Vatican City, 16 March 2012 (VIS) – Given below is the text of a communique relating to the Society of St. Pius X, released this morning by the Holy See Press Office.
“During the meeting of 14 September 2011 between Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and president of the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei’, and Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, the latter was presented with a Doctrinal Preamble, accompanied by a Preliminary Note, as a fundamental basis for achieving full reconciliation with the Apostolic See. This defined certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church Magisterium and ‘sentire cum Ecclesia’.
“The response of the Society of St. Pius X to the aforesaid Doctrinal Preamble, which arrived in January 2012, was examined by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith before being submitted to the Holy Father for his judgement. Pursuant to the decision made by Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop Fellay was, in a letter delivered today, informed of the evaluation of his response. The letter states that the position he expressed is not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems which lie at the foundation of the rift between the Holy See and the Society of St. Pius X.
“At the end of today’s meeting, moved by concern to avoid an ecclesial rupture of painful and incalculable consequences, the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X was invited to clarify his position in order to be able to heal the existing rift, as is the desire of Pope Benedict XVI”.
Catholicism Pure & Simple 
+++Levada is one the last persons to mediate upon this issue, he is only there out of BXVI’s Charity.
LikeLike
Thanks Sixpack, but I can’t believe what you say till I see it on the new Six Point card.
LikeLike
.
Phew! Well,now we know.
And can relax.
And go and polish off a bottle of Tempranillo with an easy mind,
comfortable in the knowlege that God moves in mysterious ways.
LikeLike
It is difficult to understand exactly what is going on under the surface — but SSPX is clearly in no position to dictate doctrinal interpretations to either the Pope, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or the Holy See.
LikeLike
Reuters is describing the position of the Vatican and the personal position of Pope Benedict XVI as an “ultimatum” made to SSPX — and describes the Preamble in its present form (it’s difficult to know if the document has been given any final revisions recently) as non-negotiable.
LikeLike
Vtican Insider provides a more nuanced view of the current situation :
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/homepage/news/detail/articolo/santa-sede-santa-sede-holy-see-lefebvrianilefebvrianos-lefebvrians-13554/
…
In the two responses, sent in December and in January respectively, Fellay did not sign the preamble, giving the LeFebvrians more time without closing the door to dialogue with Rome. But now the Pope and Cardinal Levada want clarity. The tone of the Vatican’s letter was determined by the written response sent by the Lefebvrian superior. During this morning’s meeting, however, he appeared more conciliatory, and in a private conversation that took place in the palace of the former Holy Office, he said he had “no difficulty in accepting the profession of faith,” and also claimed to have no difficulties with the principles expressed in the preamble: the problem, Fellay said, was not the principles, but their application – namely, the fact that the Church today lacks fidelity to the Magisterium.
…
The position of the superior of the Fraternity is clear: the problem is not just the text proposed by the Vatican, but also and primarily the polarized positions within the traditionalist group itself. Approximately one-half of the Fraternity would like to return into full communion with Rome – they experience the current disconnect with pain. But the other half is willing to say “yes” only if “Rome converts,” that is, if it adopts the Lefebvrian position.
LikeLike
So that it would seem that one very possible outcome of this will be that we will see a split within the Society itself, rather than a schism within the Church ?
That +Fellay is describing the 50/50 split of opinion as being not only a polarised split, but also the primary problem that the Society is facing does provide some form of hope — so that it would appear to be the case now that the negociation stage has now been completed, the new doctrinal document (technically a new Vatican II document !!) has been finalised — and now we have to wait and see which faction gains political control of SSPX over the next month.
Interesting times for the SSPX …
LikeLike
the problem, Fellay said, was not the principles, but their application – namely, the fact that the Church today lacks fidelity to the Magisterium.
I don’t pretend to know much about thi issue, but I find it interesting and important. So I would appreciate some info. It seems to me that if Fellay and the rest of the group wish to be in full communion with the Church, they are free to do so. They would submit to the authority of the Church like any other convert or returning Catholic. What role does negotiation have in any of this? — The Pius X soc. are of course free to adopt certain outward forms of Catholicism, and use some of the same vocabulary, but if they wish to be in full communion, why don’t they simply do what is required?
LikeLike
Jerry, the specific issue that you are referring to is political, rather than doctrinal.
That is to say, will “the SSPX” sign the Preamble, or will only some of its membership do so ?
Remember — whether or not the Society as a whole accepts it, the Preamble will still be published anyway.
And any lost sheep wishing to return to the fold after that point, whether SSPX or anyone else, will need to accept the Doctrinal Preamble and its contents, because it will constitute Church Doctrine — as indeed will all Catholics everywhere !!
The Doctrinal Preamble is not just a document for the SSPX — it is a document for the whole Church.
LikeLike
Jabba, thanks. I take your point that it is a political issue in the sense that the SSPX may fragment over it, if some members accept it and some do not. But what I find hard to understand, moving past the political aspect, is the fundamental mentality of the SSPX. Surely Catholicism hinges on a certain submission to the authority of the Church? However much Bp Fellay et al may disagree with the Church on certain points, if they recognise the essential authority of the Church, surely they recognise a call to submit to its authority, and if they do not, surely they must accept that they are protestants who deploy certain Catholic practices, like the “high Anglicans, or Anglo-Catholics”? Submission or schism make intellectual sense to me, but what are their grounds for demanding negotiation???
The Fellay remark again:
the problem, Fellay said, was not the principles, but their application – namely, the fact that the Church today lacks fidelity to the Magisterium.
LikeLike
.
The Holy See Press certainly can write a chatty and readable letter!
Unfortunately, this is not it.
Still, it has given Jabba something to get his hampsteads into.
LikeLike
.
(WordPress 798 not out, Toad stumped for a duck. Match suspended over charges of “fixing.” )
LikeLike
Toad: My position is simple, being simple-minded that would be understandable, I believe in that which I was taught in all of my school years. Then bozzos, the likes of ++Mahony, come along and tell me that what I was taught was a load of old rubbish. Like thinking clergy, to myself, are villified and that proceeds to this very day – I am talking about diocesan clergy, not SSPX clergy which are, of course, anathema. Msgr.Lefebvre refused to abandon his beliefs and the oaths he had taken, whereas many of his peers abandoned the same with gay abandon, others, not similarly inclined, for a quiet life, went along with the flow.
I can only speak from my UK and Continental Europe experience which indicates that swathes of The Church are now of Protestant inclination and even worse in some areas. Indeed the English & Welsh Bishops’ Conference issued a formal document indicating that thre was no difference between the CofE and certain other Protestant sects.
Regarding SSPX, I feel they would be better getting a deal, but +Fellay has been placed in an unenviable position – a decision between the ‘quiet life’ and one of principle.
How many ‘Conferences’ adhere to the Magistereum, how many merely evince merely lip-service to the authority of BXVI, how many seek the status of ‘National Catholic Churches’ [openly promoting the same] with only nominal obeisance to the papacy.
This is not about SSPX but the future of Mother Church.
LikeLike
The Doctrinal Preamble … will constitute Church Doctrine?
Jabba: are you saying +++Levada and his confreres are vested with the power of, ex cathedra, creating infallible doctrine? That the said ‘Preamble’ is a matter De Fide!
LikeLike
But what I find hard to understand, moving past the political aspect, is the fundamental mentality of the SSPX. Surely Catholicism hinges on a certain submission to the authority of the Church? However much Bp Fellay et al may disagree with the Church on certain points, if they recognise the essential authority of the Church, surely they recognise a call to submit to its authority, and if they do not, surely they must accept that they are protestants who deploy certain Catholic practices, like the “high Anglicans, or Anglo-Catholics”? Submission or schism make intellectual sense to me, but what are their grounds for demanding negotiation???
Jerry, it would appear from the article in Vatican Insider that +Fellay, at least, has accepted the contents of the Doctrinal Preamble. The article suggests that roughly half the membership of SSPX would do so as well.
The other half are the ones apparently issuing “demands” — the legitimate negotiation which *did* take place concerned the written contents of the Doctrinal Preamble, that is to say between the traditionalist theologians of the Society, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — this is a perfectly reasonable approach to try and find a solution to some problems that could potentially cause a rift in the Church, insofar as they were doctrinal in nature.
But the period of this negotiation, as of the publication of this communiqué by the Vatican, has ended — now it is a matter for the SSPX how to provide their final response to the document ; whatever that response may be.
One *very* significant point in +Fellay’s reported private comments on the document, when he states his reservations about “not the principles, but their application – namely, the fact that the Church today lacks fidelity to the Magisterium” — is that this is NOT a specifically doctrinal matter ; which is to say that Catholics are perfectly allowed to make this sort of comment about the state of the Church.
—
As for “the” fundamental mentality, I’m not sure that any such singular mentality exists — SSPX as a group includes many who are simply attached to traditional Catholicism itself, without any strong views except some (permissible) negative opinions about liberal Catholicism — it also contains some people who consider their own theological positions to be superior to those of Rome (whether the positions that they’re denouncing either are or are not taught by Rome, on a case by case basis) — it also contains some ultra right-wing political extremists, attracted by the idea of being in opposition to Rome.
The mainstream positions of SSPX OTOH are really nothing that any Catholic should feel offended by, whereas the more problematic positions are (typically) those of the more extremist membership.
My first exposure to SSPX involved people selling neo-fascist literature in the front of a SSPX Church on the Sunday — my second exposure involved two rather delightful old biddies who helped me with accomodation on my way to Compostela, though the clearly liberal parish priest had disdainfully refused me any assistance of any nature whatsoever, not even to stamp my Credencial.
My understanding today is that these ladies are far more representative of the heart of the SSPX, than those fascists in its membership.
I agree with you that any among them who may reject the Doctrinal Preamble for whichever doctrinal or other reasons could possibly be called protestants, albeit of a new variety 😦
LikeLike
The Doctrinal Preamble … will constitute Church Doctrine?
Jabba: are you saying +++Levada and his confreres are vested with the power of, ex cathedra, creating infallible doctrine?
It’s pretty hard to have any opinion on the fallibility or infallibility of the doctrines provided in the Doctrinal Preamble without even having laid eyes on it !!! Remember — not all doctrines that are required teachings by virtue of infallibility ; some doctrines are required for some purely disciplinary reasons, the doctrine that deacons and priests may not marry for example. This is a doctrine that is not infallible ; but Catholics are still not permitted to teach the opposite (although people are entirely free to disagree with it in their personal opinions, if that is how they feel about the question).
Doctrinal Authority is provided by Christ, His Apostles and Evangelists, Old Testament Prophets and Biblical Authors (severally), the Communion of the Saints (living and dead), Popes, Church Councils, the Magisterium, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith specifically.
Infallible doctrines, speaking less generally, can be published by Church Councils (as presided by one or more Popes), as well as (in the current historical circumstances) the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (as authorised by imprimatur and nihil obstat from the sitting Pope), or by Popes speaking specifically ex cathedra for that purpose.
A shorter answer : Yes. 🙂
That the said ‘Preamble’ is a matter De Fide!
Again, it’s hard to comment on any specifics without seeing the contents — but the clue is in the title — Doctrinal Preamble. Preamble to what ? Preamble to the Vatican II documents, as far as I can see ; and to their proper interpretation and application. The document will very likely establish which Vatican II teachings are doctrinal ; which disciplinary ; and which are of purely pastoral concern.
But even considering that I might be wrong about this — it will STILL be a document that is doctrinal in nature — so that yes, I think so.
Interestingly, Fellay seems to have referred to the document as a “profession of faith”. 🙂
LikeLike
Jabba:
What if the ‘Preamble’ contradicts an earlier document emanating from the CDF, say of pre-Vatican II vintage, are both De Fide? Because that is what is implied by +Fellay, that the ‘Preamble’ is, in certain areas, in conflict with pre-Vatican II teaching.
But then again, I am only a simple and inadequate soul. But if what I was taught was in error, how am I to ascertain that what I am now being told is not also in error. [Scratching my head!]
LikeLike
Fallible doctrines can be changed or replaced by new Revelation (although this can sometimes be a difficult process).
The Church once abolished the permanent deacons — for a time it taught that only men preparing for priestly ordination could be ordained as deacons — then Vatican II abolished this *fallible* doctrine, and the Church reinstituted this institution.
The sale of Indulgences by the Church, which was a massive problem, was based on some doctrinal teachings that have been abolished, because they were so very plainly wrong.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith lacks the Authority to change an infallible doctrine OTOH, which could only be done by an Authority of a much Higher Order (such as a divine intervention). I cannot honestly think of an occasion when this may ever have happened — though the Bible, the Book of Job for example, provides examples showing that God Himself can change His Mind.
Some fallible doctrines can OTOH be wrongfully considered as infallible by some Catholic (or non-Catholic) individuals and groups. This sort of occurrence will inevitably cause problems…
LikeLike
Like Celibacy, the Permanent Deacon situation is one of discipline, nothing else. Also such Deacons have always existed, to some extent, but only the missionary countries – where they played a vital work. The proliferation in the diocesan churches creates merely supernuminaries.
LikeLike
.
“…the Book of Job for example, provides examples showing that God Himself can change His Mind.”
Well, Toad is not foolish enough to step into the theological ring with such a veteran bruiser as Jabba, but surely this opens a hefty can of worms, to say nothing of mixed metaphors.
Where does that leave foreknowledge?
LikeLike
Exactly where it has always been – like betting tips.
LikeLike
SixPointman – may I congratulate you on your brilliant use (11.16) in this spiritual context of your ‘jeu de mot’ where you refer to “supernuminaries”.
James Joyce – eat your heart out.
LikeLike
Touche, its my age you know! At least that is my excuse.
LikeLike
No, Sixer – I really mean it – I loved it and will no doubt use it in an “intertextual” sense; i.e. I will plagiarise it.
Good man!
LikeLike
SixPointman, I admit that this current exchange is way above my tired old head, as it sinks down onto the table, nudging aside the stained wineglasses. I truly salute those like you who can ‘do’ this stuff.
