SSPX could be reconciled with Rome without accepting all of Vatican II

SSPX Superior General Bishop Bernard Fellay

August 10, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — The Vatican has offered the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) a personal prelature and confirmed that certain documents from the Second Vatican Council are not doctrinal in nature, according to an Italian archbishop tasked with overseeing the canonically irregular group’s return to full Communion with Rome.

Archbishop Guido Pozzo, the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, told a German newspaper that Pope Francis has offered the SSPX a return to full Communion via a personal prelature within the Church. A personal prelature is a hierarchically-structured group of Catholic faithful not bound by a geographic location — essentially, a diocese without a territory that complements the work of local dioceses “to which the faithful who form part of a personal prelature continue to belong.”

Opus Dei is the Catholic Church’s most well-known — and indeed, only — personal prelature.

Pozzo’s remarks, which Dr. Maike Hickson translated at OnePeterFive, indicate that the SSPX could be fully reunited with Rome despite the society’s rejection of certain Vatican II documents because the documents it rejects “are not about doctrines or definitive statements, but, rather, about instructions and orienting guides for pastoral practice.” The Second Vatican Council’s documents themselves indicate that only the Council’s teachings explicitly related to faith and morals are binding to Catholics, Pozzo explained.

“It was already clear at the time of the Council” that different Council documents carried different dogmatic weights, Pozzo said. “The General Secretary of the Council, Cardinal Pericle Felici, declared on November 16, 1964: ‘This holy synod defines only that as being binding for the Church what it declares explicitly to be such with regard to Faith and Morals.’ Only those texts assessed by the Council Fathers as being binding are to be accepted as such.”

The SSPX was founded by French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The group supports traditional liturgy and seeks to share the truth of the Catholic faith in the modern world, a task they view as “especially necessary considering the spread of atheism, agnosticism, and religious indifference.”

Continue reading here.

LikeShare

Lionel L. Andrades

Aug 22, 2016

In this way we can have a Cushingite or Feeneyite Vatican Council II.The Cushingite interpretation is irrational.However it is the interpretation of the SSPX and that of Fr. Aldo Rossi and the other SSPX priests in Italy
Question:

Did you mean baptism of desire? For we can, that is, it is possible, for us to see physically people in heaven or earth saved with baptism of water, as several instances of it have occurred, as in the case of Fatima, etc.
What am I missing?
Lionel:
I am glad you asked this is at the centre of what I am saying.
I mean that in August 2016 we are unable in generalto physically see someone in Heaven or on earth saved with the baptism of desire, without the baptism of water.
So the baptism of desire today August22,2013, for us humans, can only be a theoretical subject.It is something hypothetical. We can accept it as a possibility.Only!
Now for there to be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS),there would have to be someone in 2016 who is physically visible or we must know him or her personally.We could know his or her name and surname.So then we can say, "See, XYZ is an exception to the dogma EENS, since he has been saved without the baptism of water.It is a known case.So everyone does not need to formally enter the Church for salvation, every one does not need to be Catholic to avoid Hell.There are exceptions to the dogma"
So for the SSPX and FSSP to assume that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma EENS, would mean that they know or can know someone who is an exception to EENS.This is impossible!
There cannot be any exception!
Yet the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumed that the baptism of desire was an exception to EENS and this was accepted by the magisterium and Archbishop Lefebvre.
The Council of Trent mentions 'the desire theorof' but did not call it a baptism nor did it state that it referred to an explicit case or that it was an exception to EENS.It was something said with good will.Yet all these errors had to be assumed by liberal theologians.
Cardinal Gibbons in Baltimore interpreted 'the desirethereof' as being a baptism like the baptism of water.Cardinal Cushing in Boston assumed that the baptism of desire was explicit and so an exception to EENS.
So what was an imaginary case was assumed to be objectively known.
So now the baptism of desire in theology can be interpreted as being visible or invisible.This is a new precedent in the Church. It is from here that the New Theology takes off.
So we have a visible baptism of desire which I call Cushingism.It is an explicit exception to EENS.
And we have an invisible baptism of desire which I call Feeneyism. It is not explicit in 2016 and so is irrelevant to EENS.

In this way we can have a Cushingite or Feeneyite Vatican Council II.The Cushingite interpretation is irrational.However it is the interpretation of the SSPX and that of Fr. Aldo Rossi and the other SSPX priests in Italy.

