The May 19, 2012 "Kyrie Eleison" comments by Bishop Richard Williamson show a distinct hardening of his position. With Rome now taking the position that each SSPX bishop will be dealt with "individually", Williamson is demonstrating through his public statements his individual position: Rome is "diseased", "unhealthy"... The Pope is, if we are to believe Williamson a type of theological schizophrenic, now Catholic, now Modernist ... As head of the Church, the Pope is reduced by Williamson to being for and against himself...
These latest series of postings by Williamson demonstrate a hardening schismatic attitude, with - if the SSPX reconcile with Rome - his expulsion and possible excommunication. The situation really is tragic. Please pray for this man that he return in humility to obedience to the Chair of Peter. With reference to the Rome-SSPX negotiations, Williamson writes:
Unless readers demand textual quotes of Joseph Ratzinger to prove that these are not being twisted or taken out of context, the last EC in this series will conclude with an application of its lessons to the situation of Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society of St Pius X. On the one hand the SSPX is part of the true Catholic whole, “one, holy, Catholic and apostolic”. On the other hand it had better avoid making itself part of the diseased Conciliar whole. As a healthy branch grafted onto the unhealthy Conciliar plant, it would necessarily catch the Conciliar disease. No way can a mere branch heal that disease.
SUNDAY, MAY 20, 2012
ReplyDeleteKoch’s SSPX must accept Jews do not have to convert to receive canonical status talk reported by Catholic News Service downplayed on Rorate Caeli
Comments from eucharistandmission pulled down (1) related to Koch’s Wednesday speech and CNS report.(2) Rorate Caeli now says ‘The complete text of the lecture, delivered in English, and of its Q&A follow-up session are not available at the moment’ disregards Catholic News Service report.
Even Rorate Caeli cannot carry reports on the Catholic Faith because of foreign pressure.Mentions '[Update, also for the record of events:] Jack Bemporad, a Reform Judaism rabbi, is the president of the "Interreligious Dialogue" Center at the Angelicum University and he also had some words to say regarding the decisions of Pope Benedict XVI (3)
-Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/kochs-sspx-must-accept-jews-do-not-have.html#links
Bishop Williamson is not falling into schism. It is the current Church hierarchy, including the pope himself, that have fallen into schism with the Magisterium of all time.
ReplyDeleteMonday, May 21, 2012
ReplyDeleteSSPX NOT CHECKMATED. THEY HAVE A TRUMP CARD AND A SECURE DOCTRINAL DEFENSE
There is a blog of Fra.Angelo (AirMaria) which says the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) have been checkmated, they have no other option. They have to accept Vatican Council II (liberal version) or face the consequences.On this blog Fra.Angelo of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, has a post ‘SSPX on the brink’.
Fra.Angelo has formed his thinking, like so many Catholics, through the secular (anti Catholic) media.The SSPX are not checkmated yet. They have a secure defence, a trump card. The ace is in their hand.They can put down the winning card when they want to.They fought well for Catholic doctrine.Now it is this very doctrine which comes to their aid.
If they stay with doctrine firmly it must come to a point when their opponent is checkmated and says “To Hell with doctrine. You just say and do what we tell you”. Presently those who oppose the SSPX are still pretending that Vatican Council II and Catholic doctrine matters and that it supports them. Catholics like Fra.Angelo have fallen for the ruse.
If the SSPX accepts this false Israel-approved version of Vatican Council II they have lost.They are checkmated and Fra.Angelo would be correct.They will also have disowned Jesus.
The SSPX bishops alone can decide when and how they will play their trump card.They could accept Vatican Council II and later explain their interpretation, for example in Bishop Fellay’s case; once things have settled down he can explain his interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Or they could announce their version of Vatican Council II and let everybody else respond, in favour or against, in panic or calm.The three other bishops could use this approach. They could ask, ‘ Are you all saying that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known to us in the present time? Please clarify this for us’.
If Lumen Gentium 16 (LG 16) on invincible ignorance and a good conscience does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 (AG 7) and if AG 7 does not contradict itself, then we can accept a Vatican Council II, a different one, but which is in agreement with the SSPX traditional position on ecumenism,Judaism and other religions.
This is the trump card.
