Edit: this is the article from neoconservative e-commerce website Kath.net. As you can see they are hostile to the Society.
We were right again. Who knew?
Statements of competent Archbishop that Vatican wants to meet Society.
Bonn (kath.net/KNA) statements of the competent Archbishop that the Vatican wants to meet the Society apparently. Curial Archbishop Guido Pozzo reiterated in the "Zeit" - section "Christ und Welt" (Thursday) its belief in the documents of Vatican II was "a step of binding". He also spoke of a rapprochement between Rome and the traditionalist SSPX. Pozzo is Vatican Secretary responsible for the SSPX in the Commission "Ecclesia Dei".
According to the Archbishiop the Vatican is increasingly placing more emphasis on issues of trust next to the clarification of doctrinal issues: "We know that life is more than doctrine" And yet there has recently been significant progress, he said. On behalf of the Vatican, a cardinal and four bishops had attended the seminaries and houses of the Fraternity. "Nothing like this has taken place previously, but it helped the rapprochement."
Pozzo stressed the SSPX affirms the central decisions of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). These included, for example, the doctrine of the sacramental nature of the episcopate, and "the doctrine of the primacy of the Pope and the College of Bishops together with his leadership." The statements of the Council on interreligious dialogue, ecumenism and religious freedom have, in the words of Archbishop, a lesser degree of binding.
"This is not about beliefs or definitive statements, but instructions or guidance for pastoral practice," says Pozzo. The SSPX found these statements difficult; but these one can also discuss after a canonical recognition with the Society.
Pozzo confirmed that the creation of a so-called Personal Prelatire had been promised after the model of Opus Dei. The Superior General Bernard Fellay has accepted this proposal, "even if in the coming months details need to be clarified."
The Commission "Ecclesia Dei" is located in the CDF. The head of Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, recently asserted that he expected from the Society unreserved recognition of religious freedom as a human right and an obligation to ecumenism. In June, he told the "Herder Korrespindenz", that he expects a recognition of the relevant Council declarations.
There have been tensions in the Catholic Church between the Traditionalists and liberals for decades. [They actually say that the tensions are between the Catholic Church and traditionalists. Such pettiness by Kathnet.] The Fraternity was founded by French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1969, and rejects an important part [sic] of the Council decisions. After the illicit episcopal ordinations, Archbishop Lefebvre Rome was excommunicated with the four bishops consecrated by him in 1988. Under Pope Benedict XVI. there were overtures. Pope Francis announced his intention to continue the dialogue.
Regardless, the SSPX continues ordinations as before that are canonically illicit. [Except that the Archbishop of Augsburg has given his approval of ordinations at the SSPX seminary in his diocese.] A few weeks ago Fellay accused Pope Francis of causing confusion and introducing doctrinal errors. (C) 2016 CBA Catholic News Agency. All rights reserved.
Kardinal Muller says the SSPX denies religious freedom? Where did he get that? I am not in SSPX, but I would bet that they teach that anyone is free to do as he wishes, follow Christ or not. And how does ecumenism necessarily follow from the idea of religious freedom? If anything, religious freedom precludes ecumenism.ReplyDelete
Then Abp. Pozzo: "We know that life is more than doctrine." Nice bone to throw, but haven't the Moslems, the Lutherans, the Jews, the fundamentalists, the Latinocommies, and who knows who else, already gnawed of it?
The tail will always wag the SSPX on Vatican II especially Dignitatis Humanae which no one of the will accept; Nostra Aetate which few if any of them will ever accept; Gaudium et Spes most of which most of the SSPX will never accept, along with many parts of Lumen Gentium; large portions of Sacrosanctum Concilium which few of them will ever accept.Delete
There will never be complete reconciliation with the SSPX until the willing center led by people like Fellay clearly and definitively distance themselves from the de facto sede vacantists among them.
The Sedevacantists are right, and the SSPX should choose their side. Any formal ties of the SSPX with the Vatican II Church will only lead to more conflicts with the Pope and the Vatican and ultimately the destruction of the SSPX. Don't think that Francis has any mercy for traditionalists. Look what he has done to the Franciscans of the Immaculate and what he plans to do with all orders of comtemplative sisters. The big project of Francis's pontificate is to eradicate Traditionalism.Delete
Sedevacatists are wrong, and the Society has conflicts now, they'll have conflicts regardless.Delete
The Sedevacantists are right...Delete
If they're right, they should have elected a new pope.