But may I suggest a teeny point related to your post of 07.48? You say that you “believe in all of that which you were taught in all of (your) school years”.
Sixy, please. I was a teacher for the latter part of my working life and may I amicably say that, just as for the newspapers, you shouldn’t believe all that you were told.
Perhaps you were taught by Jesuits, and if so….. well…..they do a very good job, it must be clearly said.
LikeLike
I was taught by men and women of good education and principle – that is more than I can say for the present contingent in both the dioceses and the so called Catholic schools.
Are you saying that the clergy, who taught me no other than what was taught worldwide by Mother Church, were just plain wrong or, even, liars?
What guarantee have we available that the present bishops, clergy and lay hangers-on, who deride with vitriolic enthusiasm the likes of myself [non-SSPX], are not talking the load of old rubbish – which the apply to their predecessors?
As to Jesuits they have certainly denied their origins.
LikeLike
Like Celibacy, the Permanent Deacon situation is one of discipline, nothing else.
This is exactly true — but disciplinary and pastoral doctrines are still doctrines. Fallible ones ; and changeable ones ; yes. Doctrines nevertheless…
—
Oh and by the way, I rather like “supernuminaries” myself !!! 🙂
LikeLike
Sixer, it is not always true that things were better in the past. It is true that knowledge can be a changeable quality. And then there’s belief.
I am not, obviously, saying that what you were taught (whatever that was) was wrong or lies, but not everything is fixed. I was taught for example in a Catholic school that the Church did not ever sell indulgences.
There are issues within the Church which have changed over the centuries in our understanding and as I hesitantly think Jabba might say, certain matters have changed. I do not put words in his mouth, nor have I the capacity to do so.
But don’t fret about change – it’s ok.
LikeLike
Jabba – some days ago, I contacted Pluscarden re: the origins of the name. So far no response.
If I can, I will let you know if there is an answer.
Anyway, good luck and keep on doing what you do. You are an asset to CP&S.
LikeLike
“…the Book of Job for example, provides examples showing that God Himself can change His Mind.”
Not so. The literary form of the book of Job is an exploration of undeserved and seemingly inexplicable suffering, (and more). It is a literary, philosophical and theological work that does not “lay the mind of God on the examining table” and allow us to follow Gods thoughts and identify changes of mind. Job certainly contains insights about God, of course, but they are to be found by considering the book as a whole, not in literary devices such as God “changing his mind”.
LikeLike
Not so. The literary form of the book of Job is an exploration of undeserved and seemingly inexplicable suffering, (and more). It is a literary, philosophical and theological work that does not “lay the mind of God on the examining table” and allow us to follow Gods thoughts and identify changes of mind. Job certainly contains insights about God, of course, but they are to be found by considering the book as a whole, not in literary devices such as God “changing his mind”.
You are of course free to make any literary analyses that you are more comfortable with, but to suggest that the omnipotent Almighty *cannot* change His Mind is a fundamental Error.
In the terms of mankind’s relationships with Him, the existence of our own Free Will, and our own ability to change our own minds, is quite sufficient to explain the dynamic of how God’s omniscience and His omnipotence do not exist as a stagnant monolith of absolute predetermination.
In fact, your analysis is a fundamental negation of Free Will as such. God of course has Free Will as one of His most basic attributes, and it is one of the clearest features whereby we are made in His image — Free Will *requires* the ability to change one’s mind.
I did not use the reference to Job as *evidence* of what I’m saying — I used it as an illustrative *example*. (which of course fails if one interprets the text differently 🙂 )
LikeLike
In fact, your analysis is a fundamental negation of Free Will as such. God of course has Free Will as one of His most basic attributes, and it is one of the clearest features whereby we are made in His image — Free Will *requires* the ability to change one’s mind.
Jabba, I take it you are a careful reader. And so I am very surprised that you imply I asserted that God cannot change his mind. That was not my point by an stretch.
However, given that the book of Job is not a narrative recounting a series of historical events, but a theological presentation of the mystery of suffering, it is entirely unwarranted to infer from its narrative dialogues and actions a factual example of God changing his mind. — By analogy I hope that you do not conclude from the narrative device of a dialogue between God and Satan, that, as a matter of fact, God sometimes causes suffering after discussion with satan…..
LikeLike
I did not use the reference to Job as *evidence* of what I’m saying — I used it as an illustrative *example*. (which of course fails if one interprets the text differently
As an illustrative example of God changing his mind, in a text which is not intended to affirm either a factual change of mind, nor a divine tendency to do so…. it might work, but what is it illustrative of? If you want non-factual examples of divine mind changes, why not go to the Iliad rather than scripture?
LikeLike
.
It’s not so much a question of whether God can change his mind (suspects Toad), more a question of whether He ever does, or not.
Or whether He ever has.
Under what circumstances, assuming He is perfect – would He ever have occasion to?
A vacillating God would indeed move in mysterious ways.
So maybe He is in the habit of doing so.
“In the terms of mankind’s relationships with Him, the existence of our own Free Will, and our own ability to change our own minds, is quite sufficient to explain the dynamic of how God’s omniscience and His omnipotence do not exist as a stagnant monolith of absolute predetermination.” Says Jabba. No it doesn’t, says Toad.
The fact of our free will (assuming it to be such) has no bearing on God’s omniscience.
Why should it? Are we suggesting that it’s possible God originally wasn’t going to give us free will, then changed his mind and did so?
And are we talking about predetermination or foreknowledge here?
(Toad is going to regret starting this, his foreknowledge tells him.)
LikeLike
.
Something should be done about WordPress. Its ways of working are nearly as mysterious as God’s.
LikeLike
I think Toad typed … but forgot the .. after he’d finished with bold 🙂
LikeLike
well that didn’t work, those triple dots (…) weren’t supposed to be there. Toad is right, wordpress is annoying to say the least
LikeLike
Jabba, someone is using your name on the Catholic Herald ‘comments’ section [re SSPX], luckily he appears to be contradicting what you have espoused herein. Perhaps the CH Jabba is not indulging in glasses of wine, it being Lent. I am even more confused than usual, probably due to the absence of said wine, it being Lent.
LikeLike
Jabba, someone is using your name on the Catholic Herald ‘comments’ section [re SSPX], luckily he appears to be contradicting what you have espoused herein.
Sixupman, having read the thread, I fail to see a contradiction with the remarks made here…
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/03/16/vatican-tells-sspx-your-response-is-not-good-enough/
What contradiction are you thinking of?
LikeLike
Jabba, I take it you are a careful reader. And so I am very surprised that you imply I asserted that God cannot change his mind. That was not my point by an stretch.
aaaah, I did not actually assert that you made such a statement, I limited myself to describing it as an implicit feature of the sorts of theology that have provided that sort of thinking, in the Middle Ages particularly.
This clarification of your own position concerning these matters is nevertheless useful, and helpful 🙂
LikeLike
“In the terms of mankind’s relationships with Him, the existence of our own Free Will, and our own ability to change our own minds, is quite sufficient to explain the dynamic of how God’s omniscience and His omnipotence do not exist as a stagnant monolith of absolute predetermination.” Says Jabba.
No it doesn’t, says Toad.
The fact of our free will (assuming it to be such) has no bearing on God’s omniscience.
Why should it? Are we suggesting that it’s possible God originally wasn’t going to give us free will, then changed his mind and did so?
And are we talking about predetermination or foreknowledge here?
(Toad is going to regret starting this, his foreknowledge tells him.)
God’s omniscience of events within Time does not affect His ability to react to events caused by mankind’s exercise of Free Will. From *our* point of view, God has always known everything — From *His* point of view, He can react to our free decisions, and He can change His mind on the basis of our actions.
God is not subjected to the precise species of causality that mankind is subjected to within Creation.
LikeLike
Jabba, someone is using your name on the Catholic Herald ‘comments’ section [re SSPX], luckily he appears to be contradicting what you have espoused herein. Perhaps the CH Jabba is not indulging in glasses of wine, it being Lent. I am even more confused than usual, probably due to the absence of said wine, it being Lent.
Six — the only important difference between what I’ve posted here and what I’ve posted there is derived from someone having pointed me to a link demonstrating that this so-called “ultimatum” that the SSPX are supposed to be subjected to is a journalistic invention of Reuters, not corresponding to reality.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.fr/2012/03/sspx-rome-holy-see-press-office.html
Jean-Marie Guénois (Le Figaro) – March 16, 2012 17h46 : I have read and reread the official communiqué and I do not find in it either the word “ultimatum” or above all any trace of a spirit of ultimatum. That is to say, of a pressure attached to a calendar in order to reach a result by forcing down the power lever.
LikeLike
Oh — the English translation of the communiqué that’s been circulated most widely is flawed, which is the basic source of this misunderstanding of it.
LikeLike
.
“God is not subjected to the precise species of causality that mankind is subjected to within Creation.”Jabba passes this down to us.
Which, as Toad reads it, states – in rather five dollar language – that He moves in mysterious ways, as far as we are concerned.
So, we might as well forget trying to figure things out if we believe that.
LikeLike
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
It’s time for cardinal, bishops and traditional religious groups to say openly that they accept Vatican Council II and reject the Jewish Left interpretation of the Council.
For instance on the subject of other religions, why do we have to accept new doctrine which is not even there in Vatican Council II?
They could clarify the issue point by point .Begin with the subject of ‘other religions’.
Interpretation 1: Vatican Council II says non Catholics do not have to convert in general for salvation. (LG 16).
Interpretation II: Vatican Council II says non Catholics need to convert in general for salvation (Ad Gentes 7, LG 14).
Interpretation II is the traditional teaching which the SSPX also endorses.
So the SSPX accepts Vatican Council II?
If the SSPX accepts Interpretation 2 then clarify it in public.
Interpretation 1. Vatican Council II says those saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience, the seeds of the word are EXPLICIT EXCEPTIONS to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to Ad Gentes 7 i.e all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
Interpretation 2: Vatican Council II says those saved in invincible ignorance etc are possibilities known to only God. There are no explicit exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Call a Press Conference and clarify this issue or hold a conference and discuss the issue in public.
The doctrinal talks were held in secret. This is all just like a secret society, the Freemasons.
Cardinal Donald Wuerl and the US bishops give the Eucharist to pro abortion politicians, homosexuals and lesbians. Cardinal Wuerl was made a cardinal. The SSPX rejects Cardinal Sean O Malley and the ADL‘s interpretation of Vatican Council II and they are threatened in public with a second excommunication.
It’s time for cardinal, bishops and religious communities to openly say that they accept Vatican Council II and reject the Jewish Left interpretation of the Council: they affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in accord with Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14)
Affirm Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) as a possibility known only to God so it is not in conflict with the dogma or the literal interpretation of outside the church no salvation.
Since LG 16 is not explicitly known Vatican Council II affirms the literal interpretation of the defined dogma.
This is also the interpretation of all the Catechisms, including the present one, Vatican Council I and II, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( it refers to ‘the dogma’) other magisterial documents and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston who was not excommunicated for heresy.He was not excommunicated for saying the same thing as Vatican Council II and the dogma.
It is time to give a testimony of the Faith in public and affirm Vatican Council II, we accept Tradition ,we reject the Jewish Left version of the our Catholic Faith. Lionel Andrades
LikeLike
Monday, April 2, 2012
IF THE SSPX SAYS THEY ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL II IN ACCORD WITH THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS THERE WILL BE A STORM
The Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith could have to deny Vatican Council II and the Jewish Left could call the Council anti – Semitic.
One of the District Superiors of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) could issue a statement observing that it is reported on blogs that the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is in accord with Vatican Council II (AG 7).
All need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (AG 7) and there are no exceptions. There are no known exceptions since those saved in invincible ignorance or with a good conscience (LG 16) etc are known only to God. So they do not contradict the centuries-old literal interpretation of the thrice defined dogma.
So in this sense Vatican Council II is saying outside the church there is no salvation and Jews, Muslims and other non Catholics (Protestants and Orthodox Christians) need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation ( to avoid Hell).
So the SSPX could welcome Vatican Council II’s position on ecumenism and inter religious dialogue.
All non Catholics are oriented to Hell (AG 7). We do not compel them; we do not force them to enter the Church. We do not have the power to do so. However we do have the religious liberty to tell them that Vatican Council II says they need to convert into the Church, all of them with no known exceptions, to avoid Hell (for salvation).
Imagine the world wide storm this would cause. The SSPX affirming Vatican Council II in this case in accord with the salvation dogma!
But what about Fr. Leonard Feeney?!So what? Whatever be your position on Fr. Leonard Feeney, Vatican Council II still affirms the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
He was excommunicated for holding the literal interpretation? No Magisterial text, including the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 states that he was excommunicated for heresy. And assuming he was – Vatican Council II is still in agreement with the traditional literal interpretation of the dogma.
And if he was excommunicated for heresy, for saying there was no baptism of desire or exception to the dogma, then the cardinals who wrote the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 or Pope Pius XII, made an objective, common sense mistake: the baptism of desire is not known so it cannot be an explicit, exception to the dogma which says everyone needs to convert into the Church. We do not know any one saved with the baptism of desire.
How can the ordinary magisterium of the pope, Pope Pius XII, negate Vatican Council II or the dogma which Pope Pius XII himself called an ‘infallible statement’(Letter of the Holy Office 1949).
All the same Vatican Council II affirms the literal interpretation of the dogma, the infallible statement.
According to the Vatican statement,(March 16) there is the possibility of the SSPX being excommunicated unless they affirm Vatican Council II. The statement has not mentioned the interpretation of Vatican Council II expected. The Vatican kept the doctrinal talks secret.So the SSPX could ‘try the waters out’ affirm the dogma (as they are doing so already) and welcome Vatican Council II as being in agreement with the dogma. Then wait for the Vatican’s response.