No one in any camp knows who is saved in Heaven (invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word, baptism of desire etc). So Vatican Council II (AG 7) really says Jews and other non Catholics need to convert for salvation and there are no known exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II.No one in the SSPX should have a problem with this interpretation.They can affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with Vatican Council II (AG 7) with no known exceptions.
CONTINUED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/sspx-not-checkmated-they-have-trump.html
With reference to bro.Anthony TOSF
ReplyDeleteThursday, May 17, 2012
Pope Benedict XVI has rejected Vatican Council II (AG 7) in Light of the World p.107: Also Cardinals Bertone, Bagnasco, Koch and Ladaria. Yet three SSPX bishops could be excommunicated for only ‘saying’ they reject the Council
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone,Vatican Secretary of State says Jews do not have to convert in the present times in a Letter to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. This contradicts Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.
Cardinal Bagnasco ,President of the Italian Bishops Conference, in an official directive says Jews do not have to convert. He contradicts Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,Vatican assumes invincible ignorance and being saved with a good conscience (LG 16) are explicitly known exceptions to AG 7, Vatican Council II.
Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity and relations with the Jews, rejects the SSPX position on Judaism and ecumenism. He contradicts AG 7 which indicates all people, Orthodox Christians and Protestants too, need Catholic Faith for salvation.
The pope and his Curia have accepted these heretical positions under pressure from Talmud Jews. Newspapers have reported threats from the Chief Rabbinate of Israel.
Now they are trying to thrust it upon the SSPX bishops with threats of excommunication. They themelf in reality do not accept Vatican Council II.
Bishop Richard Williamson and the other SSPX bishops are in agreement with AG 7, Vatican Council II on ecumenism, Judaism and other religions. They only ‘say’ they reject Vatican Council II when in reality their traditional Catholic values are those of Vatican Council II. They do reject the Koch-Ladaria version of Vatican Council II which is a break from tradition with their explicitly known invincible ignorance, a good conscience etc.
Pope Benedict XVI in Light of the World (Ignatius p.107) has repeated that Jews do not have to convert in the present times. This is contrary to Vatican Council II, the Nicene Creed (‘I believe in one baptism…), the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Bible (John 3:5, Mk.16:16 etc).
In his ‘one channel’ of salvation (p.107) Pope Benedict XVI suggests those who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church. This is fine. However he is implying every one does not have to convert into the Church for salvation. Since he assumes that those saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) are know to us and so are exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to AG 7, Vatican Council II.
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J says that the Church no more teaches an ecclesiocentric ecclesiology or the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 corrected Fr. Leonard Feeney.(Christianity and the World Religions 1997,ITC). If Pope Pius XIII or the cardinals believed that the baptism of desire was an explicit exception to the dogma, then they obviously made an objective, factual error. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 however, Cardinal Ladaria does not admit, supported Fr. Leonard Feeney in the first pragagraphs. It refers to ‘the dogma’, ‘the infallible teaching’. The text of the dogma a, addressed to the Archbishop of Boston, indicates all Jews in Boston, and the rest of he world, need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid the pains of Hell.
This is also the message of Vatican Council II but no one from the Vatican Curia admits it in public, Instead they want to axe the three SSPX bishops.
-Lionel Andrades
Lionel,
ReplyDeleteI do not look to that council from hell called Vatican II for the Church's teaching on "Outside the Church, there is no salvation". This dogma has been sufficiently expounded by the pre-Vatican II Magisterium right up to Pope Pius XII.
This dogma has been sufficiently expounded by the pre-Vatican II Magisterium right up to Pope Pius XII.
ReplyDeleteTrue Bro.Anthony.
However we know there still is a problem. The SSPX like the Vatican assumes that there are exceptions of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.
No Magisterial text including Pope Pius XII mentions that they are exceptions to the dogma.
Lionel,
ReplyDeleteWe appreciate your visiting this blog, but we ask that you limit your comments to the posts at hand. If you wish to develop your ideas etc. please indicate the url for us.
Br. Anthony,
ReplyDeletePaul VI pointed out the contradiction of judging a priori the Magisterium of all time to Msgr. Lefebvre. On this point, the Pope was absolutely correct. The reasoning was developed in an article in 1974 in L'Osservatore Romano. Much of this has been documented by the Catholic-Counter Reformation in the 20th Century.