I need to add that I pray SSPX come back into full communion with the Church and help right the ship.ReplyDelete
THAT IS EXACTLY HOW TRUE CATHOLICS THINK!!Delete
TANCRED YOU ARE A FUCKING COWARD!! YOU SHOULD BE SIX FEET UNDERGROUND AND BURNING IN HELL FOR ETERNITY ALONG WITH SUSAN!!!Delete
AND THERE IS WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO END UP FUCKING BASTARD.
I WILL BE START PRAYING FOR THAT INTENTION TODAY!!
Sedevacantism is wrong and the cowardly (anonymous!) reply to Tancred shows the true colors of those who may think they are right, but are not. Archbishop Lefebvre condemned Sedes. I pray for unity in Tradition and have done so for many years. Such venom as spewed by the anonymous one is never of Christ.Delete
I find the appeal to 'life' being more than 'doctrine' intriguing to say the least. It is abundantly clear that the this is being greeted as progress in the case of the SSPX, the same grace and understanding were not and are not extended to the teaching of Pope Francis and the formal report of the October 2015 Synod of Bishops which determined that intractable situations in broken marriages, divorce and remarriage, cohabitation etc.ReplyDelete
This is hubris to say the least, moral relativism to say the most.
Sell out by Archbishop Guido Pozzo and the Vatican : they refuse to interpret Vatican Council II without an irrational premise and conclusionReplyDelete
Wouldn't be better that the Catholic Church be required to agree with SSPX rather than the reverse?ReplyDelete
Any genuine schismatic and cult follower would think that, Michael.Delete
Gaybriel now using two different pseudonyms on the same post? You really do have too much time on your hands.Delete
I'd to heartily suggest that the Society's position is that of the Catholic Church.Delete
Amen to that!!~! I wish....Delete
Aidan NJuly 30, 2016 at 2:32 AMDelete
You are absolutely right and AnonymousJuly 30, 2016 at 4:56 AM YOU ARE A TROLL.
Tancred July 30, 2016 at 10:30 AM -They have been nothing but proud rebels.Delete
Open your eyes!
Open your eyes, I'm sure you Neocaths and Progressives will find something to complain about. You do the same the faithful Catholics regardless of their canonical status.Delete
God bless, protect, and guide the SSPX. They are His work; may they be used by Him to His greater glory.Delete
There can ONLY be ONE Catholic Church.
Lefebvre took the attitude of a rebel and the SSPX bishops deep down know that.
As I said earlier there can ONLY BE ONE CATHOLIC CHURCH but what we had with the SSPX existing without being fully part of the Catholic Church was ONE TRUE CHURCH the ONE IN ROME and one catholic church the one in Econe.
And it is NOT I saying this but that was and is the attitude of many fanatics Traditionalist.
I am glad the SSPX bishops see what many of his follower DON'T.
That's Archbishop Lefebvre.Delete
Tancred - He is Lefebvre to me.Delete
Second, he is still excommunicated. Don't forget that.
Third I am not a fanatic like you SO DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME WHAT TO DO.
And one more thing I challenge you with the truth people like you don't want to face.
You on the contrary are rude and think you are right when in many occasions you have been proven wrong.
I guess you'll find some reason to despise faithful Catholics who are canonically legitimate. That happened to the FSSP after they were reconciled, the usual suspects still found cause to despise them for one reason or another. There's nothing more rude or vindictive than that.Delete
Excommunicated? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Benedict lift that excommunication back in 2005 or something? I've read it over and over again, so????Delete
Saint Athanasius was excommunicated too, just remember that.Delete
TLMJuly 31, 2016 at 3:41 AM,Delete
Pope Benedict XVI LIFTED the excommunication on the four surviving Bishops Lefebvre ordained in June 30 1988 AT THEIR REQUEST, but NOT to Lefebvre therefore his excommunication remains until today.