This will create a political storm and shake the Establishment which tells the pope what he should believe as a Catholic and what is acceptable to them.-Lionel Andrades
LikeLike
Monday, April 2, 2012
VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS JEWS NEED TO CONVERT, CATHOLICS ARE THE NEW PEOPLE OF GOD BUT REPORT ON SSPX CLAIMS VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS OTHERWISE
An Associated Press report,Vatican to breakaway traditionalists: not enough by Frances D’Emilio (VCstar.com)says the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) ‘has opposed the Vatican’s decades-long outreach to Jews, Muslims and members of other faith. More broadly, it opposes the liberalizing reforms the Vatican enacted in the 1960s.’
However a reading of Vatican Council II’s Nostra Aetate 4 says ‘the Church is the new people of God’.Catholics are the new people of God . The Chosen People.Then Vatican Council II further says that all people, Jews included, need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (Ad Gentes 7). Jews need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to avoid Hell (for salvation).
So Vatican Council II is still saying like the SSPX that Jews, Muslims and other non Catholics, including Protestants and Orthodox Christians, need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
So the so called liberalizing reforms is not supported by any text from Vatican Council II.
Vatican Council II also mentions that there can be non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance, with a good consicence (LG 16), with the ‘seeds of the Word’ etc. We accept this as a possibility just as did the popes and Church Councils of the past. They knew that we do not know any particular case. So they are not an explicit, exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or to Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.
Vatican Council II is in accord with the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus .
Vatican Council II has not changed the teaching of the Catholic Church with respect to other religions as this report on the internet alleges.
The AP report says ‘Jewish groups have expressed concern that the Vatican’s overture to the breakaway Catholics could call into question 50 years of progress in Catholic-Jewish relations.’ It is the Jewish Left political position that Vatican Council II has changed church-teaching. They are unable to cite any reference from Vatican Council II.
The report states: ‘A Vatican statement, issued after Friday’s meeting, said both Benedict, and Levada’s office, studied the Society’s response to the papal overture. But the response, delivered to the Vatican in January, “is not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems that are at the foundation of the fracture between the Holy See and the Society.”
The Vatican has never announced that Vatican Council II states that Catholics are the new people of God and that Jews need to convert to avoid Hell, according to Vatican Council II. Instead the Vatican is building up a reputation of throwing away Catholic doctrine for the sake of peace and security.
The report says ‘the statement didn’t elaborate on what failed to satisfy the Vatican’s conditions.’ The Vatican has held secret talks with the SSPX however two of the negotiators during those talks, have expressed Catholic doctrine in papers of the International Theological Commission. They are available on the ITC website.They allege that those saved with the baptism of water and in invincible ignorance are known to us and so they are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7. This is heresy. It is a rejection of the Nicene Creed in which we say “I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin”. The ITC is saying that in some cases, rare cases, known to them there are non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water. How do they know these cases it is not elaborated. However the bottom line for the ITC and the Vatican is that there is salvation outside the church in the present times,even though they do not know any exception to the dogma or Vatican Council II.
This is a new doctrine and irrational. Hence it is understandable that the Vatican has not elaborated on the precise doctrinal difference and has kept the issue secret.
The report said ‘Because of “worry about avoiding a church rupture with painful and incalculable consequences,” Fellow was invited to “clarify his position with the aim of closing the existing fracture, as hoped for by Pope Benedict XVI,” said the Vatican statement.’
The SSPX could be excommunicated for not accepting the Jewish Left approved version of Vatican Council II, denying the actual text of Vatican Council II which says Jews need to convert and Catholics are the Chosen people, and not accepting heresy and new doctrines, approved by the Vatican.-Lionel Andrades
http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/mar/16/bc-eu–vatican-traditionalists-1st-ld-vatican-to/#ixzz1qs1QX2kd
LikeLike
.
Someone has just lifted up a big stone, and the wriggly things are in full cry. As Toad, doubtless best to sit back and enjoy the mayhem for a while. Before deciding.
The more I hear Vat II frothed, raged, moaned, and pessimistically wailed about, the more convinced I am that it was a very good thing. But what do I know?
These issues are what CP&S is all about.
Maybe. Possibly.
LikeLike
1. Feeney was excommunicated for disobedience, not for heresy: http://www.romancatholicism.org/feeney-condemnations.htm
2. The letter of the Holy Office on Feeney’s ideas makes it entirely clear that the particularly bone-headed and asinine reading of Unam Sanctam that you are promulgating is in error and is, emphatically, not the teaching of Holy Church.
LikeLike
It’s time for cardinal, bishops and traditional religious groups to say openly that they accept Vatican Council II and reject the Jewish Left interpretation of the Council.
Dark and horrible things occasionally erupt from the bowels of the internet
LikeLike
.
Well, Raven seems to have dealt expeditiously with that one.
LikeLike
Well, Raven seems to have dealt expeditiously with that one.
And with considerably less verbiage than I would have provided !!! :p
LikeLike
Raven
2. The letter of the Holy Office on Feeney’s ideas makes it entirely clear that the particularly bone-headed and asinine reading of Unam Sanctam that you are promulgating is in error and is, emphatically, not the teaching of Holy Church.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 referred to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’. The dogma says all non Catholics need to convert into the Church for salvation. So the Letter of the Holy Office of Pope Pius XII supported Fr.Leonard Feeney here.
The Letter mentions those who can be saved in invincible ignorance and a a genuine yearning etc. These are not exceptions to the dogma the infallible teaching since we do not know any of these cases in real life. They are known only to God and we accept the possibility of non Catholics being saved in this condition.
The excommunication on Fr.Leonard Feeney was lifted without him having to recant.
LikeLike
Jerry,
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Fr.James Martin S.J does not say the popes, the Bible and Jesus were anti-Semitic
Fr. James Martin, SJ in The Anti-Semitism of the Society of St.Pius X (Jan 31, 2009 America ) asks why would the pope move to lift the ban on a group that has as its raison d’etre the rejection of the Second Vatican Council which is an ecclesial-theological issue. He says this is a rejection of the documents of the Second Vatican Council, which includes a rejection of Nostra Aetate.
I think the SSPX in reality does not reject Vatican Council II according to the texts of the Council.Nostra Aetate 4 says the Church is’ the new people of God’. While Ad Gentes 7 states all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. This includes Jews.
Is Vatican Council II now anti Semitic for this Jesuit priest ?
SSPX is affirming Nostra Aetate 4 and Ad Gentes 7 even though they say they reject Vatican Council II. They reject Vatican Council II as interpreted by the Jewish Left.
Fr.Martin is really saying the SSPX rejects the documents of the Council, which includes Nostra Aetate, as interpreted by the Jewish Left.
There is no text in Nostra Aetate which says Jews do not have to convert or that Jews are saved in general in their religion.That Catholics should have good relations with the Jews and others was taught to us by Jesus and it is explained in the Bible long before Vatican Council II.
So from the ecclesial-theological view the SSPX are in accord with Vatican Council II
Regarding other points against the SSPX, as being anti Semitic,some of the quotations are those of the popes. Other information comes from the Bible.
Fr.Martin does not say that the popes, the Bible and Jesus were anti-Semitic.
-Lionel Andrades
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=2D6AFB07-1438-5036-4F1C9D841C32199D
LikeLike
Making the SSPX look bad.
LikeLike
Jerry
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
VATICAN CURIA EXPECTS SSPX TO ACCEPT HERESY AND ONE PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
Jewish Left groups claim Catholic – Jewish relations have been good since the last 43 years and the creation of Israel.
The Vatican Curia does not want the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) to accept Vatican Council II –period.They want the SSPX to rubber stamp the Jewish Left version of the Council which the Vatican itself is forced to accept.
Vatican Council II says Jews need to convert for salvation with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water-so does the SSPX.
Vatican Council II says Catholics are the Chosen people of God-so does the SSPX.
The Jewish Anti Defamation League (ADL) which tells Catholics what to believe and what is approved by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel claims Vatican Council II says Jews do not need to convert. False.There is no such text in Vatican Council II.
What the ADL means is that Nostra Aetate says we must respect the Jews and so out of respect we should not seek their conversion or speak the truth about Vatican Council II.
The ADL and the Foreign Minister of Israel have said that Vatican Council II says Jews are the Chosen People.
False. Jews were the Chosen People according to the Bible, the Chosen People are now those who have accepted the Jewish Messiah and the Church He founded. Vatican Council II says the Church is ‘the new people of God.’ (Nostra Aetate 4).
So which intepretation has the SSPX to accept ? The Curia would agree that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II ?!
The SSPX agree with the second interpretation of Vatican Council II which is also supported by text from the Council. The SSPX rejects the Jewish Left version of Vatican Council II. If the Curia allowed the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II in accord with Tradition there would be a political storm and opposition from pro-Israel Jewish groups.
In the open letter to the SSPX, Mnsgr.Nicola Bux mentioned that the doctrinal issue on which there was not unity was ecumenism and inter religious dialogue. There is disunity because the Vatican Curia has changed the doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church and are pretending that this is part of the text of Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II is in accord with other Church-documents and Tradition according to the text of the Council.
It is heresy to say that Jews do not need to convert. It is contrary to the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. It is contrary to the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It contradicts Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846 which says all need to enter the Church as through a door, the Church is the only Ark of Noah that saves in the Flood and God wants all people to be united in the Catholic Church.
This is heresy and the Curia is also contradicting Vatican Council I, the Council of Trent and other Catechisms.
Here are the two interpretations:
Interpretation 1: Vatican Council II says non Catholics do not have to convert in general for salvation. (LG 16).
Interpretation II: Vatican Council II says non Catholics need to convert in general for salvation (Ad Gentes 7, LG 14).
Interpretation II is the traditional teaching which the SSPX also endorses.
So the SSPX accepts Vatican Council II?
If the SSPX accepts Interpretation 2 then the Vatican spokesman needs to clarify it in public.
Interpretation 1: Vatican Council II says those saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience, the seeds of the word are EXPLICIT EXCEPTIONS to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to Ad Gentes 7 i.e all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
Interpretation 2: Vatican Council II says those saved in invincible ignorance etc are possibilities known only toGod. There are no explicit, known-to- us exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So there is no contradiction in Vatican Council II to Ad Gentes 7.
-Lionel Andrades
LikeLike
Many among the SSPX are indeed anti-semitic, they read a lot of anti-semitic craps, and link Jews with Communists, with Freemansons etc, that is, with anything which is hateful to them.
I am not talking about Williamson, I am talking about members of SSPX who are not known in the press as a bigoted antisemite but in reality are.
LikeLike
Feeney’s excommunication was lifted because he ceased to be disobedient and stopped promulgating his own, erroneous personal interpretation of Unam Santam.
LikeLike
.
“Many among the SSPX are indeed anti-semitic, they read a lot of anti-semitic craps, and link Jews with Communists, with Freemansons etc, “
Just like our dearly beloved old “Generalissimo”, in fact.
By God, he’d know how to deal with the lot of them…
Up against the cemetery wall! And then their wives!
Like Teresa, I think SSPX is a load of craps, myself.
(If only I could understand any of this, it would probably be a whole lot funnier.
But too many bits are in Italian, or maybe Greek.
Oh, well. Where “invincible ignorance” is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise,
as Grey once nearly said.)
“The Jewish Anti Defamation League (ADL) which tells Catholics what to believe..”
Why on earth should Catholics believe anything the ADL says?
They certainly don’t believe anything Toad tells them.
Quite right, too.
LikeLike
The excommunication was lifted without Fr,Leonard Feeney changing his traditional interpretation of the dogma, as it was interpreted for centuries.
http://www.
scribd.com/doc/25059967/Peter-Vere-Canon-Lawyer-on-the-status-of-those-who-hold-Fr-Leonard-Feeney-s-Doctrinal-Position
It was the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing and the Jesuits who suggested that we know explicit cases of non Catholics saved in ignorance and the baptism of desire and so these cases were explicit excèptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
LikeLike
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
ADL WEBSITE EXPRESSES HATE AGAINST THE SSPX BUT NOT VATICAN COUNCIL II WHICH HAS THE SAME MESSAGE AS ‘THE LEFEBVRISTS’
A few reports on the Jewish Anti Defamation League (ADL) website are critical of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) for saying Jews need to convert but these reports do not criticize Vatican Council II which also has the same message. (AG 7, NA 4).
The SSPX rejects the ADL interpretation of Vatican Council II, which really is a political position, with no supporting texts from the Council. The ADL cannot provide any references.The ADL keeps repeating that the SSPX opposes ecumenism and the ‘reforms’ of Vatican Council II. The ADL never mentions that Vatican Council II says Jews need to convert for salvation and Catholics are the new people of God (AG 7, NA 4). This is the actual SSPX message and the teaching of the Catholic Church magisterium including that of Pope John Paul II.
Vatican Council II has the same message as ‘the Lefebvrists’ on ecumenism and inter religious dialogue.
The SSPX opposes the ADL interpretation of Vatican Council II which the Jewish Left is imposing on the Vatican with political and military threats.
Imagine the world wide political storm the SSPX could cause if they announced that they accept Vatican Council II interpreted according to Catholic Tradition and the salvation dogma.
Since, Vatican Council II affirms the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Fr. Leonard Feeney was not excommunicated for heresy and even if he was, Vatican Council II is in agreement with the literal interpretation of the dogma. While Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance, a good conscience) are not explicit, known exceptions. They do not contradict AG 7.
Assuming the Holy Office 1949 excommunicated Fr. Leonard Feeney for saying that the baptism of desire was not an exception to the dogma, then it was an objective error on their part. Also the ordinary magisterium of Pope Pius XII cannot over rule a defined dogma or Vatican Council II in accord with that dogma which has a bearing on ecumenism and relations with non Catholics. (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence).The Letter of the Holy Office instead referred to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible’ teaching. The dogma indicates all Jews in Boston need to convert to avoid the fires of Hell.(Cantate Domino).
Vatican Council II like Cantate Domino, also says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (to avoid Hell) (AG 7). So for the ADL this interpretation of Vatican Council II would be anti-Semitic.
The SSPX simply says that they reject Vatican Council II (ADL version) and Jews need to convert for salvation. They maintain Catholics are the Chosen People of God, Christ is King of the Universe and His Social Reign must extend to all socialist and secular institutions now controlled by the Jewish Left and others.
