Clicks209
Lionel L. Andrades

SSPX has to show Abp.Guido Pozzo that 'the dogma of the faith' has not been lost : it's in harmony with Vatican Council II (premise-free)

October 13, 2017
SSPX has to show Abp.Guido Pozzo that 'the dogma of the faith' has not been lost : it's in harmony with Vatican Council II (premise-free)

The Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) has to show Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary, Ecclesia Dei that he violates the Principle of Non Contradiction in his interpretation of Vatican Council II( with the premise) and that this cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.It cannot be magisterial.

We Catholics cannot accept a Magisterium which believes there is known salvation outside the Church since practically there can be no such known case.
So when the SSPX has to sign a doctrinal preamble which states that they accept ' the authentic Magisterium' of the Church which has preserved the 'deposit of the faith'in harmony with Tradition, it is false.Since there two popes accept that there is known salvation outside the Church.
They consider unknowable cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) as being known cases of salvation outside the Church. This is false. The two popes cannot know of any one saved outside the Church.
If any one was saved outside the church it would only be known to God.For the two popes to suggest that there are known exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church for salvation, in general, with no exceptions, is a rupture with Tradition and is a schism with the past magisterium of the Church.It's an innovation in the Church created with the violation of the Principle of Non Contradiction.By assuming invisible for us people in heaven are visible examples on earth of non Catholics saved outside the Church, violate the principle of Non Contradiction. How can invisible people in Heaven also be visible on earth? How can people who do not exist in our reality can be exceptions to traditional EENS? How can someone be seen who is in Heaven? How can he be two places at the same time?
The two popes however have used this ruse, knowingly or unknowingly, to reject 'the authentic Magisterium' of the Church and now they want the SSPX to sign a doctrinal preamble approving this.
The SSPX instead should state that they affirm ' the authentic Magisterium' of the Church which is not in contradiction with EENS (premise-free) and Vatican Council II (premise-free).
They affirm invincible - for- us BOD, BOB and I.I which would be followed by the baptism of water, when and if it happens, and these theoretical cases for us, would only be known to God.They never were exceptions to the dogma EENS. So the Catechisms of Trent and Pius X, Mystici Corporis etc when they refer to BOD, BOB and I.I are referring to personally known cases. So they do not contradict EENS, as it was known for example,to the missionaries of the 16th century.

So the SSPX should state that they have a right to canonical status, like other religious communities, since:

1.They affirm the Nicene Creed (premise-free).
2.They affirm the Athanasius Creed (premise-free).
3.They affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(premise-free).
4.They affirm Vatican Council II( premise-free).
5.They affirm the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church( premise-free).
6.They affirm invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism blood and being saved in invincible ignorance which are not explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS(premise-free).
7.They affirm that the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church which is not in conflict with Vatican Council II(premise-free) and is supported by Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441,
8.They affirm the Syllabus of Errors which is supported by the past exclusivist ecclesiology which has not changed with Vatican Council II .
9.They affirm an ecumenism of return (Ut Unum Sint, Ad Gentes 7 etc) since there is no known salvation outside the Church.Practically and theologically BOD,BOB and I.I refer to unknown people in 2017.
10.They affirm the dogma on Hell.

So they would accept the authentic magisteriuim of the Church which would affirm these 10 points, it should be stated by the SSPX.

They stand by their 2012 General Chapter Statement which affirmed EENS (premise-free).The 'dogma of the faith' has not been lost for them.

They offer the Traditional Latin Mass with the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church, which is the same before and after Vatican Council II.Similarly the leaders and members of the Focolares, Neo Cathechumenale Way,Catholic Charismatic Renewal,the loose Medugorje movement, the community of San Egidio and others, could attend/offer Mass in the vernacular with the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church which never changes.They no more have to violate the Principle of Non Contradiction and interpret Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents with an irrationality -Lionel Andrades

TERMS EXPLAINED
False Premise : It is created by assuming hypothetical cases are explicit.
It is created by was assuming that there are known cases of people saved outside the Church.
It is made by assuming that invisible for us baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) refers to known cases in the present times.
False Conclusion: It is created by assuming that there are known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I which are examples of salvation outside the Church. So Vatican Council II became a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS-premise free).
Also a new EENS is created which has to be interpreted with the irrational premise i.e BOD, BOB and I.I refers to known cases of people saved outside the Church and so they are exceptions to EENS as it was interpreted over the centuries. This is EENS with exceptions.
Past Ecclesiology: It is the old theology and philosophical reaoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma EENS.There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.
New Ecclesiology: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.
Baptism of Desire (premise-free): It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it is not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Baptism of Desire (with the premise): It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is a visible case or the SSPX it is relevant to the dogma EENS.
Invincible Ignorance ( premise-free): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.
Invincible Ignorance (with the premise): This refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.
Council of Florence(premise-free): One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.It did not mention the baptism of desire.
Liberal theologians: They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They used the irrational premise.
Vatican Council II (with the premise): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the irrational premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II (premise-free): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite-one baptism),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston: It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times.This was the false premise.
So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology..

Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( premise-free). It means accepting the Letter as Feeneyite based on the first part,only .It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.
Letter of the Holy Office ( with the false premise). It is based on the second part of the Letter.It rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( Cushingite-explicit) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( Cushingite-explicit cases) as being exceptions to EENS ( Feeneyite).It worngly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.
Baltimore Catechism: It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with the confusion.It can be interpreted with the false premise and without it.
Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted with the false premise or without it.
Nicene Creed ( with the premise) ; It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.
Nicene Creed ( premise-free): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.It is Feeneyite.
New Theology( with the irrational premise) : It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.It's basis is Cushingism.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( with the irrational premise): .It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free): It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( with the irrational premise): CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( premise-free): CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known exceptions, since God is not limited to the Sacraments.
When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needin to formally enter the Church. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.

________________________