"Anonymous", you're a screaming vulgarian who quite evidently doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground. Try reading "Open Letter to Confused Catholics", and actually learn something about the Catholic Faith. Archbishop Lefebvre will one day be publicly raised to the altar. He had more sensus Catholicus, love of God and the Church, grace, fidelity, and holiness in his left pinky finger than you (and I) have in our entire beings.Delete
Anonymous, your excommunication argument holds no weight. It is clear with the current commie as Pope and the wreckage of the Church that if anything, all the Quran kissers and liberal destroyers of the Faith and the Mass excommunicated themselves. Archbishop Lefebvre preserved the Faith as it had been soundly passed on to him. The SSPX will only stay at arms length. They will be right back in same position as earlier, when they need more bishops in a few years, because there are no candidates they put forth that the Vatican heretics would approve of. That being said, I think SSPX is leaning that 2017 (100th Anniversary of Fatima) will be a great reset, and they are preparing for the other side of what very possibly could be a great reset.Delete
TancredJuly 31, 2016 at 4:06 AM'Delete
You are right about St. Athanasius but his excommunication was revoked, but until that doesn't happen to Lefebvre he will continue to be excommunicated.
TancredJuly 30, 2016 at 11:54 PM - I only despise fanatics like you and some members of the SSPX.Delete
But I do welcome the SSPX back into the Church.
So stop twisting what I said.
'Anonymi': better to let people think you're vulgarian idiots, than to continue to open your mouths and remove all doubt.Delete
I don't attend SSPX chapel.Delete
heeeeyyyyy....it just hit me.....you're 'crazy screaming guy' from a few months ago aren't you???Delete
How's it hangin'?
The decree 126/2009 from the Congregation of Bishops lifting the excommunications of the four living bishops has a wonderful example of "romanita" in the last sentence where it states, "..., I likewise declare void of juridical effects the Decree published at the time." (July i, 1988)Delete
Since the juridical effects pertained to ArchB Lefebvre as well, so in his case the juridical effects would be void as well unless expressly stated that this did not apply to him. Hard to see that this is possible when the decree has been made void.
"According to the faculties expressly conceded to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, by virtue of the present Decree, I remit the censure of excommunication latæ sententiæ pronounced by this Congregation on July 1, 1988, from Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galaretta, and, as of this day, I likewise declare void of juridical effects the Decree published at the time.
Rome, from the Congregation for Bishops, this 21st day of January 2009.
Card. Giovanni Battista Re"
This news of a Personal Prelature for the SSPX might be good if the news from Poland did not point to the intended oncoming total destruction of the One Holy Catholic & Apostolic Church founded by Christ on St. Peter & the First Apostles. If Bishops' Conferences are given the power to decide whether to follow the Ten Commandments or not rather than preaching the Truth then the Apostolic succession is lost to us as it was to the Protestants & Schismatics when they broke away from us.ReplyDelete
We shall need the SSPX & other Traditional Orders to rebuild the CC from within so, unless they have already accepted their invitation to the Lund Commemorations, I would urge them to defer any such decision until Rome collectively says NO to this ludicrous PF decision.
1. The Church was founded by Our Lord on St. Peter alone, not "& the First Apostles." For this reason, St. Peter is not regarded as equal to the other apostles, not even as "first among equals."
2. Bishops' conferences have no hierarchical standing in the Church. Individual bishops are responsible for their own respective dioceses.
3. A bishop never loses apostolic succession, even when he apostates. Therefore, priests that are ordained by apostate bishops are valid but illicit. The Masses they celebrate are also valid but illicit.
We shall need the SSPX & other Traditional Orders to rebuild the CC from within...
Lionel:Yes!To rebuild the Church by rebuillding themself.
This was how Archbishop Lefebvre, Michael Davis and the Hildebrands interpreted Vatican Council II, it still is the interpretation of the Remnant and Wanderer news media
The goal of the SSPX from the beginning has been to "help right the ship". Just don't count the FSSP among "traditional groups". Ecclesia Dei created the FSSP to be their wolf in sheep's clothing. The FSSP tell everyone that Vatican II and the New Mass are okay. At the same time they say there are problems with the SSPX. They say, "You can trust us, look we say the Latin Mass".ReplyDelete
The FSSP is a reasonable organization. Why look for enemies when you already have so many others who are far more dangerous?Delete
"The FSSP tell everyone that Vatican II and the New Mass are okay."Delete
The FSSP and other Ecclesia Dei groups do affirm that the Novus Ordo is valid. Whether they find it condign is another story.
As for Vatican II: That would be the same Vatican II whose documents Archbp. Lefebvre signed. And like Lefebvre, they're generally critical of it at points.