It is also the interpretation of the FSSP priests where you live.-Lionel Andrades

MONDAY, AUGUST 22, 2016

SSPX, FSSP Latin Mass a theological rupture with Tradition : but not for me
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/sspx-fssp-latin…

Lionel L. Andrades

Aug 19, 2016

No denial from the SSPX: dogmas and doctrine changed

There has been no denial of my report last week titled 'SSPX has changed dogmas and doctrine' posted on this blog, Gloria TV and other media in English and Italian.
Nor was there any criticism of my doctrinal and theological position when I affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus( Feeneyite), Vatican Council II( Feeneyite), Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite) and the Nicene Creed ( Cushingite).Theologically for me there are no exceptions to the teachings on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation.

The SSPX instead affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus(Cushingite), Vatican Council II( Cushingite),Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite)and the Nicene Creed ( Cushingite).For the SSPX there are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)and so there are exceptions to the teachings on the Social Reign of Christ the King.
I explained my pro-Vatican Council II Catholic beliefs and defined my terms.Here they are again with the SSPX position.The SSPX doctrinal position is firstly irrational. The irrationality creates a false and non traditional conclusion. The result is heresy.

TERMS EXPLAINED
Feeneyism: 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.
(SSPX rejects Feeneyism according to their official website in English)
Cushingism: 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.
(SSPX supports Cushingism according to their official website in English and reports of SSPX bishops and priests)

Baptism of Desire (Feeneyite): 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.
(SSPX rejects Baptism of Desire (Feeneyite) according to their official website in English and reports of SSPX bishops and priests).
Baptism of Desire (Cushingite): 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.
(SSPX supports Baptism of Desire (Cushingite) according to their official website in English and reports of SSPX bishops and priests).

Invincible Ignorance ( Feeneyite): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.
(SSPX rejects Invincible Ignorance ( Feeneyite) according to their official website in English and reports of SSPX bishops and priests).
Invincible Ignorance (Cushingite): 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.
(SSPX supports Invincible Ignorance (Cushingite) according to their official website in English and reports of SSPX bishops and priests).

Council of Florence.One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.

Liberal theologians:They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.
(SSPX supports the Liberal theologians on the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible Ignorance as being objective cases).
Vatican Council II (Cushingite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Cushingism.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.
(SSPX interprets Vatican Council II withCushingism)
Vatican Council II (Feeneyite):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.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).
(SSPX does not interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism)
.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. 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.
(This is accepted by the SSPX with the error. Archbishop Lefebvre did not notice the error in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.)
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)
Catechism of Pope X. It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.
(The Catechism of Pope Pius X is accepted with the same error.The imaginary case of the unknown catechumen should not have been placed in the Baptism Section. It contributed to the confusion).
Nicene Creed ( Cushingite) 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.
(The SSPX interprets the Nicene Creed with the Cushingite error.It assumes hypothetical cases are known in the present times.)
Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite). It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.
(The SSPX does not interpret the Nicene Creed with traditional Feeneyism.)

New Theology: 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.
(The SSPX uses the New Theology as did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre)
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Cushingite) .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.

(The SSPX's interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus is Cushingite. There are known exceptions to the dogma for them. This is expressed on the official website in English and the writings of SSPX priests).

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Feeneyite).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.
(The SSPX 2012 General Chapter Statement affirmed extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite) but their official website in English and SSPX priests reject it.They are Cushingites).

Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite).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).
(The SSPX is critical of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.Their interpretation is Cushingite)
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite).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.
(The SSPX does not seem aware of the Feeneyite interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
________________________

AUGUST 15, 2016

SSPX has changed dogmas and doctrine
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/sspx-has-change…

There is the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite) as interpretated by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/there-is-catech…
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/no-denial-from-…

