).
Rationality tells us that we do not know any of these cases.They are known only in Heaven. So they cannot be an exception to the dogma.
Once this error is identified and erradicated we realize that there are no known exceptions to the traditional understanding of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Once we have this defined dogma in its literal interpretation we realize that there is nothing in Vatican Council II or the writings of Pope Pius XII to contradict the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma.
So if Vatican Council II affirms the rigorist interpretation of outside the church no salvation then the text of Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) is in agreement with the position of the SSPX.It’s in agreement with Tradition.AG 7 says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation( to avoid Hell).
So the SSPX is really in agreement with the Magisterium; according to the text of Magisterial documents.
Once the SSPX makes this position clear in public the pope and the cardinals cannot demand the excommunication of the SSPX since the SSPX is endorsing Vatican Council II, and also their traditional positions.
It’s the liberal interpreation which will be on the defensive since there are no known exceptions and so they cannot quote LG 16 (invicible ignorance ) etc. They have no quotations from Vatican Council II to support their liberal inerpretation of the Council.





Catholic Mission

said...

Sunday, April 22, 2012
SSPX -DICI SAYS ECCLESIA DEI HAS ASKED THE INSTITUTE OF THE GOOD SHEPHARD TO FOLLOW THE CATECHISM


Which interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is to be followed according to Ecclesia Dei, by this traditionalist Catholic community in full communion with the Holy See ? (1)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church endorses the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Secondly the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance mentioned in the Catechism ,are not explicit exceptions to the dogma outside the church no salvation .Neither are they known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II. AG 7 says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.All means there is no known exception on earth.

Is Ecclesia Dei ready to say in public that the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 says all need to enter the Church ‘as through a door’ ( AG 7) and CCC 845 says the Church is the only Ark of Salvation that saves in the Flood...while there are no known exceptions (LG16 etc) mentioned in Vatican Council II?

So like the popes, Councils and saints the Catechism is saying like Fr.Leonard Feeney that every one needs to be a ‘visible’ member of the Church for salvation i.e with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (AG 7).

Another version of the Faith, and the Catechism says the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.(At least the Catechism does not say it but this is the general assumption made). So everyone does not have to enter the Church it is said as was taught in previous Catechisms. This interpretation says that the Church no more teaches that there is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church. This interpretation of the Catechism says Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for saying that the baptism of desire does not exist (with respect to the dogma). They concede that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 of Pope Pius XII does not say that he was excommunicated for heresy and neither can we know cases personally of those saved in invincible ignorance etc.

It is this version of the Catechism that the Institute of the Good Shepherd (IGS) would be expected to accept since Cardinal Luiz Ladaria holds this liberal interpretation.On the website of the International Theological Commission (ITC) Cardinal Ladaria the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says that the church no more teaches exclusive salvation.He assumes that there are explicit exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II and the documnts of Pope Pius XII.So the Institute would have to accept this Ecclesia Dei- CDF version of the Catechism.

A part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney. If they (Cardinal Ottaviani or whomever) assumed that the baptism of desire etc were explicit exceptions to the dogma and the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney then they were wrong. This would be an objective,factual error on their part. A faulty observation.This error would have to be accepted by all traditionalist communities in full communion with the Holy See.

The irony is that the IGS like the SSPX’s traditional position on ecumenism, inter religious dialogue etc is in agreement with the text of the Catechism and Vatican Council II. It is in agreement when the Council is interpreted as a continuation of Tradition and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

continued
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/sspx-dici-says-ecclesia-dei-has-asked.html#links





Catholic Mission

said...

ECCLESIA DEI’S ADVICE TO THE INSTITUTE OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD IS SCARY

Ecclesia Dei-CDF cause of unintentional dissent and liberalism

At first communities who offer the Traditional Latin Mass are invited to enter the Church with full canonical status .The discussion on Vatican Council II is to be continued later. After a few years Ecclesia Dei recommends that they follow the Catechism of the Catholic Church; the liberal version with errors. The liberal interpretation of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and Ecclesia Dei assumes there is a visible baptism of desire which contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. If the traditionalists do not accept it an ‘ecclesial rupture’ could follow.

The fault is also there with the traditionalist communities as it is with the CDF, they are not aware of the root cause of the liberal interpretation of the Catechism or Vatican Council II If they were aware - they would point out the precise error of the CDF and the problem could be resolved.

The Institute of the Good Shepherd, unlike the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), is willing to accept Vatican Council II as a continuity with Tradition. So for them it should be easy to identify the CDF's unintentional error and to get rid of it. They can follow the Catechism of the Catholic Church which would not be difficult. The Catechism can be interpreted according to Tradition.

Much of the liberalism and dissent that we see in the Church is not just general liberalism it has a specific cause and when identified it can be corrected. It has to be corrected formally by the CDF and Ecclesia Dei.

There is hope for the future. There must come a time when Catholics understand what the precise problem is, and they ask the pope or the Curia precise questions. Presently in ignorance they are not even asking the relevant questions.

A time must come when the IGS, FSSP and SSPX shout out in frustration “There is no visible baptism of desire!”

“Only God knows who is saved in invincible ignorance!”

“You do not know a single case saved with a good conscience”

“Can you indentify who is saved with the seeds of the Word?!”

“There is nothing in the Catechism or Vatican Council II which contradicts the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus!”

“Vatican Council II says outside the church there is no salvation”

“The Catechism can be interpreted as a continuation of Tradition and you can’t fool me!”
-Lionel Andrades

SSPX -DICI SAYS ECCLESIA DEI HAS ASKED THE INSTITUTE OF THE GOOD SHEPHARD TO FOLLOW THE CATECHISM
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/sspx-dici-says-ecclesia-dei-has-asked.html





Catholic Mission

said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.