Athelstane...read "Open Letter to Confused Catholics"; it'll clear up some points you're blurry on.Delete
Athelstane is right about the FSSP. Not sure he needs to brush up on anything.Delete
the line, "As for Vatican II: That would be the same Vatican II whose documents Archbp. Lefebvre signed." is clearly implying that Ab. Lefebvre was all onboard with what came out of that blasted council. He was not. The aforementioned book is critical reading (along with his autobiography and a few other excellent books that Angelus Press offers) to have (and give) a full context of his stance. If Athelstane knows that, than what he wrote is purposely ingenuous and misleading; if he doesn't, then what he wrote is (with no pejorative intended) ignorant. I stand by my comment.Delete
Archbishop Lefebvre was more concerned about the survival of the Mass early on, than on doctrine, and his views on the thrice defined Dogma are plainly wrong.Delete
Athelstane...read "Open Letter to Confused Catholics"; it'll clear up some points you're blurry on.
Archbishop Lefebvre's Letter to Confused Catholics indicates he did not know of an alternative interpretation of Vatican Council II which had the hermeneutic of continuity and no ambiguity
Lionel....it's become abundantly clear to any right-thinking Catholic that there is no possible way to read VII's ecumenism, religious freedom, and certain evangelization teachings with any kind of continuity with 2,000 of prior Magisterial teaching. They are foreign to what the Church has always taught, in many instances 180 degrees out. A mighty effort has been made for 50 years to dress up that pig, but it is quite evident that jorge bergoglio and his cabal are the reasonable and expected outcome of it, and the poison purposely seeded into it.Delete
You'll need to demonstrate very clearly and comprehensively where Vatican II is discontinuous from or rupturing continuity with the core teachings of the Catholic Church. If you don't, why should anyone take you seriously.Delete
Allegations, ambit claims and assertions do not add up to proof.
gaybriel, I don't play in your sandbox anymore....it's full of wolf and weasel waste. get your rhinestone-bedazzled speedo-clad backside off your pink velvet couch and get (and read) a copy of "Open Letter to Confused Catholics". It is all laid out clearly enough that even you could understand it....but still, you won't.Delete
evidence is in the book gaybriel...read it or not, I don't really care....your kool-aid is waaaay too spiked for any glimmer of rationality.Delete
Susan,what's your response to this?Delete
There is no denial from traditionalists and pro SSPX bloggers.Archbishop Lefebvre made a doctrinal mistake.It was an objective mistake.He contradicted common sense and the Principle of Non Contradiction
Lionel....read the book.Delete
He's right about this.Delete
I have read the book.
His reasoning his correct but it is based on the premise of LG 14( known catechumen saved without the baptism of water) and LG 16 ( known person in invincible ignorance saved without the baptism of water).
The key to understanding this is the word 'known'.
Without the word 'known' LG 14, LG 16, LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 etc would not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the Syllabus of Errors on non Christian and non Catholic religions.
With 'known' cases of the baptism of desire etc the doctrine on salvation was changed in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Then the same reasoning was used in Vatican Council II.
SSPX supporters know this.
I was in communication last week with two lay members of the SSPX.They are speakers and writers.They agreed that we cannot see the soul of any one in 2016.This is something obvious.They agreed there there were no baptism of desire cases in 2016.
So I asked them if I could quote them saying this, since the subject is common knowledge.
They both said NO!
In Rome a priest cannot be incardinated who says there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire etc.
The Rome Vicariate understands!
A priest who offered the Latin Mass for the Militia Christ at the church San Giuseppe a Capo le Case Rome, said just this and I quoted him on my blog.
He was not there for Mass the next week.He got a phone call from Bishop Matteo Zuppi who also them visited the church.
The next time I met that priest he was reticient.
All that he said in answer to my question was that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire and blood or being saved in invincible ignorance( with or without the baptism of water) in the present times.We cannot see or meet them in Rome.
Archbishop Lefebvre innocently overlooked this point.
It was the responsibility of Cardinal Ratzinger and the CDF to have informed him.
Archbishop Lefebvre was correct Vatican Council II ( with known BOD and I.I) is a rupture with Tradition and he expresses this view in this book.
He used the premise which was an innovation in salvation theology, in the Fr. Leonard Feeney Boston Case.
Without this premise the conclusion Vatican Council II is traditional.It is the SSPX and sedevacantist's interest to understand this point.
your gymnastics are breathtaking.Delete
Tancred(The Eponymous Flower) and Prof.Phillip Blosser, professor of Philosophy at the Sacred Heart Seminary Detroit and owner of the blog Musings of a Pertinacious Papist - agree with me.
