Vatican doctrinal error could not have been made clearer : Lefebvre, Feeney censure based on the false premise
OCTOBER 10, 2017
Vatican doctrinal error could not have been made clearer : Lefebvre, Feeney censure based on the false premise
The Vatican should apologise for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr.Leonard Feeney I have mentioned before.Since we now know that they both were doctrinally correct.Theologically and rationally invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not visible exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There are also no practical exceptions to EENS in 2017.We cannot see or meet someone saved outside the Church. Similarly LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc are not personally known cases of people saved outside the Church this year or in the past.So Vatican Council II( with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical and not visible and known) is not a rupture with the old exclusivist ecclesiology, EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc.Archbishop Lefebvre was correct.Vatican Council II with LG 16 being interpreted by the magisterium as referring to known people saved outside the Church, was false. This interpretation of the Council was heretical.It was irrational and non traditional while there was a choice. So now the doctrinal preamble which Pope Benedict and Pope Francis have asked Archbishop Pozzo to have Bishop Fellay sign is doctrinally flawed.It's theology is based on invisible and unknown people being visible and known in the present times.There are no such people known to us in the present times. So the conclusion of this wrong way of thinking makes the Council a break with Tradition when really it is not.With Vatican Council II (premise-free) and EENS(premise-free) there is no rupture with the Syllabus of Errors on ecumenism, other religions and salvation etc. Pope Pius XII the popes which followed made an objective mistake and the same mistake is reflected in the doctrinal preamble which Pozzo wanted Fellay to sign and the SSPX to approve. He wanted Fellay to accept that hypothetical cases are objective exceptions to EENS and these exceptions are mentioned in Vatican Council II, when they are not. Even today for Archbishop Pozzo there is a Vatican Council II with LG 16 referring to visible and known people saved outside the Church.If it was not a reference to practical exceptions to EENS he would affirm traditional EENS, like the missionaries of the 16th century .If it was not an exception he would affirm the Syllabus of Errors. He does not do either. Pope Benedict has confirmed that the SSPX has no canonical status until they affirm the doctrinal preamble which sees Vatican Council II as a development and so EENS is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries(Avvenire).The Vatican's doctrinal error could not have been made any clearer.Pope Benedict said it all in public.He admitted that there was a rupture with the dogma EENS as it was known in the past. There was a rupture with the old ecclesiology. So there was a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors.There now is a new ecclesiology in the Catholic Church.We know it is based on a philosophical error and persisting in it is unethical and dishonest.-Lionel Andrades
