It has been quite a few years that I have been writing on the same thing.The Jewish left would object to my interpretation of Vatican Council II as they objected to the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews.Now they want the SSPX to sign a Doctrinal Preamble and accept Vatican Council II interpreted always with the irrational premise.
In the SSPX General Chapter Statement 1 it was said that the SSPX would accept extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions.
This statement would not be acceptable to the Chief Rabbi in Rome.
But it is Vatican Council II itself which affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions. No one is discussing this point.
It is Vatican Council II (AG 7) which is in agreement with the passage:
For this reason it seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation- SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012
It is important for the SSPX, to announce at the Muller-Fellay meeting, that Vatican Council II and all magisterial documents can be affirmed keeping in mind the principle that we human beings cannot see the deceased now saved in Heaven and these deceased are not living exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
LG 16 DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE SSPX GENERAL CHAPTER STATEMENT
So when Cardinal Muller cites Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water) as an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the SSPX must respond 'We humans cannot see the deceased saved in invincible ignorance and these persons are not living exceptions in 2014 to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.' Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict the General Chapter Statement on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This could be clarified before signing a Doctrinal Preamble.2.
Likewise if Archbishop Augustine di Noia says that those saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth' (LG 8) are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus the SSPX must respond that they accept LG 8,LG 16 etc .They accept them as being invisible for us,hypothethical probabilities,known only to God. For the SSPX they are not objective, seen in the flesh cases. Hypothetical cases cannot be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So they are not exceptions in 2014 to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
In this way the SSPX can affirm Vatican Council II and the General Chapter Statement and the Vatican cannot object by saying that the SSPX muist accept Vatican Council II.
VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE PREMISE IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL
This will not be acceptable to the Jewish Left but at least they cannot say that the SSPX does not accept Vatican Council II. The SSPX can announce that they accept Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.
AD Gentes 7 is in agreement with the General Chapter Statement on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. LG 8,LG 16 ,NA 2,UR 3 etc are not exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 since we cannot see the dead on earth. The deceased-saved cannot be living exceptions on earth to all needing the baptism of water and Catholic Faith for salvation.This is common knowledge.
This has to be clarified in public preferably before the Muller-Fellay meeting.Otherwise it will be said that the SSPX is not accepting Vatican Council II and so penalties must follow.
SHOW MULLER A NEW INTERPRETATION
The SSPX must show Cardinal Muller that there is an interpretation of Vatican Council II compatible with tradition and that they will always reject Cardinal Muller and the Jewish Left interpretation of Vatican Council II with the premise of the dead in Heaven being visible exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is only with this irrationality that the Council is a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The fundamental issue is : are there invisible or visible for us cases mentioned in Vatcican Council II, who could be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
VATICAN-SSPX DOCTRINAL TALKS
This is something that the SSPX's Fr.J.M Gleize and Fr. Francois Laisney never understood.So the last doctrinal talks were a failure.Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and Bishop Charles Morerod O.P presented Vatican Council II with the irrational premise and Fr.J.M Gleize did not object.
Whatever be your position on Fr.Leonard Feeney, NA 2, LG 16,LG 8 etc do not contradict AG 7 and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Vatican Council II without the premise is pro-Tradition.
-Lionel Andrades
1
2.
Posts