One more comment from Lionel L. Andrades

Lionel L. Andrades

Aug 18, 2016

SSPX has changed dogmas and doctrine

The young SSPX priest who offered the Latin Mass at the St. Catherine of Siena chapel in central Rome,today morning said in his homily that the Catholic Church has the full deposit of the Truth.I agree with him but there are such major differences in our understanding of Catholic Truth.
The SSPX Italy's position on Vatican Council II is vague and confusing.There are big gaps.Things they cannot explain.Their ecclesiology has the new theology of the Novus Ordo Mass.It isheretical but the Vatican will not admite it since it is approved by the Left.
Archbishop Lefebvre made the original mistake.He overlooked the error in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office.No one from the Magisterium helped him.
For the SSPX Italy the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to real and not imaginary cases.Since they are exceptions toFeeneyite EENS.This is the official position of the SSPX.It is there on their English website.
They are unaware of Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and extra ecclesiam nulla salus( Feeneyite).
For them it is has always been Vatican Council II( Cushingite) and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Cushingite).
They proclaim a Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite) but really refer to a Nicene Creed ( Cushingite).
So in reality the SSPX has changed dogmas and doctrine.
-Lionel Andrades

TERMS DEFINED
Feeneyism: 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.
Cushingism: 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. 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.
Invincible Ignorance. This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.
Council of Florence.One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.
Liberal theologians.They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.
Vatican Council II(Cushingite). It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Cushingism.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 (Feeneyite).It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.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. 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.
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.
Catechism of Pope X. It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.

Nicene Creed ( Cushingite) 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 ( Feeneyite). It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.
New Theology: 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.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Cushingite) .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 ( Feeneyite).It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to tormally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.
________________________

Lionel: He affirms Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) and the dogma EENS ( Feeneyite) and , is waiting for the rest of the Church to follow.

John Martignoni: The American Catholic apologist.He says the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to 'zero cases' in our reality. So they are not exceptions to EENS.

Fr.S.Visintin osb: He is the Dean of Theology at the St.Anselm Pontifical University in Rome.He agrees with Martignoni.
__________________________

alacer shares this

13Aug 17, 2016

Articoli.
Articoli religiosi variMore

Articoli.

Articoli religiosi vari

Abramo

Aug 15, 2016

@rhemes1582: Your suggestion would be fine, if the diocesan parishes (and the dioceses behind them) were in a healthy state, but in this case the SSPX would not exist to begin with. In most places, the Indulte masses are only tolerated, but to run a Catholic parish you need more than just an hour in a church in order to celebrate a Sunday mass on some mensa designed for the Novus Ordo. You need mass, you need vespers, rosary, the full range of the Catholic liturgy, then you need a school, and, last but not least, you need a bishop who is fully behind you and shares the same Faith. SSPX is more within the ramparts of the Bride than most parishioners, priests, bishops and popes of the new church.

rhemes1582

Aug 14, 2016

@Abramo
There must be a way to take the faithful of the SSPX and integrate them into diocesen parishes.
The position that you share, is a complete dead end, a perpetual stalemate. No Good for the SSPX or the Church.
I would have concerns about a Personal Prelature for the reasons you mentioned, but someone needs to make a move.

I would recommend to Bishop Fellay (not that he is asking, or that I am anyone he needs to consult) That he tells his flock to attend the TLM in diocese parishes and help move forward the Latin Mass grass roots everywhere they can.
Many fires are much more difficult to put out than one.

Enemies of the Bride of Christ like nothing more than to see the faithful leave The Church, it silences their detractors and allows them to continue to tear down the Faith of our Fathers.

Instead, let the Faithful Catholics of the SSPX come into the mix in a great many parishes and let their voices be heard!
Defend the Bride within the ramparts.

tbswv

Aug 13, 2016

Firstly, the SSPX would lose more priests to these negotiations. Second an agreement with Rome is against everything Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was against. A deal with Rome on the surface seems reasonable but over time the modernists in the hierarchy would wear them down. The irony is that the SSPX adheres to the traditions but Rome treats them like an outcast. It is Rome who has compromised the …More

Abramo

Aug 13, 2016

In theory it would be desirable but in practice the scenario would be foreseeable. Rather sooner than later the Vatican would use some kind of internal tensions to crack down on the SSPX and to install a left-wing leadership as they have done in so many groups in the past years. Once the SSPX is a "Personal Prelature" there is no way out of this legal structure without a major split in the community …More

Jungerheld

Aug 13, 2016

@Abramo, the article indicates SSPX would be offered a, "personal prelature." Is this desirable?

Abramo

Aug 13, 2016

Accepting Vatican II is a smokescreen. Does anybody accept Vatican II? Today the texts of Vatican II are much closer to the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X than to the average liberal bishop or priest in the Church "of the Council"...