Steve Skojec in his podcast says (24:00) Pope Benedict has said that the problem with the SSPX is doctrinal..What doctrine do they hold which that Church does not hold over the course of its existence...?
Lionel:
Here is a sample
The SSPX has developed the teaching on Vatican Council II.
The SSPX has developed the Nicene Creed.
The SSPX has developed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades
http://www.onepeterfive.com/1p5-podcast-episode-36-fed-laugh-keep-going/
Here are excerpts ffrom the blog Eucharistandmission
The SSPX is rejecting Vatican Council II since they interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism as a theology. So the Council emerges as a break with Tradition, in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Instead if they interpreted Vatican Council II with Feeneyism i.e there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Council would be traditional and they would not have to reject it.
_________________
As expected there is no clarification or denial from Archbishop Guido Pozzo or the Vatican to these blog posts.Vatican Council II is not the issue.They are faking it.It never was the issue.The CDF/Ecclesia Dei wanted the SSPX to compromise with error. They wanted the SSPX to interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational inference.Then they wanted the SSPX to accept the non traditional conclusion.This would be a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This would be a rupture with Tradition.This hermeneutic of discontinuity is approved by Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis.
Summorum Pontificum was probably a bait for the SSPX to approve Vatican Council II interpreted with a new theology, based on irrational Cushingism.
__________________
Bishop Williamson is correct. Rome must come back to the Faith before there can be an agreement.There cannot be an agreement with liberals who do not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions ( SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012).No agreement please, with magisterial heresy.
____________________
So Vatican Council II is no more an issue after we have discovered the factual error in Vatican Council II.
SSPX has simply to announce that they accept Vatican Council II with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism, with no known exceptions to the dogma EENS instead of known exceptions, with no known salvation outside the Church instead of known salvation.
________________
Vatican Council II is no more an issue.We have found the factual error in the Council and it is linked to the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston.
The 1949 Letter assumed hypothetical cases were explicit i.e objectively visible.Then this error in reasoning has been placed all over Vatican Council II.
If we read Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases being just that - hypothetical, the Council changes. It is then not in contradiction but in accord with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Feeneyite version. So then there are no exceptions to the old ecclesiology. This is the ecclesiology which the SSPX can support. Since it means there is no change in the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church and all non Catholics need to formally convert into the Church to avoid Hell.
Similarly they (SSPX) need to announce that they reject Vatican Council II with Cushingism, with the irrational premise and inference used to interpret the Council. So they can ask the contemporary magisterium, to stop interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism, which is irrational, non traditional and heretical.
Cushingism cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake, nor contradict the magisterium of the Church before the Council of Trent.
The Council interpreted with Feeneyism changes the discussion between the SSPX and the Vatican. It is the Vatican Curia which will now be on the defensive. The SSPX simply has to ask the CDF/Ecclesia Dei to affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite version)
-Lionel Andrades
Instead if they interpreted Vatican Council II with Feeneyism i.e there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Council would be traditional and they would not have to reject it.
_________________
As expected there is no clarification or denial from Archbishop Guido Pozzo or the Vatican to these blog posts.Vatican Council II is not the issue.They are faking it.It never was the issue.The CDF/Ecclesia Dei wanted the SSPX to compromise with error. They wanted the SSPX to interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational inference.Then they wanted the SSPX to accept the non traditional conclusion.This would be a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This would be a rupture with Tradition.This hermeneutic of discontinuity is approved by Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis.
Summorum Pontificum was probably a bait for the SSPX to approve Vatican Council II interpreted with a new theology, based on irrational Cushingism.
__________________
Bishop Williamson is correct. Rome must come back to the Faith before there can be an agreement.There cannot be an agreement with liberals who do not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions ( SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012).No agreement please, with magisterial heresy.
____________________
So Vatican Council II is no more an issue after we have discovered the factual error in Vatican Council II.
SSPX has simply to announce that they accept Vatican Council II with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism, with no known exceptions to the dogma EENS instead of known exceptions, with no known salvation outside the Church instead of known salvation.