The Vatican is now threatening the SSPX with excommunication if they do not accept the ADL version of Vatican Council II and the pro abortion, homosexuality,ADL -approved values for the Catholic Church.
SSPX COMMUNIQUE NEEDED
The SSPX needs to issue a public statement which says, more or less:-
‘In response to the Communiqué of the Vatican (March 16, 2012) and earlier statements of Pope Benedict XVI on Vatican Council II not being a break from Tradition, we wish to explore the possibility of accepting Vatican Council II in accord with the salvation dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. We will hold conferences at the SSPX District Superior level in which members of the Pontifical Institutions will be invited to clarify the doctrinal interpretation of Vatican Council II accepted by the SSPX and to publically know the position of the Vatican, especially with regard to ecumenism, inter religious dialogue, religious liberty and salvation.
‘We hope to clarify if Vatican Council II rejects the theology of religions of the Vatican International Theological Commission.
‘Catholic Novus Ordo priests in Rome have reportedly said that we do not know any non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. So there may be nothing in Vatican Council II which opposes the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the SSPX position that all Jews and other non Catholics need to convert for salvation.
‘The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is also welcome to clarify immediately or when possible the following points:-
1. We do not know any one saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience, seeds of the Word, imperfect communion, elements of sanctification etc among non Catholics ?
2. So Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance, good conscience) is not referring to an explicit exception to Ad Gentes 7 and the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
3. So Ad Gentes 7 and the dogma outside the Church no salvation indicate that all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation and there are no known exceptions on earth ?
4. So Vatican Council II is saying that Jews,Muslims ( and other non Christians) and Protestants and Orthodox Christians (and other non Catholics) need Catholic Faith for salvation (to avoid Hell) ?
5. Since Vatican Council II indicates that all non Catholics are oriented to Hell there cannot be a theology of religions according to Vatican Council II ?’
The SSPX could accept Vatican Council II as a continuation of Tradition with respect to the salvation dogma and the other issues of Vatican Council II could be debated later.
-Lionel Andrades
The Society of St. Pius X: Mired in Anti-Semitism
http://www.adl.org/main_Interfaith/Society_Saint_Pius_X.htm?Multi_page_sections=sHeading_2
LikeLike
.
“Imagine the world wide political storm the SSPX could cause if they announced that they accept Vatican Council II interpreted according to Catholic Tradition and the salvation dogma.”</i<
I imagine – for about 99% of the people on this planet – it would be a very small storm in a very small chalice indeed.
Either they aren't Catholics and so couldn't care a monkey's, or they are, and have more important things to worry about.
Like pedophile priests.
And bothersome Lesbians.
But I might be wrong.
Anyway, to put it in its appropriate nutshell, where it belongs – does Lionel believe all non-Catholics are going to Hell?
LikeLike
.
One more once:
“Imagine the world wide political storm the SSPX could cause if they announced that they accept Vatican Council II interpreted according to Catholic Tradition and the salvation dogma.”
I imagine – for about 99.9% of the people on this planet – it would be a very small storm in a very small chalice indeed.
Either people aren’t Catholics and so couldn’t care a monkey’s, or they are, and have more important things to worry about.
Like pedophile priests.
And bothersome Lesbians.
And communion kneeling down.
And appropriate albs.
But I might be wrong.
Anyway, to put it in its appropriate nutshell, where it surely belongs – does Lionel believe all non-Catholics are going to Hell?
LikeLike
.
I give up.
LikeLike
May I remind you that Fr Feeney sported the initials “SJ” after his name?
And don’t bother waving the opinion of a canonist at me: the decisions in the case have been settled by the Magisterium; the ruling of the Holy Office of 1949 remains the last word on the matter.
May I also remind you that only heretics are required to recant? Feeney was only required to return to obedience, which he did.
LikeLike
Normally, in such circumstances as these, after a member has posted some extensive verbiage appearing to be supportive of some disorthodoxy or other, I would respond by posting some sort of comparatively lengthy rebuttal of whichever false or falsifiable position(s).
—
But in this particular case, the original writing appears to be of such drastically poor quality that I find it to be unreadable.
cripes !!!
LikeLike
.
That’s a relief, Jabba. I couldn’t get a handle on it out either.
Thought it was just because I was thick.
LikeLike
toadspittle
1. “Imagine the world wide political storm the SSPX could cause if they announced that they accept Vatican Council II interpreted according to Catholic Tradition and the salvation dogma.”</i<
I imagine – for about 99% of the people on this planet – it would be a very small storm in a very small chalice indeed.
Lionel: The storm will be like the one when the Revised Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews was objected to.
The storm will be created in the newspapers and socio-political organisations.
Anyway, to put it in its appropriate nutshell, where it belongs – does Lionel believe all non-Catholics are going to Hell?
The Catholics Church teaches that all non Catholics are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.(John 3:5, Mark 16:16 etc, Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, Dominus Iesus 20, Catechism of the Catholic Church 846,845, dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Cantate Domino) etc.
LikeLike
The Raven
And don’t bother waving the opinion of a canonist at me: the decisions in the case have been settled by the Magisterium; the ruling of the Holy Office of 1949 remains the last word on the matter.
Lionel:
The Magisterium supported Fr.Leonard Feeney in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 when it referred to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible teaching’. The dogma indicates that all Jews and other non Catholics in Boston and the rest of the world need to convert into the Church for salvation. The text of the dogma does not mention invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire as an explicit exception.
May I also remind you that only heretics are required to recant?
Lionel:
Correct. So Fr Feeney was not expected to recant.
Feeney was only required to return to obedience, which he did.
Yes.
LikeLike
Thursday, April 5, 2012
MEDIA DISINFORMATION ON CATHOLIC TEACHINGS THE SSPX AND VATICAN COUNCIL II
Padre Giovanni is the responsible Jesuit priest at the Jesuit Astali Refugee Centre in Rome. They have a battery of lawyers who assist refugees, including those who have been rejected for political asylum.
At times it seems the Jesuit legal system is there for only leftist social injustice issues.
See the leftist media propaganda against the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and Vatican Council II in particular and Catholic teachings in general.
Could not some of those lawyers advocate honesty in newspaper reporting about Catholics?
There are so many claims of anti Semitism. What about anti Catholicism by institutions and media of the Jewish Left, like the ADL.
The ADL and the mainstream media in Italy repeat that the SSPX teaches that Jews need to convert for salvation and this is contrary to the ‘reforms’ of Vatican Council II. Then they repeat that the Catholic Church teaches that Jews are still the Chosen People of God.
They will never mention that Vatican Council II indicates that Jews need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell (for salvation) and Catholics are the ‘new people of God’.(AG 7,NA 4).
Couldn’t the Jesuit lawyers point this out to the media?
This is disinformation about Catholic teachings and it is ‘hate’ specifically against the SSPX.
The SSPX is affirming Traditional Catholic teaching and Vatican Council II when it says Jews need to convert for salvation.
Then the secular liberal media says that now the Church teaches that there is salvation outside the Church since a non Catholic can be saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire (LG 16).
Commonsense tells us that we do not know any case of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire. So how can it be an explicit exception to AG 7 which says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation?
How can it be an exception to the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Cantate Domino)?
These are the falsehoods being repeated by the print media and television in Italy and it is not being checked legally.
The Vatican cannot be expected to make the clarification since they are under political pressure from Rabbi Rosen, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the ADL and their supporters. So they have to keep silent.
Could a legal aide of the Astali Centre or another Catholic organization check the misinformation in the media point by point?
If the misinformation about the Catholic Faith is the political opinion of the Jewish Left it should be said so and it should not be claimed that this is the teaching of Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades.
LikeLike
Lionel Andrades, the SSPX disturbs me because of its self-righteousness. Read the article on our blog by John Vianney, the SSPX can have the whole set of dogmata but without charity you will never come to the heavenly reign. SSPX has buried itself under a building of neo-scholastic interpretations of the dogmata and juristic concepts but it doesn’t see the core of Christianity: LOVE and HUMILITY. In the Holy Week, I invite all members of SSPX to reflect on their personal sins and stop the quarrelling with Catholics in communion with Rome. You have too much neo-scholastic scholarship but you forget the Gospel and Jesus.
I find SSPX unrelentingly quarrelsome, could you be quiet just for the Holy Time of Passion?
LikeLike
.
“The storm will be created in the newspapers and socio-political organisations.” Well, Lionel newspapers don’t create storms, they merely report on them, whatever they might tell you on CP&S.
Then Toad asked: “…does Lionel believe all non-Catholics are going to Hell?”
To which Lionel answered: “The Catholic Church teaches that all non Catholics are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.(John 3:5, Mark 16:16 etc, Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, Dominus Iesus 20, Catechism of the Catholic Church 846,845, dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Cantate Domino) etc.”
…which is not an answer to the question asked by Toad, which was, what do YOU believe, Lionel? It is a question that vexes one or two of us on CP&S.
(Which is very seldom “P,” and almost never “S.”)
“..without charity you will never come to the heavenly reign.” ..vows Teresa, who was a bit uncharitable to our good friend Chris, the other day.
Though who is Toad to talk? (Who was going to wish everyone a Happy Good Friday, although that seems oddly innapropriate, somehow, so he won’t.)
LikeLike
Toad, if I think Chris is wrong I say it out directly, yes, I will be further “uncharitable” to Chris if he distorts historical facts again and also “uncharitable” to your cynicism. Your Charity is not my Charity, your charity means to take lies with easiness and be nice to every “liberal guy” but to be cynical to Christians, I am not obliged to share your definition of “charity”.
Charity doesn’t mean condoning people distort the facting, undermining the morality and taking sins easily. Charity means to love the others with the love of Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ doesn’t tell you to lie, to undermine the morality, to call homosexual relationship an “old Christian tradition” etc.
Sorry to disappoint you Toad but I have no interest to appear “nice” before self-claimed tolerant guys on internet, as I said before. I have more important things to do than to build up an internet-image of me on the web to show off how tolerant and liberal I am.
And yes, to wish “a happy Good Friday” is inappropriate, everyone with some background knowledge of Christianity will know.
LikeLike
The storm will be created in the newspapers and socio-political organisations.” Well, Lionel newspapers don’t create storms, they merely report on them, whatever they might tell you on Then Toad asked: “…does Lionel believe all non-Catholics are going to Hell?”
To which Lionel answered: “The Catholic Church teaches that all non Catholics are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.(John 3:5, Mark 16:16 etc, Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, Dominus Iesus 20, Catechism of the Catholic Church 846,845, dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Cantate Domino) etc.”
…which is not an answer to the question asked by Toad, which was, what do YOU believe, Lionel?
I am a Catholic! I believe what th Catholic Church teaches as mentioned above.
LikeLike
Teresa,
I am not a member of the SSPX I also attend the Novus Ordo Mass here in Italian.
However I am trying to point out that an injustice is being done to the SSPX by the secular media in its reporting of Vatican Council II.
The media unlike in the past does not just report facts it has now become ideological and militant.In other words biased and bigoted.
When has the media said that Vatican Council II says all Jews need to convert into the Church and that Catholics are the Chosen People of God ?
Yet this is also the position of the SSPX.
LikeLike
.
Some of us are starting to wonder why you are being so shifty, Lionel. (Oh, all right only Toad is.)
What will it cost you to give a yes or no answer? Your soul?
So…Do you believe non-Catholics will get to Heaven or not?
(And, if they do, will they find the kindly old “Generallissimo” there to greet them?)
LikeLike
.
“Sorry to disappoint you Toad..” says Teresa (somewhat unconvincingly, it must be admitted).
Relax, Teresa! The one thing you are simply not capable of doing – try as you might – is disappointing me.
As for tolerance, well, you’d be hard pressed to find a more tolerant Toad in any hole.
Unlike you, I’m so tolerant that I would have all people less tolerant than myself liquidated immediately.
Can’t say fairer than that, can we?
“The media unlike in the past does not just report facts it has now become ideological and militant.In other words biased and bigoted.” Oh, so now having an ideology, and being militant about it, has become being biased and bigoted about it?
Well, yes, I suppose that’s true enough, Lionel. But be careful where you point your finger.
LikeLike
Lumen Gentium 16 Vatican Council II says that a non Catholic can be saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience etc. So I accept the possibility of a non Catholic being saved.
Since these cases are known only to God I am not saying that there is any such person in the present time (2012) .Neither is this the ordinary mean of salvation.
The ordinary, normal means of salvation (AG 7) is Catholics Faith and the baptism of water all non Catholics on earth are oriented to Hell since they have not entered the Church. If there are any exceptions it would be known only to God.
So I believe, as the Church teaches, that all non Catholics are oriented to Hell at the time of death.
LikeLike
.
Good, Lionel. And thanks for that.
One gets so many conflicting opinions. One never know, do one?
LikeLike
Lionel Andrades, thank you for your explanation and sorry that I mistook you for a member of SSPX, I didn’t read your comments carefully enough, please accept my apology for it.
As for Jews need to accept Christ to be saved, yes, it is taught by the Church but some modernists try to present Judaism as a parallel way to salvation, and also other religions as parallel, alternative ways to salvation. It is a deliberately distortion of the Church teaching.
The media and most reporters / journalists have no notion of Christian culture and no basic theological knowledge. That is why they are only producing rubbish when they report on Church and Christianity in general.
But to blame Jews for example Rabbi Rosen is cheap. I disagree with you in this point. The Vatican has better things to do than to correct every idiotic word printed in the secular media.
LikeLike
.
Good to know you have chucked out the old telly, and cancelled L’Osservatore Romano, Teresa.
You won’t regret it!
LikeLike
Toad, I never possessed a TV-set.
And I never subscribed to L’Osservatore Romao. I have no newspaper subscription at all though I buy occasionally a copy of newspaper.
LikeLike
The Church teaches that baptism and “Catholic” Faith (which could refer to either Roman Catholicism or the Universal Church — the doctrine, IIRC, leaves this as a question that is open to interpretation) are considered as the only fully efficacious means, outside the Sovereign Grace of God, towards salvation.
