13 February 2013

SSPX Given Last Chance before Piecemeal Return Remains






So says Rorate.

2 comments:

Catholic Mission said...


VATICAN NOT SINCERE IN SEEKING A DOCTRINAL SOLUTION WITH THE SSPX

The recent statement by Archbishop Gerhard Muller on their patience being limited indicates that the Vatican does not want a doctrinal solution to the SSPX issue which will say that the Council is traditional and in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.


Instead the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Muller wants the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) to accept a false Vatican Council II in which salvation in Heaven is considered visible to us all on earth.This premise makes the Council modernist.

The SSPX and all good, non political Catholics are correct in rejecting this version of the Council.A reconciliation with the SSPX is possible if the CDF and the SSPX could acknowledge these three steps:

1. There is no explicit to us salvation, in the present times (2013) mentioned in Vatican Council II.
2. Since there is no explicit to us, physically visible salvation LG 16 etc does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
3. So LG 16 etc does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the traditional teaching on other religions, both sides could agree upon this.

Archbishop Augustine Di Noia Vice President of Ecclesia Dei said elements of sanctification (LG 8) are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So this is a break with the past.He mentioned this in the interview with Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register. Those saved with 'elements of sanctification' in other religions are physically visible to the American Archbishop of Ecclesia Dei.So every one does not have to be a visible member of the Church for him. For him this irrationality(the dead who are saved are physically visible) is a contradiction to the dogma on salvation and to Vatican Council II (AG 7).


Bishop Gerhard Muller himself endorsed this leftist, irrational version of Vatican Council II in another interview with Edward Pentin.He said those saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. So for him the dogma is no more relevant for the present times.Invisible cases are exceptions.

Obviously a matured, rational German Archbishop is saying that he can physically see the dead saved in invincible ignorance. Otherwise how could invisible cases be an exception to the dogma ?

This is the irrational, political version of the Council which the SSPX has to accept or the CDF Prefect will lose his patience.

This version of the Council is a break with the past. The Archbishop himself recently said that those who interpret the Council as a break with the past, traditionalists and progressivists, are heretical.Archbishop Muller interpreted the Council to Edward Pentin as a break with the past.This was when he suggested that LG 16 (invincible ignorance) is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Since the SSPX affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in their General Chapter Statement (July 19,2012) the SSPX should have called a Press Conference to point out the CDF Prefect's doctrinal error. How can invincible ignorance be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7 when these cases are invisible for us ?How can Archbishop Muller interpret the Council as a break with the past when he suggested that LG 16 (invincible ignorance) is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

If the CDF penalizes the SSPX it will be for not accepting the dead man walking version of Vatican Council II. The CDF Prefect will have lost his patience because the SSPX will not say 'Yes' to a Vatican Council II which says we can see the dead who are exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Simply - ask the Vatican which version of the Council they want the SSPX to accept ? With the dead man walking premise or without it.-Lionel Andrades

Patricia said...

From Patricia in St. Louis..

I accidently, apparently, passed on Mr. Timman's blog on this topic. Because I cannot state what this article says.....is there anything a bit more simply stated.....maybe I am just having the after-Christmas tiredness; this article on the SSPX does not make this topic clear to me or to my friend, an engineer and I have a Master's degree in Human Resource Development (Adult learning).

This is the first article from this blog that I believe is unclear and muddy...but then the issue has been confusing for many years..........

Thanks for reading my email, M r. Timman...

Patricia in St. Louis