Even Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson, Fr.S.Visintin osb, Dean of the Theology at the Pontifical University of St.Anselm, Rome and John Martignoni, the apologist at EWTN agree with me. I am not saying anything new or personal.It is obvious that there are no physically known cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.
It is a given that hypothetical cases of being saved in invincible ignorance( LG 16) etc cannot be explicit and objectively known in 2016. So they cannot be relevant or exceptions to all needing faith and baptism; all needing to be formal members of the Church for salvation.
This was a mistake Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops have made.It is a magisterial error approved by Cardinal Ratzinger as CDF Prefect and now as Pope Benedict XVI.
Tancred August 1, 2016 at 3:59 AM
He's right about this.
APRIL 6, 2016
Yes! I am glad you have understood what I have been saying! Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.The issue comes down to our having no known cases of known salvation outside formal membership in the RCC
MARCH 29, 2016
"Thanks for providing this! God bless the Society!", " I agree with much of what Lionel says" http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/thanks-for-providing-this-god-bless.html
So Lionel (and Tancred), lemme get this straight....your schtick is that the SSPX may be (MAY be...and I do not concede the point as the disputed doctrine is an ancient one, and I could match your cherry-picked theologians with many on the other side) wrong on A doctrinal point, vs. 60,000 and counting from jorge and his clowncar cabal in red beenies?Delete
uuuhhh, yeah....I'll put my money on the Society as the carriers of Catholic Faith and Tradition at this put.
You tell me.Delete
Can you physically see people in Heaven?
Can you see or meet someone in 2016 who is also Heaven?
Can there be known cases of people saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water?
Then ask yourself how do the SSPX priests and bishops answer the above questions.
Is their theology and doctrines based on there being known people on earth saved without the baptism of water, who are explicit exceptions to all needing to enter the Church for salvation?
Then what about Vatican Council II? Can this reasoning be applied to Vatican Council II?
Lionel....for God's sake (literally!), you're arguing over ONE point, that may or may not be faulty, I stand on the latter side along with a LONG list of Saints, Doctors, and Trent....Delete
We've got bergog-lio systematically dismantling the CHurch with every manner of heresy and persecution, and you're pulling this out of your butt to pick a (losing) fight?
Boniface was right. What the hell is wrong with you?
this was meant to be the second link....Delete
I asked you those questions( above) and you have not still thought them through.
Lionel....for God's sake (literally!), you're arguing over ONE point, that may or may not be faulty, I stand on the latter side along with a LONG list of Saints, Doctors, and Trent....
Lionel: No you don't! Since either you or I stand with a long list of ....One of us has to be wrong.We both cannot be correct.
Lionel: If you cannot answer the above questions please don't send me these links. I have responded to them numerous times on my blog over some six years.
We've got bergog-lio systematically...
Lionel: The SSPX is in line with the heresy of the two popes.But them how would you know ? You are not willing to even discuss the issue.
In these links you imply that these BOD cases refer to personally known cases.Then you infer that they are exceptions to EENS.Otherwise why mention it. If they were not physically visible to you how could they be relevant or exceptions to the dogma EENS.
Susan, BOD never had anything to do with the dogma EENS in the first place.Over the centuries those who wanted to eliminate the dogma were putting it forward. The saints and popes with good will would say that a person could be saved as such. They knew that these were hypothetical cases.
Now it is being asked who was this catechumen who was originally saved without the baptism of water which he desired before receiving ? How could there be a known case? How could any one know of any one who is saved without the baptism of water ? Since this person would have to have a special gift to go to Heaven and return to tell us about it.
Do you understand what I am saying?
The baptism of desire was a strawman from the very beginning.
This irrational reasoning was them placed in Vatican Council II.
Boniface was right.
Lionel: Boniface like you, will not answer the above questions.
His theology is based on their being physically known cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.
What the hell is wrong with you?
Lionel: I am affirming the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church. I am affirming EENS and the baptism of desire( implict for us). I accept Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and reject Vatican Council II( Cushingite.