However — there are a great many grey areas in the doctrine.
First, the teaching in question itself, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, has been — accurately I think — understood as being a tautology. This is actually the ancient, traditional understanding of it. The Church being defined as the Assembly of the Saved, there can by very definition be no salvation outside the Church. As such, the doctrine provides no extra teaching. And yet there is no doubt that such as Moses, Abraham, Eli are members of this Assembly of the Saved, therefore of the Church as it is so defined. And meanwhile, all those saved outside the earthly Church by an Action of God’s Grace, are also members of the Church in the exact same way.
Second, the churches that are closest to Catholicism, such as the Orthodox, Anglo-Catholics, and so on, can obviously be described as being imperfectly efficacious means towards salvation — because their baptisms are valid, and many of their sacraments are valid (the sacrament of order being typically the most problematic one).
Third, Scripture specifically teaches us that the righteous among the Jews will be saved.
Fourth, the teaching is not technically a dogma — it is, instead, a part of the traditional Christian profession of faith, belonging as such equally to Catholic, Orthodox, and even any Protestants that do not explicitly deny it.
—
In other words, we are in the presence of an teaching of the Church that is of value as a description of the nature of the Universal Church, both the Visible and Invisible Church, but it provides us with no teaching of any sort of actual practical merit — for practical merit, we need to turn instead to some of the related doctrines — such as the above-mentioned “baptism and Catholic faith are the only fully efficacious means towards salvation” (paraphrased) and “conversion to Catholicism is conducive towards these means of salvation” (paraphrased) and “apostasy and heresy are destructive of the apostate’s or heretic’s salvation” (paraphrased) — which are all of them useful and meaningful doctrines, that can be seen to have some evident practical applications.
Most importantly, to understand extra Ecclesiam nulla salus as if it were a doctrine designed to exclude and to deny and to anathematise the non-Catholics is to understand it backwards — because the Saved **ARE** the Church.
It is instead an exhortation towards our own salvation, and the salvation of others.
To deny in our speech or actions the possibilities of God’s Sovereign Acts of Grace by claiming that ALL non-Catholics are bound for Hell, and so on, is to set the earthly Church as if above the Celestial Church — and **THIS** very clearly does provide towards an heretical tendency, at the least.
LikeLike
.
Well, at least now – thanks to Jabba – we all know where we all stand.
What a relief to get that sorted out!
Now we can concentrate on communion on the tongue while kneeling down, pedophile priests, and wearing brown shoes with an alb…..things that matter.
LikeLike
JabbaPapa says:
The Church teaches that baptism and “Catholic” Faith (which could refer to either Roman Catholicism or the Universal Church — the doctrine, IIRC, leaves this as a question that is open to interpretation) are considered as the only fully efficacious means, outside the Sovereign Grace of God, towards salvation.
Lionel:
Catholic Faith refers to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church; the Magisterium and to the Sacraments. This includes interpreting and living the Gospel as taught by the Catholic Magisterium in accord with the Magisrterium of the past 2000 years.
Protestants and the Orthodox Christians have the baptism of water but not Catholic Faith. They have different moral and faith teachings some of which are mortal sins for Catholics.
Jabba
However — there are a great many grey areas in the doctrine.
First, the teaching in question itself, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, has been — accurately I think — understood as being a tautology. This is actually the ancient, traditional understanding of it. The Church being defined as the Assembly of the Saved, there can by very definition be no salvation outside the Church. As such, the doctrine provides no extra teaching. And yet there is no doubt that such as Moses, Abraham, Eli are members of this Assembly of the Saved, therefore of the Church as it is so defined. And meanwhile, all those saved outside the earthly Church by an Action of God’s Grace, are also members of the Church in the exact same way.
Lionel:
The Catholic Chuirch is those who have Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and are living without mortal sin on their soul.If they die immediately Heaven is their final home.
Those who lived before the Sacrifice of Jesus had to wait for the Resurrection before they could be taken to Heaven. This includes Abraham and the prophets.
Presently there could be non Catholics saved, among the Assembly of the Saved. However for salvation as the dogma taught every one needs the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.
Jabba
Second, the churches that are closest to Catholicism, such as the Orthodox, Anglo-Catholics, and so on, can obviously be described as being imperfectly efficacious means towards salvation — because their baptisms are valid, and many of their sacraments are valid (the sacrament of order being typically the most problematic one).
Lionel
The Orthdoox have been in schism.They do not recognize the the Pope, they reject fundamental dogma of the Catholic Church they interpret the Scriptures differently. They need to convert into the Catholic Church according to the defined dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Cantate Domino.
Jabba
Third, Scripture specifically teaches us that the righteous among the Jews will be saved.
Lionel:
This is never in dispute. The rigteous could have also chosen to be baptized and this would be known to God. As a possibility this does not contradict the dogma or Vatican Council II.
Jabba
Fourth, the teaching is not technically a dogma — it is, instead, a part of the traditional Christian profession of faith, belonging as such equally to Catholic, Orthodox, and even any Protestants that do not explicitly deny it.
Lionel:
In the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston Pope Pius XII mentioned ‘the dogma’, the ‘infalllible teaching’. Which infallible dogma was he referring to ?
Jabba
In other words, we are in the presence of an teaching of the Church that is of value as a description of the nature of the Universal Church, both the Visible and Invisible Church, but it provides us with no teaching of any sort of actual practical merit — for practical merit, we need to turn instead to some of the related doctrines — such as the above-mentioned “baptism and Catholic faith are the only fully efficacious means towards salvation” (paraphrased) and “conversion to Catholicism is conducive towards these means of salvation” (paraphrased) and “apostasy and heresy are destructive of the apostate’s or heretic’s salvation” (paraphrased) — which are all of them useful and meaningful doctrines, that can be seen to have some evident practical applications.
Lionel:
Yes these doctrines must be ‘firmly believed’(Dominus Iesus).However there is also a thrice defined dogma.
Jabba
Most importantly, to understand extra Ecclesiam nulla salus as if it were a doctrine designed to exclude and to deny and to anathematise the non-Catholics is to understand it backwards — because the Saved **ARE** the Church.
Lionel:
The saved are the Catholic Church ,yes and those saved in implicit ways known to God are not a contradiction or even an issue with respect to the dogma. The dogma excludes non Catholics from salvation and says there is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church. Those saved implicitly and now in Heaven are known only to God.
Jabba
It is instead an exhortation towards our own salvation, and the salvation of others.
To deny in our speech or actions the possibilities of God’s Sovereign Acts of Grace by claiming that ALL non-Catholics are bound for Hell, and so on, is to set the earthly Church as if above the Celestial Church — and **THIS** very clearly does provide towards an heretical tendency, at the least.
Lionel:
Vatican Council II when it says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation is telling us that there are millions of non Catholics excluded from salvation.
Other magisterial texts have the same message e.g Dominus Iesus 20.
In the Nicene Creed we pray “I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin’.To suggest that non Catholics are saved in general in their religion is a rejection of the Creed and a first class heresy .
To suggest that non Catholics in the present time in general or in a particular case do not need the baptism of water for salvation is also a rejection of the Nicene Creed.
LikeLike
Splitting up into bite-sized chunks for purposes of convenience —
Me : The Church teaches that baptism and “Catholic” Faith (which could refer to either Roman Catholicism or the Universal Church — the doctrine, IIRC, leaves this as a question that is open to interpretation) are considered as the only fully efficacious means, outside the Sovereign Grace of God, towards salvation.
Lionel : Catholic Faith refers to the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church; the Magisterium and to the Sacraments. This includes interpreting and living the Gospel as taught by the Catholic Magisterium in accord with the Magisterium of the past 2000 years.
Protestants and the Orthodox Christians have the baptism of water but not Catholic Faith. They have different moral and faith teachings some of which are mortal sins for Catholics.
Lionel, the word “Catholic” has two meanings — which are not antagonistic or contradictory, but complementary. The word means both “Roman Catholic plus certain regional churches that are in full Communion with Rome” and “Universal”. Any interpretations denying this second meaning of the word are objectively false ones.
Concerning the baptism of water, even the Orthodox Jews have that (though they call it something else) !!! The specificity of the Christian baptism is that it is a baptism in the Spirit. This baptism in the Spirit is the baptism that we accept, recognise, and affirm ; the baptism of water as provided in his time by the Baptist has of course been sanctified by the Christ’s own baptism of water.
There are no teachings of Greek Orthodoxy that have been declared as being mortal sins by the Church, nor any teachings of SSPX by the way.
—
Meanwhile, let us pray for all of the catechumens preparing in this Easter time to receive their own baptism in the Spirit !!!
LikeLike
Me : However — there are a great many grey areas in the doctrine.
First, the teaching in question itself, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, has been — accurately I think — understood as being a tautology. This is actually the ancient, traditional understanding of it. The Church being defined as the Assembly of the Saved, there can by very definition be no salvation outside the Church. As such, the doctrine provides no extra teaching. And yet there is no doubt that such as Moses, Abraham, Eli are members of this Assembly of the Saved, therefore of the Church as it is so defined. And meanwhile, all those saved outside the earthly Church by an Action of God’s Grace, are also members of the Church in the exact same way.
Lionel : The Catholic Church is those who have Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and are living without mortal sin on their soul.If they die immediately Heaven is their final home.
Those who lived before the Sacrifice of Jesus had to wait for the Resurrection before they could be taken to Heaven. This includes Abraham and the prophets.
Presently there could be non Catholics saved, among the Assembly of the Saved. However for salvation as the dogma taught every one needs the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.
This is an understanding of the Catholic teachings that was prevalent from about the beginning of the 18th century til about halfway through the 20th. It is historically determined, rather than being determined by the permanent teaching of the Church.
You cannot confuse the visible, earthly Church of the living with the invisible Church of the Saints, living and dead.
The Mystery of God’s treatment of those righteous saved not belonging to the Earthly Church is outside of mortal knowledge. Scripture on the other hand specifically teaches that such as Abraham and the Prophets are with the Kingdom of God.
Baptism in the Spirit and Catholic Faith remain the efficacious means to act towards one’s salvation.
LikeLike
Me : Second, the churches that are closest to Catholicism, such as the Orthodox, Anglo-Catholics, and so on, can obviously be described as being imperfectly efficacious means towards salvation — because their baptisms are valid, and many of their sacraments are valid (the sacrament of order being typically the most problematic one).
Lionel : The Orthodox have been in schism.They do not recognize the the Pope, they reject fundamental dogma of the Catholic Church they interpret the Scriptures differently. They need to convert into the Catholic Church according to the defined dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Cantate Domino.
The Great Schism is a schism of the two Churches, not a schism of the one from the other.
It is the only schism that the Roman Catholic Church accepts as being responsible for, albeit to no lesser degree than the responsibility of the Greek Orthodox for the same schism.
Recognition of Papal Authority is not a requirement of salvation ; it is a requirement of discipline.
There is a doctrinal divergence between the two Churches certainly, but any fundamental differences are quite limited in scope ; they pale in comparison with the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, atheism, Marxism, etc…
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is dogma belonging to both Catholic and Orthodox. Teach it to the Orthodox, and you are preaching to the converted.
LikeLike
Me : Fourth, the teaching is not technically a dogma — it is, instead, a part of the traditional Christian profession of faith, belonging as such equally to Catholic, Orthodox, and even any Protestants that do not explicitly deny it.
Lionel : In the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston Pope Pius XII mentioned ‘the dogma’, the ‘infalllible teaching’. Which infallible dogma was he referring to ?
I was making a purely technical point.
Such a profession of faith is not a part of the dogmata — it is instead a necessary feature of any truly Christian Faith.
It is descriptive, and not prescriptive.
As a description of reality, it is no more fallible than the fact of our own incarnation as individual physical bodies in this material world. 🙂
LikeLike
Me : It is instead an exhortation towards our own salvation, and the salvation of others.
To deny in our speech or actions the possibilities of God’s Sovereign Acts of Grace by claiming that ALL non-Catholics are bound for Hell, and so on, is to set the earthly Church as if above the Celestial Church — and **THIS** very clearly does provide towards an heretical tendency, at the least.
Lionel : Vatican Council II when it says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation is telling us that there are millions of non Catholics excluded from salvation.
Other magisterial texts have the same message e.g Dominus Iesus 20.
In the Nicene Creed we pray “I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin’.To suggest that non Catholics are saved in general in their religion is a rejection of the Creed and a first class heresy .
To suggest that non Catholics in the present time in general or in a particular case do not need the baptism of water for salvation is also a rejection of the Nicene Creed.
There are millions of non-Catholics excluded from salvation by virtue of denying its possibility yes.
Teaching that salvation is possible and how to act towards that salvation, by baptism in water and Spirit, and by holy love for God, is the principle work of our Catholic Church.
NOBODY has suggested that “non Catholics are saved in general”.
Concerning the Nicene Creed, it is both Catholic and Orthodox (see : Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom). I have NO IDEA where you got hold of this fantastic notion that I might be denying baptism, including your own baptism and mine, in any way whatsoever.
LikeLike
.
“There are millions of non-Catholics excluded from salvation by virtue of denying its possibility yes.”
So, if you honestly don’t believe in Heaven, you end up not going there. Seems straightforward enough..
LikeLike
Jabba:
Lionel, the word “Catholic” has two meanings — which are not antagonistic or contradictory, but complementary. The word means both “Roman Catholic plus certain regional churches that are in full Communion with Rome” and “Universal”. Any interpretations denying this second meaning of the word are objectively false ones.
Lionel:
True one has to have Catholic Faith and be subject to the Holy Father as in the Unitiate Churches. The baptism of water and Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation.
Jabba:
Concerning the baptism of water, even the Orthodox Jews have that (though they call it something else) !!! The specificity of the Christian baptism is that it is a baptism in the Spirit. This baptism in the Spirit is the baptism that we accept, recognise, and affirm ; the baptism of water as provided in his time by the Baptist has of course been sanctified by the Christ’s own baptism of water.