It is also difficult to see the Pope to fall into schism against himself - being Catholic and not Catholic at the same time. But even if it be true - only the Church can judge.
Barona
ReplyDeleteIt is also difficult to see the Pope to fall into schism against himself - being Catholic and not Catholic at the same time. But even if it be true - only the Church can judge.
Lionel
In the book Light of the World(Ignatius p.105) the pope has indicated that Jews do not have to convert in the present time.is this heresy ?
'A change also seemed necessary to me in the ancient liturgy... I modified it in such a way that it contained our faith, that Christ is salvation for all. That there do not exist two ways of salvation, and that therefore Christ is also the savior of the Jews, and not only of the pagans. But also in such a way that one did not pray directly for the conversion of the Jews in a missionary sense, but that the Lord might hasten the historic hour in which we will all be united.'-(Light of the World p.105).
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
ReplyDeleteLiturgical Abuse : Vatican Curia
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/liturgical-abuse-vatican-curia.html#links
Would you agree that this is a Liturgical abuse ?
DID THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949, THE MAGISTERIUM, MAKE A MISTAKE? NO
ReplyDeleteThe Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was issued to the Archbishop of Boston during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. It did not make a mistake when it said that every one needs to be incorporated into the church as a member does not exclude those who can be saved with implicit desire.
It means in principle, only as a concept, as a belief there can be non Catholics saved with implicit desire. The Letter if it is saying only in principle ‘it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member’, it has not made a mistake.However if someone misreads the Letter and assumes those saved with an implicit desire are known to us on earth; they are explicitly known, and so are exceptions, so every one does not need to be incorporated as a member into the Church - this is a mistake.We do not know anyone on earth saved with an implicit desire. Neither do we know anyone in Heaven saved with an implicit desire.
The Letter of the Holy Office supports Fr.Leonard Feeney since implicit desire can only be accepted as a possibility and is irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma, as interpreted by Fr.Leonard Feeney and St.Benedict Center.
When the Letter criticizes Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center it is because they were disobedient to ‘ecclesiastical authority’.So if someone says that the Letter was critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney for denying the baptism of desire, since the baptism of desire is an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma, then this would be saying that the Magisterium made a mistake. This is not true.
If Fr.Leonard Feeney said there is no baptism of desire, in principle or fact, it is irrelevant to his literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
If the media says Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for denying the baptism of desire, then it would mean the Letter made a mistake, since the baptism of desire cannot be an exception to the dogma.
continued
continued
ReplyDeleteThe Letter instead refers to 'the dogma', the 'infallible statement'. The text of the thrice defined dogma indicates everyone is required to 'be incorporated into the Church actually as a member'.The dogma does not mention any known exceptions of the baptism of desire etc.This was the Richard Cushing Error. It was the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits of Boston who assumed that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire were exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and of course, to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits are believed to have tried to include this error in Vatican Council II but were blocked.Invincible ignorance etc in itself is no problem when it is mentioned in the text as long as one does not assume that it is an exception to the dogma.No text in Vatican Council II claims that it is an exception or that we known these cases personally.
However they did manage to create confusion. It seems, to priests today, that Ad Gentes 7 contradicts itself (if one assumes we know cases in Heaven) and Lumen Gentium 16 contradicts Ad Gentes 7 and the centuries old interpretation of the dogma.
Fr.Hans Kung repeated the Cushing Error after Vatican Council II.It seems as if Fr.Hans Kung had built his entire theological edifice on the Richard Cushing Error.
He began writing a series of books on how there is salvation in general for Buddhists, Protestants...and that the infallibilioty of the pope ex cathedra was contradicted with invincible ignorance etc being 'explicit' exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So he rejected the dogmas on infallibility and salvation.
Over time Pontifical Universities, cardinals and bishops, even the SSPX seminaries, would be infected with this error which emerged in the 1940's, years before Vatican Council II, in the Heresy Case not of Fr.Leonard Feeney but the Archbishop and Jesuits in the Archdiocese of Boston.They assumed that there were explicit exceptions to a de fide teaching.They also seemed to misinterpret the Letter as did the secular media in Boston and then the rest of the world.
-Lionel Andrades