The SSPX is irrational. They only understand a Cushingite Vatican Council II. They interpret EENS with known exceptions( Cushingism) and they assume the baptsm of desire is physically explicit for us in 2016 and so it is an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS( Cushingism).This is heresy approved by the contemporary magisterium.It is a rupture with EENS as it was known to St. Robert Bellarmin, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Francis Xavier, St. Maximmilian Kolbe....
I am saying Islam,Judaism and other religions are not paths to salvation(AG 7, LG 14), according to Vatican Council II, you are saying they are and you reject Vatican Council II.
The two popes also say interpret Vatican Council II like you but do not reject.
I am saying that there are no references in Vatican Council II, which negates the exclusivist ecclesiology which says all Muslims and Jews are on the path to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.The SSPX says there are.So they reject Vatican Council II and I accept it.The SSPX is line with the liberals.Their reasoning is the same.While they differ from me.
Why? Answer those questions and you will know.
Phone up the apologist John Martignoni(EWTN diocese under Bishop Robert Baker) and discuss those basic questions I have mentioned above.
Ask him if there are any baptism of desire cases in his diocese.When was the last time he met someone saved in invincible ignorance with or without the baptism of water?
I have also quoted Fr. S.Visintin osb, Dean of Theology at the St.Anselm Pontifical University in Rome. He speaks English.Call him up.-Lionel
so you're a calvanist....clearly. God has, in your view, purposely made some men, who thru no fault of their own haven't ever heard of Jesus Christ and the Gospel, and never will be able to, but have lived a good life thru the actual graces God has granted them, trying not to displease him and love their neighbor. You're saying that He made them knowing He would damn them. You're a calvinist.Delete
WE are most certainly bound by the Sacraments; God is not. To say otherwise is to be a calvanist or a muslim, the latter saying that there are some things out of the reach of God, and that he makes certain men to be damned.
I have no desire to 'call up' your cherry picked theologians....(oooooh,"John Martignoni(EWTN diocese under Bishop Robert Baker)...is that actually supposed to be impressive? EWTN is a protestant mess at this point, and Baker's done NOTHING in the current storm.) I'll stick with effectively ALL the Fathers of the Church and most of the Doctors.
And Lionel, I say this in all sincerity and Charity; you need help. You're an argumentarian....you're obsessive about it. At some point in a discussion, it becomes quite obvious that you're not going to convince the other person of your point. A normal, healthy reaction is to wish the other well, say a prayer for them, and go on your way, which is what I'm going to do now. Peace be with you.
No, I think Lionel just takes Our Lord at His word.Delete
nice non-responsive non-seqitor. I'm sure that Pius X, Aquinas, Bonaventure Ligouri, Augustine, the fathers of Trent inter multus alios will be shaking in their heavenly boots at Lionel's binding declarations. He (and you) will have much to teach them one day.Delete
Peace be with you Tancred.
susanAugust 3, 2016 at 5:03 AMDelete
so you're a calvanist....clearly...
I am saying that such a person would only be known to God. We cannot see any person's soul saved as such. So to suggest that this person is known to you personally and so is an exception to the dogma EENS contradicts the Church Fathes, popes and saints on EENS. It contradict Jesus in John 3:5 and Mark 16:16.
Calvinists? Susan, even the Calvinists, Baptists and non Christians know your referring to a hypothetical case.
WE are most certainly bound by the Sacraments; God is not...
Lionel: According to the dogma EENS without faith and baptism at the time of death, a person is oriented to Hell. This has been the traditional teaching of the Church over the centuries.If there is someone saved without faith and baptism in the Church because God is not bound to Sacraments it would be unknown to us. So you are saying that these unknown cases are known and so are relevant to EENS?
I have no desire to 'call up'...
Lionel: Call up someone who has not been conditioned into believeing hypothetical cases are known exceptions in 2016 to the dogma EENS.
I am sorry that the SSPX priest at the chapel you go to cannot help you with this and neither can Louie Verrecchio. Since it is a common sense question. It is common knowledge, known to all people, that we cannot see the soul of someone in Heaven.
EWTN is a protestant mess...
Lionel: Which Fathers of the Church? None of them said the desire for the baptism of water of that famous unknown catechism is an exception to the dogma EENs. You have to infer that it is an exception.
Then we come to Vatican Council II. It is only by making this wrong inference that Vatican Council II is a break with EENS.
I make the explicit-implicit, visible-invisible distinction and choose invisible for us baptism of desire. You unknowlingly choose visible for us baptism of desire.