Lionel:
Catholics consider the baptism of the Chistian communities valid. If a person dies with just the baptism of water and has faith in Jesus and does not know about the Catholic Church or does not have the means to enter the Church he can be saved. He can be saved even though he is not a visible, to us, member of the Catholic Church. God could send a preacher to him as St.Thomas Aquinas teaches. However in ways known to God he can be saved.
If this person lives on then he needs to enter the Church to be saved ; he needs to know the faith and moral teachings of the Church for salvation.
It’s like when St.Peter told the jailer all he needs to do is to be believe in Jesus and he will be saved. So the jailer and his family entered the community of that time, the Early Church, the Early Catholic Church.
Assuming the jailer entered the church but then committed mortal sins, just faith in Jesus would not be enough. He could have lost his salvation.
Similarly for the Protestant and Orthodox Christian (non Uniate) faith in Jesus in their relgion is not enough for salvation.
Jabba
There are no teachings of Greek Orthodoxy that have been declared as being mortal sins by the Church, nor any teachings of SSPX by the way.
Lionel:
I was referred to the beliefs of the Protestants and those in the Orthodox Churches not in union with the Catholic Church.
They divorce, use contraceptives,reject the dogmas of the Church etc.Also the issue of priests getting married is controversial.
LikeLike
Jabba:
This is an understanding of the Catholic teachings that was prevalent from about the beginning of the 18th century til about halfway through the 20th. It is historically determined, rather than being determined by the permanent teaching of the Church.
Lionel: No one goes to Heave except through Jesus.
The good people in the Old Testament had to waith in ‘Abraham’s bosom’ so to speak before they could go to Heaven. They had to wait for the Promised Messiah.
Jabba:
You cannot confuse the visible, earthly Church of the living with the invisible Church of the Saints, living and dead.
Lionel : Yes there is the earthly visibe Church and the invisible Church of the Saints.All non Catholics on earth need to enter the visible Church for salvation. They cannot choose to do so with the baptism of desire etc. The only means is the baptism of water with Catholic Faith. I think we agree here.
Jabba:
The Mystery of God’s treatment of those righteous saved not belonging to the Earthly Church is outside of mortal knowledge.
Lionel:
Yes, also God’s treatment of those saved in the present times, except for the saints, is outside of mortal knowledge.
Jabba:
Scripture on the other hand specifically teaches that such as Abraham and the Prophets are with the Kingdom of God.
Lionel:
Yes they are there now after the Resurrection.
Jabba:
Baptism in the Spirit and Catholic Faith remain the efficacious means to act towards one’s salvation.
Lionel:
Yes we agree here.In general this is the ordinary means of salvation.
LikeLike
Jabba:
Recognition of Papal Authority is not a requirement of salvation ; it is a requirement of discipline.
Lionel:
‘submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.’-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Jabba:
There is a doctrinal divergence between the two Churches certainly, but any fundamental differences are quite limited in scope ; they pale in comparison with the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, atheism, Marxism, etc…
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is dogma belonging to both Catholic and Orthodox. Teach it to the Orthodox, and you are preaching to the converted.
Lionel:
Here is the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus defined three times. Cantate Domino specifically mentions the schismatics.
o “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
o “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
o “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)-Catholicism .org
LikeLike
Lionel :
In the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston Pope Pius XII mentioned ‘the dogma’, the ‘infalllible teaching’. Which infallible dogma was he referring to ?
Jabba:
I was making a purely technical point.
Such a profession of faith is not a part of the dogmata — it is instead a necessary feature of any truly Christian Faith.
It is descriptive, and not prescriptive.
As a description of reality, it is no more fallible than the fact of our own incarnation as individual physical bodies in this material world
Lionel:
I have quoted (above) the text of the dogma which Pope Pius XII referred to (from Catholicism,.org) . These were the three defined dogma known for centuries to the popes and saints.
LikeLike
Jabba:
It is instead an exhortation towards our own salvation, and the salvation of others.
To deny in our speech or actions the possibilities of God’s Sovereign Acts of Grace by claiming that ALL non-Catholics are bound for Hell,
Lionel:
I am referring to all non Catholics on earth in the present time (2012).
We know all of them need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation(AG 7 etc). We agree here. This is also the teaching of the Church so we know that all of them with no exception on earth are oriented to Hell unless they convert.
Would you know any exception in the present time?
We agree as a concept and belief in the possibilities of God’s Sovereign Acts of Grace. However we cannot claim to know any such case in 2012.
Jabba:
and so on, is to set the earthly Church as if above the Celestial Church — and **THIS** very clearly does provide towards an heretical tendency, at the least.
Lionel:
We do not know any exceptions in the earthly Church now of non Catholics saved without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. We do not know any person who will go to the Celestial Church without the two requirements of baptism of water and Catholic Faith.
We cannot speculate in particular cases.
Lionel : Vatican Council II when it says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation is telling us that there are millions of non Catholics excluded from salvation.
Other magisterial texts have the same message e.g Dominus Iesus 20.
In the Nicene Creed we pray “I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin’.To suggest that non Catholics are saved in general in their religion is a rejection of the Creed and a first class heresy .
To suggest that non Catholics in the present time in general or in a particular case do not need the baptism of water for salvation is also a rejection of the Nicene Creed.
Jabba:
There are millions of non-Catholics excluded from salvation by virtue of denying its possibility yes.
Teaching that salvation is possible and how to act towards that salvation, by baptism in water and Spirit, and by holy love for God, is the principle work of our Catholic Church.
Lionel:
Yes.
Jabba:
NOBODY has suggested that “non Catholics are saved in general”.
Lionel:
Fine.We agree.
Jabba:
Concerning the Nicene Creed, it is both Catholic and Orthodox (see : Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom). I have NO IDEA where you got hold of this fantastic notion that I might be denying baptism, including your own baptism and mine, in any way whatsoever.
Lionel:
We agree that the baptism of water is needed for all for salvation.
Now the issue is the Orthodox Churches ( non Uniates).
Ad Gentes 7 and the dogma Cantate Domino indicate that the ‘schismatics’ do not have Catholic Faith. They do not have the Sacraments of the Catholic Church within the Catholic Church. They do not accept the Holy Father and the teachings of the Church. Teachings on faith and morals, which can deprive a Catholic in mortal sins eternal salvation, are different. They do not accept Catholic teachings which we consider necessary for salvation.
LikeLike
Me : Recognition of Papal Authority is not a requirement of salvation ; it is a requirement of discipline.
Lionel : ‘submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.’-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Submission to the Pontiff and recognition of his Authority are not actually the same thing.
LikeLike
toadspittle
“There are millions of non-Catholics excluded from salvation by virtue of denying its possibility yes.”
So, if you honestly don’t believe in Heaven, you end up not going there. Seems straightforward enough..
Lionel:
Hell exists even if you do not believe in it.
St.Faustina Kowalski was given the gift to see Hell and return to tell us about it. She describes Hell in her Diary.
She observes that most of the people she saw in Hell were surprised to be there!
LikeLike
Lionel : We cannot speculate in particular cases.
This is a two-edged sword.
LikeLike
JabbaPapa says:
April 6, 2012 at 18:28
Me : Recognition of Papal Authority is not a requirement of salvation ; it is a requirement of discipline.
Lionel : ‘submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.’-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Submission to the Pontiff and recognition of his Authority are not actually the same thing.
Lionel
The Orthodox Christians do not submit to the pontiff nor recognize his Authority wouldn’t you agree ?
LikeLike
Lionel : We cannot speculate in particular cases.
Jabba:
This is a two-edged sword.
Lionel:
When I say all non Catholics in the present time are oriented to Hell it is not because I can read t
souls or have any special personal knowledge, of course!
It is becuse the Church teaches this. I have quoted you the Church-documents.
LikeLike
The Orthodox Christians do not submit to the pontiff nor recognize his Authority wouldn’t you agree ?
No.
This reply box is far too small to explain why not ……………
LikeLike
Someone else [another seer] said Hell was full of clergy!
LikeLike
.
“Hell exists even if you do not believe in it.” says Lionel, and no regular reader of CP&S would doubt that for a moment.
(Of course, one could say the same thing about skepticism.)
LikeLike
Friday, April 6, 2012
ANIVERSARY OF THE DENIAL OF THE FAITH BY THE MAGISTERIUM ?
If a Catholic priest, bishop or cardinal denies a teaching of the Church which must be ‘firmly believed’ he is automatically excommunicated.Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Bertone as President and Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith excommunicated a Sri Lankan OMI priest for denying the Immaculate Conception o f Our Lady.
Pope Benedict XVI in Light of the World-Conversations with Peter Seewald says Jews do not have to convert in the present times. Pope Benedict XVI says that he has revised the ancient liturgy (on Good Friday) so that it does not say that Jews need to convert in the present times but that they will convert in a future time (eschatological time).
So he is saying that he has revised the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews which now says Jews do not have to convert in the present times.(1) This is a rejection of the Nicene Creed in which we pray “I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin”.Jews do need the baptism of water in the present time.
The pope is saying that without the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith, Jews in general, are saved in their religion.
Vatican Council II mentions the possibility of non Catholics being saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience etc. It does not state that they are saved in general in their religion. Since in general the normal means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.(AG 7).
The Vatican recieved a threat from the Chief Rabbinate and the Goverment of Israel over the issue of the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of Jews it was reported in the secular newspapers here.There was the threat of war. The pope diffused the tension with a front page report in the L’Osservatore Romano in which it was said that Jews do not have to convert in the present time.
This message was repeated in Light of the World-Conversations with Peter Seewald (Ignatius Press). The pope told Seewald that there is only one means of salvation and all who are saved are saved through Jesus.True. However this can also be a partial truth and denial of a defined dogma offensive to the Jewish Left.Offensive to the pro-Sodom and Gomorrah Zionists posing as Jews.Yes all those who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church, Jesus’ Mystical Body, however every one needs to enter the Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,Dominus Iesus 20 etc).
The pope and his Curia have put away the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which Pope Pius XII called an ‘infallible teaching’.
In the same book the pope mentioned an exception to the prohibited use of condoms, an issue already being supported before by the liberal English bishops.The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) issued a clarification saying that in general the Church has not changed its teaching on condoms. The CDF never issued a clarification to the popes comments on the Jews in that same book.
1.Do Jews do not need to convert in the present times to avoid Hell?The pope says no. The CDF says nothing.
2.Do all Jews need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation?(AG 7 etc).The pope says no. The CDF says nothing.
3.Do all Jews need to convert into the Church for salvation ?(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence. Defined dogma).The pope says no. The CDF is silent.
The Bible says Jews need to convert. The pope says…
The Jewish Anti Defamation League(ADL) claims the Church has changed its teaching regarding Jews and Judaism.This claim is made in the ADL Bearing Witness education program for Catholic schools.The CDF ignores it. The USCCB implements the ADL program in Catholic schools.
The secular newspapers imply that those who are saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc are known exceptions to the dogma ( and to Vatican Council II, AG 7). The Magisterium is silent.
Vatican Council II in reality says Jews need to convert for salvation.The Society of St.Pius X in reality accepts this teaching and interpretation of Vatican Council II. The SSPX is condemned.They are condemned for rejecting the Jewish Left interpretation of Vatican Council II. The Magisterium will not state like Vatican Council II,Ad Gentes 7 that Jews need to convert.The Magisterium will not affirm the Catholic Faith.
Do we pray or do we not pray for the Conversion of the Jews? At the Good Friday Service I attended today afternoon they did not mention that Jews need to convert into the Church. There was a vague mention, a hope, that Jews will know the fullness of Redemption in Jesus Christ.
The popes says they are saved in the present times.Now if the SSPX does not say the same thing they soon could be excommunicated according to the March 16 Vatican statement.
In the name of ecumenism and the one world religion the Catholic Teaching Authority could be told to excommunicate the SSPX if they do not accept the prevailing heresy. Once this is done the enemies of the Church will demand even more. The Vatican could be told to give up devotion to Our Lady and say the Mass is not a Sacrifice.
The pope has already said that in the case of the Brazilian girl there was an exception to abortion.(Cardinal Bertone and Mnsgr.Fisichella said they were instructed by the pope).The CDF issued a general statement saying there was no change in the church’s teaching on abortion.Obviously the Yes and NO position on Limbo was also useful for the media.
In the rejection of a defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , Vatican Council II and the Nicene Creed the pope and his Curia stand automatically excommunicated according to the teachings of the Church always upheld by them.What would be the credibility in excommunicating the SSPX bishops for denying the Jewish Left version of Vatican Council II when they themself deny in public teachings which merit excommunication?
How can they excommunicate the SSPX for denying the Jewish Left version of Vatican Council II which claims Jews do not have to convert into the Catholic Church ?
I am not a member of the SSPX and I attend Mass in Italian.The Traditional Latin Mass is not available for me in the area where I live.Neither is it available in the evenings daily in the centre of Rome.I reject Vatican Council II as interpreted by the ADL and its allies.I accept Vatican Council II as a continuation of Tradition and in accord with the literal interpretation of the defined
dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.i.e the Catholic Church says Jews need to convert for salvation (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II) and Catholics are the Chosen people of God, the ‘new people of God’(Nostra Aetate 4, Vatican Council II).
SAD HISTORY
On Sept 22,2009 Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco,President of the Italian Catholic Bishops Conference (CEI) before two Jewish rabbis gave into pressure by them and issued a CEI directive which said that Jews do not have to convert in the present times.The Cardinal stated that he had the support of the Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone and the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI. There has been no contradiction from the Vatican.
Cardinal Bertone also had called the attention of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel to a front page article in the L’Osservatore Romano written by Cardinal Walter Kaspar in which he stated Jews do not have to convert in the present time.The cardinal issued the statement on Sept.22,2009 .It was reported in the daily Avvenire, on Sept.23, 2009 the feast day of Padre Pio.