Then you assume that visible for us baptism of desire(LG 16) is an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS, as it was known to the 16th century missionaries in the Catholic Church.
So this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. It is an innovation approved by the liberals.
And Lionel, I say this in all sincerity and Charity; ...
Lionel: But when are you going to enter the discussion,when will you discus particular points. ? I am saying BOD can be explicit or implicit what are you saying about it? Nothing!
I am saying LG 16 can be visble or invisible in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.What are you saying about this ? Nothing.
Sorry Susan, you mean well and your a good person but we still have not begun a discussion.
A normal, healthy reaction is to wish the other well...
Lionel: The SSPX is interpreting LG 16 as being physically visible for us. If they assume it is invisible for us, Vatican Council II changes.The reconciliation process with the Vatican changes.It is the SSPX then which will doctrinally be in a sure position.So this is an important issue!
TancredAugust 3, 2016 at 9:38 AMDelete
No, I think Lionel just takes Our Lord at His word.
susanAugust 3, 2016 at 10:24 AM
nice non-responsive non-seqitor. I'm sure that Pius X, Aquinas, Bonaventure Ligouri, Augustine, the fathers of Trent inter multus alios will be shaking in their heavenly boots at Lionel's binding declarations. He (and you) will have much to teach them one day.
Peace be with you Tancred.
For you the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is the same for the SSPX bishops and priests.
It is not so for me:-
So the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance do not contradict the Church Fathers and the Popes on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.They were never in the first place, exceptions to EENS or relevant to EENS
Defacto, in real life, practically,BOD does not contradict the Popes on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/defacto-in-real-life-practicallybod.html
By assuming there are physical cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, all without the baptism of water, the contemporary Church has rejected the rule, the general teaching on salvation over the centuries http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/by-assuming-there-are-physical-cases-of.html
Susan, first of all your position on the baptism of desire etc is irrational. Since the BOD refers to a hypothetical case and so cannot be explicit in the present times.Then you conclude that BOD is an exception to the dogma EENS. This is heresy.It is liberalism. It is what the SSPX would call modernism
Due to this irrationality you and the SSPX are interpreting Vatucab Council II as a break with Tradition.
So with this false premise dogmatic teachings are changed
The 'wrong definition of church' the new ecclesiology has come from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 error which was approved by Archbishop Lefebvre, the traditionalists of his time and the SSPX bishops and priestsDelete
Rorate Caeli has offer not one post about the interview with Mons. Pozzo except to say there's absolutely nothing new in what he's said. I don't know enough about the situation to say if Rorate Caeli is right or wrong.ReplyDelete
Is Rorate Caeli right? Is there absolutely nothing new and important in the mons. Pozzo interview to report?
No, sadly there is nothing new in what Archbishop Pozzo says. Rome insists that the SSPX must accept the licitness of the New Mass and all of Vatican II doctrinal teaching, even if certain clever fellows do speak of putting off the discussions until after a reconciliation has taken place. If the SSPX were to accept such a deal in the name of obedience, it would be betraying the Church's Traditional liturgical worship and teaching. In addition, Pope Francis is presently giving great scandal by his ambiguous statements concerning morality. That's why Bishop Fellay recently announced that the SSPX will wait until there is a Pope who truly wants to restore the old faith to the Church. A canonical solution is of secondary importance to the SSPX in this crisis. One cannot be considered either disobedient or outside the Church for resisting very serious errors that are clearly destroying the Church. The SSPX will continue to what she is doing in the meantime, forming good priests and sanctifying souls for the Church, regardless of all the false claims of disobedience levelled by Roman liberals. It's not the SSPX which has changed our Catholic religion!
Martin Blackshaw, thanks for your reply. I'm surprised Eponymous treated Mons. Pozzo's interview as worthy of all this attention. There's nothing but old news in the interview. Rorate Caeli was right.Delete
Ed Davis and Martin Blackshaw, I pray that you are both right. If francis pulled out all stops to persecute, calumniate, and destroy a beautiful, growing order like the FFI simply on the charge that they were "crypto Lefebvrian", imagine what he would do with the real thing if given the chance.Delete
I'd just ignore Gaybriel, susan, im aggressive scraping those barnacles from the comment section.Delete
I know Tancred, and more often than not I do. Just sometimes it's the whole 'cat with a really slow, sloppy, evil, dim-witted, mouse thing....I just can't help myself. You do a great job....I can't imagine the amount of work it takes; on all fronts. Keep fighting the good fight...God bless you.Delete
Based on the history of indult groups being annihilated within the novus ordo,I would be praying if I belonged to the SSPX.ReplyDelete
Doesn't the bible say something about not having fellowship with unbelievers?
2 Corinthians 6:14Delete
Pope John Paul the First in his short reign put it like this, "Vatican 1 has many followers, Vatican lll has many followers but Vatican ll has very few followers". The fact is no one understands Vatican ll and that is the problem. Those demanding that the SSPX adhere to Vatican ll as a Doctrinal Council are the very "spirit of Vatican ll" Catholics who don't follow the Council themselves but have invented their own ideologies of what Vatican ll should be. Pope Benedict XVl called for Vatican ll to be re-interpreted according to Tradition and he expressed hope that the theologians of the SSPX could make a great contribution to this new work.ReplyDelete
If the SSPX theologians know anything about Trent and Vatican I, they would realise that Vatican II, just as all the popes since Paul VI have insisted, contains, preserves and teaches all the Councils which came before it.Delete
Those who have a problem with Vatican II are the problem.
Depends on whose Batican II. Pornokardinal's or Klaus Gamber's?Delete
... The fact is no one understands Vatican ll and that is the problem.
They interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and do not know that the Council can be interpreted without this irrationa premise and the result is traditional.
This result would be rejected by the liberals and the spirit of Vatican Council II people.
Those demanding that the SSPX adhere to Vatican ll as a Doctrinal Council are the very "spirit of Vatican ll" Catholics
Yes they interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism, so the Council is a break with Tradition.The SSPX acts as if it still does not have a clue as to what I am saying.
Their theologians are still at sea or trying to be obedient to the liberal error of Archbishop Lefebvre.
who don't follow the Council themselves but have invented their own ideologies of what Vatican ll should be.
Lionel: They do not follow the Council interpreted with Feeneyism i.e without the innovation with the new premise.
So their ideology is based on a Vatican Council II which says there is salvation outside the Church and contradicts the dogma EENS.
Pope Benedict XVl called for Vatican ll to be re-interpreted according to Tradition and he expressed hope that the theologians of the SSPX could make a great contribution to this new work.
They first have to decide if Vatican Council II can interpreted with Cushigism or Feeneyism, can there be two interpretations of Vatican Council II ?
Can Vatican Council II be interpreted with LG 16 being physically known in 2016 or LG 16 being invisible for us? This decides the interpretation of Vatican Council II for me.
This decides if Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of continuity or rupture.
Lionel Andrades, Vatican ll must be re-interpreted in light of Tradition as Pope Benedict XVl called for. According to Cardinal Kaspar the Council Documents were "Deliberately written in an ambiguous language". According to Archbishop Schneider this ambiguous language in which the Council Documents were written is dangerous. He stated, "With the ambiguous language of the Council Documents, anyone who reads them can make them mean whatever one would like it to mean". This is a grave danger. If anyone reads the translated schemas of Pope John XXlll for the Council one finds the language of Trent and of Vatican l, the traditional language of the Church which is perfectly clear. Vatican ll was not written in a clear traditional language. That is the reason why the SSPX has always held that the Council breaks with Tradition. How can we hold to Vatican ll when one has to be an expert at deciphering what the Council is talking about, even the experts have a hard time trying to make out what the Council really meant. Can we continue proclaiming Vatican ll? Not until it is re-translated into the proper language of the Church.Delete
Hi, I am wondering how best to give you this message so here goes. Our Blessed Lady took me from the beautiful latin mass of the SSPX at the former Jesuit church in Limerick city and sent me to the local Redemptorist church instead. I am still confused about why She sent me there as it is not a place where God is respected much. For instance, during the 2016 annual novena to Our Mother of Perpetual Help which took place over nine days, not one single Hail Mary was recited; not from the altar - not from the pulpit. I double checked via their online coverage.ReplyDelete
So I attend at another parish church these days.
She gifted me with an apparition that She allowed to be captured on my camera, flickr link to that image here; https://www.flickr.com/photos/froshea/32216746660/in/dateposted/
I have given copies to the SSPX priests locally for their information. My point I hope is clear, if not; Our Lady does not share the SSPX mission.
Please ponder this.
What happens when the SSPX is approved by the Holy See?Delete