Father Tullio Rotondo an Italian diocesan priest in a an e-mail message to me said that the cardinal’s statement was contary to the Bible in which all Jews are called to conversion.Fr.Rotondo said that Jesus had called all people to convert, especially the Jews. Jesus had sent His Apostles to convert all people.Fr.Rotondo referred to Bible passages Matt.3:2.Matt.4:17,Matt.11:20, Matt.12:41,Matt.13:15,Matt 18:3,Mark 1:15,Marck 4:12, Mark 6:12,Luk 5:32, Luke 10:30,Luke 11:32,Luk 13:3,Luke 13:5,Luke 15:7,Luke 15:10,John 12:40,Acts 3:26,9:35,Acts.20:21,Acts.26:20,Acts.28:27,2 Tim.2:25.
The above Biblical quotations Fr.Tullio Rotondo said help us understand that first and foremost the Jews need to convert and then the others. It makes us understand that we must preach for the conversion of the Jews and we must pray and appeal to the saints for this conversion.
We pray also for the conversion of the cardinals, he said, who say things that appear scandalous and contrary to the Sacred Faith. Don Tullio said that he is praying also that the Holy Father intervenes.Don Tullio said that we must fight also in the Church of God, for the Truth.
Pope Benedict XVI tells Seewad that he revised the Good Friday Prayer ‘in such a way that it contained our faith, that Christ is salvation for all.’ (This of course does not say that all Jews are on the path to Hell unless they convert as the Church has taught for centuries. This was the one way of salvation) The pope says ‘that there do not exist two ways of salvation’( The pope indicates there is only one way of salvation and Jews are saved in general through this one way; Christ and the Church, and so they do not have to convert. Catholic priests have pointed out that we do not know any case of a non Catholic saved by Jesus and the Church. There is no case of implicit salvation which is explicit for us. The dogma says everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Church. So the pope’s one way of salvation is a strawman) The pope continues ‘and that therefore Christ is also the saviour of the Jews, and not only of the pagans ‘(Christ is the Saviour of the Jews and pagans and they are saved, even if they do not enter the Catholic Church? Pope John Paul II’s Dominus Iesus n.20 says Jesus has died for all but to receive this salvation they need to enter the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 says that the Church is like a door in which all need to enter, Ad Gentes 7 says all need baptism for salvation).
The front page article (April 10, 2008) in the L’Osservatore Romano was written by Cardinal Walter Kaspar.It was presented to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State. It was approved by the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI.
The article said that Vatican Council II indicated that non Catholics can be saved. So Cardinal Kaspar concluded that Jews do not have to convert in the present times.
Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine and Faith, Vatican never issued a clarification on Sept 22,2009 when Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco quoted Cardinal Bertone saying that the Revised Good Friday Prayer was not for the conversion of the Jews and Jews do not have to convert.
The Revised Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews was not for the conversion of present day Jews the daily newspaper of the Italian Bishops Conference Avvenire reported (‘ Gironata ebraico-cristiana riprende la celebrazione commune Bagnasco ai rabbinic Laras e Di Segni : diamo nuovo slancio al dialogo di Lorenzo Rosoli p. 8, Chiesa).
1. Pope Benedict approved the article written on the front page of the L’Osservatore Romano by Cardinal Kaspar and sent to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. The message was Jews do not have to convert in the present times. Also it was alleged that this was taught in Vatican Council II.
2. Pope Benedict approved the meeting of Cardinal Bagnasco with the two Rabbis when Bagnasco issued a directive of the Conference of Catholic Bishops saying that Jews do not have to convert in the present times. Bagnasco claimed that it had the support of the Pope.
3. The pope approved Cardinal Bertone’s claim to the Chief Rabbinate through a Letter, public, that we Catholics had a belief in Jesus. (That was about all). And that the Chief Rabbinate had read the article by Cardinal Kaspar which said Jews do not have to convert in the present times.
This new teaching was been given to us after protests were made by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Jewish Left. Dialogue with the Vatican was suspended. The issue was the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of Jews.
Pope Benedict XVI is my pope and I pray for him. I would not dare to make any comments on his personality or character. I try to restrict myself to theology and doctrine.We need to be united with him during these times.It is possible that he can change the present errors .- Lionel Andrades
1.
I modified it in such a way that… one did not pray directly for the conversion of the Jews…but that the Lord might hasten the historic hour in which we will all be united.-Light of the World-Conversations with Peter Seewald (Ignatius) p.107
LikeLike
Pope Benedict XVI in Light of the World-Conversations with Peter Seewald says Jews do not have to convert in the present times.
Do you think that it is an appropriate manner to celebrate the Resurrection of our Lord to post blatant lies about the Holy Father ?
Here’s what the Pope wrote :
The old formulation really was offensive to Jews and failed to express positively the overall intrinsic unity between the Old and New Testament. For this reason, I believed that a modification of this passage in the old liturgy was necessary, especially, as I have already said, out of consideration for our relation with our Jewish friends. I altered the text in such a way as to express our faith that Christ is the Savior for all, that there are not two channels of salvation, so that Christ is also the redeemer of the Jews, and not just of the Gentiles.
But the new formulation also shifts the focus from a direct petition for the conversion of the Jews in a missionary sense to a plea that the Lord might bring about the hour of history when we may all be united. So the polemical arguments with which a whole series of theologians assailed me are ill-considered; they do not accurately reflect the reality of the situation.
In other words, rather than these mendacious claims that you have posted being accurate — the exact opposite is true, and in that book, Pope Benedict XVI has called for the conversion of the Jews.
You should be utterly ashamed for posting these sorts of lies on the eve of Easter.
LikeLike
Jabba Papa:
Here’s what the Pope wrote :
The old formulation really was offensive to Jews and failed to express positively the overall intrinsic unity between the Old and New Testament.
Lionel:
It was offensive to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel in public they broke dialogue with the Vatican.
Pope Benedict XVI:
For this reason, I believed that a modification of this passage in the old liturgy was necessary, especially,
Lionel:
So because of the protests the Holy Father thought a modification of the passage was necessary.
Pope Benedict XVI:
as I have already said, out of consideration for our relation with our Jewish friends.
Lionel:
And to prevent the reported threat of violence and further protests reported in the media…
Pope Benedict XVI:
I altered the text in such a way as to express our faith that Christ is the Savior for all,
Lionel:
Here there is no problem. Christ is the Saviour of all.
Pope Benedict XVI:
that there are not two channels of salvation,
Lionel:
Here is the problem .
There is only one channel for the pope and this channel is that all who are saved are saved by Christ.
Fine, except the centuries old one channel was Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
There can be those saved in their religion and this is not an exception to the dogma which referred to the one channel of salvation. So there really is one channel and all Jews need to enter it with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. This means the need to convert in the present time. The pope says they do not have to convert.
Conceptually,vaguely he says all those who are saved are saved by Christ.
Pope Benedict XVI:
so that Christ is also the redeemer of the Jews, and not just of the Gentiles.
Lionel: This is not an issue. This was accepted.
The question is : Christ is also the redeemer of the Jews, and not just of the Gentiles and does it mean that all Jews do not have to convert in the present time?
Pope Benedict XVI:
But the new formulation also shifts the focus from a direct petition for the conversion of the Jews in a missionary sense
Lionel:
‘Shifts the focus from a direct petition for conversion’????
‘I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin’-Nicene Creed. Except for the Jews in 2012. Not applicable for them?
Jabba:
to a plea that the Lord might bring about the hour of history when we may all be united. So the polemical arguments with which a whole series of theologians assailed me are ill-considered; they do not accurately reflect the reality of the situation.
In other words, rather than these mendacious claims that you have posted being accurate — the exact opposite is true, and in that book, Pope Benedict XVI has called for the conversion of the Jews.
Lionel:
‘Shifts the focus from a direct petition for conversion’????-Pope Benedict XVI
LikeLike
.
“Do you think that it is an appropriate manner to celebrate the Resurrection of our Lord to post blatant lies about the Holy Father ?”
Bit of “Easterism” here. I doubt if Lionel is blatantly lying, Jabba.
He just has a different viewpoint.
And I have yet another.
Very few of us see things the same way.
Yes, it makes life difficult.
LikeLike
The pope says they do not have to convert.
This is pure invention.
He says no such thing !!!
LikeLike
.
There are those who think that even God is pure invention.
Not Toad of course.
(Not “pure,” that is.)
But it does take all sorts, etc.
Including quite a few sorts of Catholics, it would seem.
LikeLike
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
There could soon be an ‘ecclesial rupture’ because the Vatican does not want to say that there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II.
If the pope does not know personally of non Catholics saved in 2012 in invincible ignorance and when Vatican Council II does not make this claim of knowing explicit cases in real life how can the magisterium reject the SSPX doctrinal position on other religions, ecumenism and dialogue?
The SSPX (Society of St.Pius X) is not obliged to accept an interpretation of Vatican Council II with no supporting text on ecumenism and inter religious dialogue. Nowhere does Vatican Council II say Judaism is a path to salvation or that Jews are saved in general in their religion. Instead the Magisterium is unable to say in public that Vatican Council II (AG 7) says Judaism and other religions are not paths to salvation and that Catholics are the Chosen People of God (NA 4).
Why does the SSPX have to accept Vatican Council II when the pope and his Curia will not affirm Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II?
The Holy Father is not proclaiming the Faith for political reasons and the falsehood and lies are being repeated by thousands of Catholics to protect their self interest or due to ignorance.
There could soon be an ‘ecclesial rupture’ because the Vatican does not want to say that there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II. One according to the text of Vatican Council II and the other due to political necessity and survival and with no references from Vatican Council II text.
I repeat – Vatican Council II does not mention a visible baptism of desire or known- to- us- in- Heaven-cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience or seeds of the Word. So there is no doctrinal basis for rejecting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II. SSPX was in agreement with Vatican Council II on ecumenism, inter religious dialogue and religious liberty in the Vatican-SSPX failed talks.
The Vatican needs to clarify in public if they know any case of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance, the seeds of the Word and a good conscience.
If the answer is No then they should permit the SSPC not to accept Vatican Council II (Jewish Left version) – with the Vatican agreeing to clarify the issue over time.
Catholics should sign petitions and place advertisements in the newspapers asking a politically oriented Curia how can those saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience in the year 2012, be explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so how can the SSPX position on ecumenism and inter religious dialogue be wrong?
Catechism Teachers should ask the Vatican how can they excommunicate the SSPX for affirming the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (in accord with Vatican Council II) when there is no contradicting text in Vatican Council II to reject the SSPX position on other religions?
Religious communities ask the Vatican why you all cannot accept the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also implicit baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. Until this issue is settled there should not be an ‘ecclesial rupture’ with the SSPX.
Assuming Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for denying invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire (and he was not!) you can go ahead and affirm implicit invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and also the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
Catholic religious communities who attend the Novus Ordo Mass why cannot you accept the literal interpretation of extra ecclesism nulla salus and also implicit baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance implicitly,this being known only to God ?
It is the magisterium’s doctrinal position which is irrational and contrary to common sense? SSPX please ask the Vatican spokesman if he actually knows any case of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance. Is there a visible baptism of desire?
If the pope does not know of any person saved in invincible ignorance and now in Heaven and when Vatican Council II does not make this claim of knowing in real life explicit cases inHeaven, how can the magisterium reject the SSPX doctrinal position on other religions, ecumenism and dialogue?
Even though the SSPX rejects Vatican Council II (Jewish Left version) they should start talking with the Vatican in terms of Vatican Council II: ask the Vatican Curia to cite texts in Vatican Council II which contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
Also, how can the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J , as the former President of the International Theological Commission (ITC) reject the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Nicene Creed, Vatican Council II (AG 7) and still offer Holy Mass ?.This heresy can be viewed on the ITC’s website.
When the pope says in Light of the World (Ignatius) p.107 that all who are saved are saved through Jesus we must note it has two meanings.
1. All who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church and this is our general Catholic belief, which we accept.There is no controversy here.
2. However the theological meaning is that all who are saved are saved either in invincible ignorance, a good conscience, and the baptism of desire etc or with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
Then the pope also says in Light of the Wolrd p.107 that there is only ‘one channel’ of salvation. he says there is only one way of salvation. implying the one mentioned above.
This is false theologically since the one channel of salvation in the Catholic Church has always been through Jesus in the Catholic Church. We don’t know any case of a non Catholic saved invincible ignorance etc as the pope would wrongly assume.
When the pope makes an objective, factual error one can expect the rest of the Church to be confused or in error.
I ask Catholic priests these questions and they do not answer. Some say they do not know the answer and others say that they have not specialized in this or that.When I ask them if I can record their answer with my camera they say no.They will agree that one needs to proclaim the Faith and not be ashamed of it.-Lionel Andrades
LikeLike
.
Did you have a nice Easter, Lionel? Plenty of chockie eggs? That’s good.
Jabba will be relieved. He thought you might be dead.
“Catechism Teachers should ask the Vatican how can they excommunicate the SSPX..”
Cripes! We don’t even excommunicate Nazi’s round here!
But you missed all that.
Thank God.
LikeLike
What an incredible load of rubbish Lionel has posted !!!
The Vatican needs to clarify in public if they know any case of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance, the seeds of the Word and a good conscience.
Can you please explain *exactly* how invincible ignorance could possibly become anything other than, er, ignorance ?
If you demand the impossible — you will not receive it.
And — are you blackmailing the Church ? Really ???
LikeLike
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
CONDITIONS FOR THE SSPX TO ‘ENTER THE CHURCH’
I have been asked on a website (Gloria.TV) if the SSPX should enter the Church with full canonical status by accepting Vatican Council II.
I think that the SSPX should ‘enter the Church’ after the following clarifications.
1.
There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II.
1. The Jewish Left liberal interpretation.
2. The interpretation in accord with Tradition and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) should reject the first interpretation of Vatican Council II and accept the second one.
2.
The SSPX should clarify that we do not know any case of a non Catholic in 2011-2012 who is saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a good conscience, the seeds of the Word etc. So there is nothing in Vatican Council II which contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
There are no explicit exceptions and the Church has not retracted this dogma which Pope Pius XII called an ‘infallible ‘statement (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).
3.
The SSPX agrees that a non Catholic can be saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire. The SSPX accepts this possibility.
Since the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 also menionted this possibility the SSPX can endorse implicit baptism of desire and implicit invincible ignorance, known only to God, along with the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
There is no text in Vatican Council II or the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which contradicts the exclusive interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus .
Since there is exclusive salvation in the only the Catholic Church (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence) and this teaching is not contradicted by LG 16 etc, the SSPX maintains its position on ecumenism, other religions and dialogue. It is in agreement also with Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
So the SSPX is affirming Vatican Council II in accord with Tradition and the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and there is nothing in Vatican Council II or the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma.
(Note: The Letter does not state that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. It mentions disobedience. The Church lifted the excommunication without him having to recant. The Letter mentions ‘the dogma’. The dogma indicates all non Catholics need to enter the Church to avoid the fires of Hell (Cantate Domino).So the Letter supports Fr. Leonard Feeney here.)
If the cardinals who issued the Letter assumed that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are explicitly known to us then it was an objective error on their part. We don’t know these cases.
SUMMARY
1.The SSPX should announce that they would accept Vatican Council II interpreted according to Tradition and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and with reference texts from Vatican Council lI. They reject the liberal version of Vatican Council which has no supportive texts, since we do not know cases saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience, seeds of the Word etc.
2. Since Vatican Council II does not mention any explicitly known exceptions to the defined dogma extra eclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council, the exclusive salvation interpretation of the dogma still stands. So the SSPX does not have to change its traditional position on ecumenism, other religions, inter religious dialogue, religious liberty.
Once these two points are clarified other aspects of Vatican Council II can be interpreted according to Tradition and as Pope Benedict XVI has said, that the Council is not a break from tradition but a continuity.-Lionel Andrades
LikeLike
.
“If you demand the impossible — you will not receive it.”… Jabba tells Lionel, with a touch of asperity, it seems to Toad.
Indisputably true – if anything is, on CP&S. We should adopt this as the Blog Motto.
We shall have get it translated into Latin, first, though, so nobody will be able to understand it.
However, the “ongoing” debate is very exciting. No doubt.
LikeLike
Thursday, April 12, 2012
There is no reference text in Vatican Council II contrary to the SSPX position on other religions, ecumenism
Only God can judge invincible ignorance, a good conscience and the presence of ‘seeds of the Word ‘so they are not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Cardinal Luiz Ladaria is wrong to cite these texts as opposing exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
We often get the pitch of ‘the reforms’ of Vatican Council II from the Jewish Left and if you oppose them, correct them, then they call you anti Semitic. That’s Pastor Ted Pikes experience with the ADL. The ADL’s ‘reforms of Vatican Council II ‘ propaganda has no citations from the Council. There are no reference texts, it’s just a political slogan.
The ‘reforms of Vatican Council II’ seem to have been cited in the failed Vatican- SSPX talks. Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, who represented the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) ,in the talks, had to reject the SSPX position on ecumenism and other religions. Since he believes that no more, is there exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.It ended for him after Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
He has made this clear in the International Theological Commission’s (ITC) website and it is still there for anyone to check it.
Cardinal Ladaria will cite Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance/ good conscience) as being an exception to exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. He does not realize that only God can judge invincible ignorance and a good conscience. We do not know any such case in the present times (2012).Since we do not know any such person it does not contradict the teaching of exclusive salvation being there in only the Catholic Church.
So he cannot cite invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) as being explicit exceptions to outside the church no salvation. Yet this is what he did and he rejected the SSPX position on ecumenism, other religions, religious liberty etc.
He considered LG 16 as a valid citation from Vatican Council II to reject exclusive salvation and the SSPX position on ecumenism, inter religious dialogue etc. The same could be said about other quotations from Vatican Council II, ‘elements of sanctification’(LG 8) and ‘seeds of the Word’ etc.
The SSPX accepts as a possibility that a non Catholic can be saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience and it would be known only to God. One can only accept it as a possibility since defacto ( in reality) we cannot know any such case.It is only known in Heaven.
The CDF needs to issue a clarification regarding this widespread error.
Common sense tells us that there are no citations in Vatican Council II which contradict the SSPX position on ecumenism, inter religious dialogue, religious liberty etc.
If there is an ‘ecclesial rupture’ because the SSPX is faithful to the doctrines of the Catholic Church and the CDF does not have any relevant citations from Vatican Council II-then this would be an injustice against the SSPX and all loyal, faithful Catholics.
It would be assumed that the ‘ecclesial rupture’ is politically motivated , one of the ‘reforms of Vatican Council II ‘.
-Lionel Andrades
LikeLike
Teresa,
Lionel, I don’t have the time to go through all the postings here but just shortly: the extra ecclesiam nulla slaus has nothing to do with the rejection of the Religous Freedom by the SSPX.
Lionel:
Teresa,t would seem so for many people.They do not realize that there is nothing in Vatican Council II which contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Church has not retracted the dogma. So for the SSPX ecumenism means an ecumenism of return and with references to the non Christians they all need to enter the Church.It means we have the religious
freedom to proclaim the truth.
Teresa:
They refer rather to the Papal Enzyclicals than to this dogma.
Lionel:
The papal encyclicals affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Would you know any encyclical which contradicts the dogma ?
Teresa:
You’ve mixed up everything. Lay people some time should take more time for study then doing “hobby theological discussions”. I am not saying that lay people are not supposed to join the discussion but a lot of us do lack an adequate training. Hobby theologizing is just a waste of time and brings unnecessary quarrels into the Church, because most of your discontent is based upon your lacking understanding of the issue in question.
Lionel:
I am no theologian.
I am a lay Catholic just like you.
If someone asked you does every one need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation? you would probably answer: “Yes, except for those in invincible ignoranc and the baptism of desire”.
If you were then asked:”Do you know any such case saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire you would answer No.
This is common among Catholics.
So someone has been conning us down the line, over time.
It can be traced to Boston in the 1940’s.
And it reminds one of the fable of the Emperors News Clothes. Every one says how nice it is.
Yet it is common sense and not theology to know that we do not know any explicit case of a non Catholic saved in these cases and so they are not exceptions to the dogma or any other magisterial teaching.
Magisterial documents mention invincible ignorance etc but none of them claim that they are explicit exceptions.
In Christ
Lionel
LikeLike
Lionel, I have no interest to discuss further so I already removed the previous comment written by me. But I can repeat again, more time for study is better for our soul than quarrel against the Church on comment threads. Now that is really enough said. Bye.
LikeLike
If there is an ‘ecclesial rupture’ because the SSPX is faithful to the doctrines of the Catholic Church
The ONLY reason why there is an ecclesial rupture is because of the straightforward acts of disobedience by +Lefebvre and others.
There are no doctrinal positions of the SSPX that are doctrinally incompatible with Vatican II, and it is only the continued disobedience that keeps SSPX separate from the rest of the Church.
Nevertheless, the Church does have a duty to formulate the doctrines that have caused some confusion in a new way that will end that confusion.
LikeLike
Teresa:
You’ve mixed up everything. Lay people some time should take more time for study then doing “hobby theological discussions”. I am not saying that lay people are not supposed to join the discussion but a lot of us do lack an adequate training. Hobby theologizing is just a waste of time and brings unnecessary quarrels into the Church, because most of your discontent is based upon your lacking understanding of the issue in question.
Lionel:
I am no theologian.
I am a lay Catholic just like you.
Technically, those Catholics lacking in training or lacking an especial charism are actually forbidden from engaging in public theology discussions whereby they seek to convince others of the universal truth of their own personal views.
The expression of those personal views is not forbidden, wherever they do not contradict any infallible or otherwise disciplinarily required dogmata — but attempting to convince others that one’s licit personal beliefs concerning any matters that the Church is doctrinally undecided about might be universally true, is condemned by our Church as tending towards the Errors of heresy and schism.
Concerning the marriage of priests for example — the Church currently does not allow unmarried priests to be ordained without making a vow of celibacy, nor does she provide any possibility for a dispensation of celibacy to such priests after they have been ordained.
It is licit to publicly say that priests should be able to marry ; just as it is licit to say that they should not be. These are matters of personal opinion, not concerning any doctrine of the Church.
It is however ILlicit for a priest to marry.
And it is ILlicit to claim either of the above personal opinions on the matter as being any kind of Church doctrine that all Catholics should have to obey. Well, unless you happen to be a Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Pope, or a Bishop participating in a full Ecumenical Council that is formally examining this question, or another such person of Authority.
This general principle extends to all areas of Church teaching that remain in any state of doubt or indecision at the present time.
LikeLike
And to make something clear — the only reason why I can discuss doctrinal theology in this manner is because of an especial charism.
I have no such charism concerning moral theology, plus zero training in the discipline, and instead I have only a very superficial understanding of it. I therefore completely refrain from discussing anything relating to moral theology, except in the very superficial manner of whichever personal opinions.
It is vital to act in accordance with gifts received, and to refrain from attempting to act in accordance with gifts *not* received. Anything else, is to deny God’s particular Grace and desire for each of us.
And – paradoxically – this very post quite *precisely* concerns moral theology as such.
The Lord surely does move in mysterious ways 🙂
LikeLike
Well !!
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.fr/2012/04/urgentfor-record-le-figaro-rome-and.html
Le Figaro – “Rome and Écône on the verge of reaching an agreement”
From major French daily Le Figaro, in an article signed by its main religion correspondent, Jean-Marie Guénois:
Rome and Écône on the verge of reaching an agreement
by Jean-Marie Guénois
Updated on April 13, 2012 20:37 (1837 GMT)| published April 13, 2012 19:45 (1745 GMT)
The signing of a document establishing relations between the Holy See and the disciples of Abp. Lefebvre is a matter of days.
Officially, the Vatican awaits the response of Bp. Bernard Fellay, the head of the Lefebvrists. As soon as it is received in Rome – “it is a matter of days, and no longer of weeks”, – it will be immediately examined. If it conforms to expectations, the Holy See will very quickly announce a historic agreement with this group of faithful, known under the name of “integrists”.
But unofficially, and with the greatest discretion, emissaries have worked, on both sides, to “reach an agreement”. In the past few weeks, the final adjustments have been concluded between Rome and Écône in order to better respond to the demands of “clarifications” asked for by the Vatican last March 16.
A very delicate negotiation
It is thus that the final response of Bp. Fellay, very well pondered and well prepared, should settle – this time, for good – a very delicate negotiation which was relaunched by Benedict XVI following his election, in 2005.
The “Ecclesia Dei” commission, sheltered within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the most important ministry in the Vatican, is in charge of this dossier. But it is also, at this point, personally followed by Benedict XVI. And he wants an agreement.
Which allows for the consideration, by well informed persons, that a positive outcome will truly come into being. Even at the cost of the permanence of profound disagreements regarding the Second Vatican Council.
Disagreements completely accepted, besides, by the Pope. He has placed his pontificate under this line of reinterpretation of the Vatican II Council. Following two axes: emptying the spirit of “rupture” of ’68 and avoiding opposition between the highest tradition of the Church and modernity.
Fifty years of opposition
On Monday, Benedict XVI will reach 85. He is tired. His entourage do not hide this. He has had to rest this week in Castel Gandolfo from his exhausting voyage to Mexico and Cuba, then from the long services of Holy Week. He should be back in the Vatican on Friday evening. As a priority on his bureau: this decision on the Lefebvrist affair. It will be one of the weightiest of the pontificate.
For fifty years, the Lefebrvists have stood in opposition to the Holy See regarding Vatican II. And in formal juridical rupture since June 1988, when Abp. Marcel Lefebvre ordained four bishops despite the Pope’s interdict.
Joseph Ratzinger was placed at the time by John Paul II in charge of the negotiations with the rebellious bishop. He has never accepted that failure. Nor, once having become the Pope, the prospect of an enduring schism in the Church.
Benedict XVI compels the Church to reconcile with herself
One after the other, Benedict XVI has demolished, with all his papal authority, the obstacles that prevented a full reconciliation with the disciples of Abp. Marcel Lefebvre.
And, if a final agreement is announced in the upcoming days, the essential part of the work was already put in place by this pope:
– The reestablishment in 2007 – as an “extraordinary” rite of the Catholic Church – of the Mass celebrated in Latin, that is, according to the Missal of John XXIII in force before the Council.
-The removal, in 2009, of the excommunications which fell on the four bishops ordained by Abp. Lefebvre.
-The launching of the doctrinal discussions between the Holy See and the Fraternity of Saint Pius X, in that same year, regarding the Second Vatican Council
The apparent failure of the latter, one year ago, had given the impression of a complete failure of the negotiation.
The doctrinal disagreement between the Lefebvrists and Rome regarding the Second Vatican Council was effectively abyssal. But it had been forgotten that the object of those conversations was not finding an agreement, but establishing the list of divergences and of their reasons.
It is therefore knowingly and, thus, without any ambiguity, that Rome intends to seal this unity found once again with Écône, stronghold of the Lefebvrists in Switzerland.
It will probably be done with the creation of a special statute – a “personal prelature” – already experienced by Opus Dei. This structure grants a true autonomy of action at the same time as the Catholic faith is shared. Its superior answers directly to the pope, and not to the bishops.
But the true “revolution” that Benedict XVI intends to leave before the eyes of the history of the Catholic Church is elsewhere. It is not related to peripheral aspects of the Catholic Church. These have already enraged the groups opposed to this reconciliation. The so-called “Progressives” of the Conciliar Church who see the “gains” of Vatican II questioned. The “ultras” within the Lefebvrist ranks who see in this a betrayal and a compromise with Modernist Rome.
This revolution aims for an enlarged vision of the Catholic Church. Benedict XVI, the theologian, has never accepted that in 1962 the bimillennial Catholic Church would have cut herself from the culture and strength of her past. More than a reconciliation with the Lefebvrists, he aims, with this gesture, for a reconciliation of the Catholic Church with herself.
LikeLike