________________SSPX has simply to announce that they accept Vatican Council II with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism, with no known exceptions to the dogma EENS instead of known exceptions, with no known salvation outside the Church instead of known salvation.
The 1949 Letter assumed hypothetical cases were explicit i.e objectively visible.Then this error in reasoning has been placed all over Vatican Council II.
If we read Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases being just that - hypothetical, the Council changes. It is then not in contradiction but in accord with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Feeneyite version. So then there are no exceptions to the old ecclesiology. This is the ecclesiology which the SSPX can support. Since it means there is no change in the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church and all non Catholics need to formally convert into the Church to avoid Hell.
Similarly they (SSPX) need to announce that they reject Vatican Council II with Cushingism, with the irrational premise and inference used to interpret the Council. So they can ask the contemporary magisterium, to stop interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism, which is irrational, non traditional and heretical.
Cushingism cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake, nor contradict the magisterium of the Church before the Council of Trent.
The Council interpreted with Feeneyism changes the discussion between the SSPX and the Vatican. It is the Vatican Curia which will now be on the defensive. The SSPX simply has to ask the CDF/Ecclesia Dei to affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite version)
SSPX (USA) repeats the error in the Letter of the Holy Office : contradicts the dogma defined three times and also Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7)
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/sspx-is-repeating-error-in-letter-of.html
Why cannot you say that the SSPX made a doctrinal mistake ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/why-cant-you-say-that-sspx-made.html
SSPX PRIESTS IN ALBANO,ITALY DISAGREE WITH U.S WEBSITE: THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS IN VATICAN COUNCIL IIhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/sspx-priests-in-albanoitaly-disagree.html
SSPX PRIESTS IN ALBANO,ITALY DISAGREE WITH U.S WEBSITE: THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS IN VATICAN COUNCIL IIhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/sspx-priests-in-albanoitaly-disagree.html
If the Bishops of Argentine and Albano cannot accept Vatican Council II without the irrational inference, then it is a doctrinal issue
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/if-bishops-of-argentine-and-albano.html
SSPX two groups divided on doctrine
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/sspx-two-groups-divided-on-doctrine.html
JANUARY 12, 2016
Doctrinal error within the SSPX too ?
There is no comment from the SSPX Canada to this blog post which I sent them after the statement was issued by the District Superior, Canada.
Fr. Daniel Couture, the District Superior of Canada issues a controversial statement critical of the Vatican Document on the Jews
Neither has the SSPX Italy over the last few years issued a denial.
If the SSPX bishops and Fr.Pierpaulo Petrucci would admit that the baptism of desire refers to invisible cases in 2016, the entire interpretation of Vatican Council changes : error in the article
Nor is there any denial from the SSPX , USA
OCTOBER 14, 2013
http:// eucharistandmission.blogspot. it/2013/10/sspx-namerica- abetting-spread-of.html
There is no comment from the SSPX Canada to this blog post which I sent them after the statement was issued by the District Superior, Canada.
Fr. Daniel Couture, the District Superior of Canada issues a controversial statement critical of the Vatican Document on the Jews
Neither has the SSPX Italy over the last few years issued a denial.
If the SSPX bishops and Fr.Pierpaulo Petrucci would admit that the baptism of desire refers to invisible cases in 2016, the entire interpretation of Vatican Council changes : error in the article
Nor is there any denial from the SSPX , USA
OCTOBER 14, 2013
http://Factual mistakes in Vatican Council II are not noted on the SSPX website
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/factual-mistakes-in-vatican-council-ii.html
Fr.Francois Laisney and the SSPX website make the same error as Amoris Laetitia http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/05/frfrancois-laisney-and-sspx-website.html
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/sspx-district-superior-italy-makes-same.html#links
No denial from Archbishop Pozzo : CDF/Ecclesia Dei will not interpret Vatican Council II with the Feeneyite theology
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/no-denial-from-archbishop-pozzo.html
Muller-Fellay Meeting: Just two points needed
FSSP priests in Rome not allowed to affirm Vatican Council II, extra ecclesiam nulla salus without three irrational points: no denial from religious community
March 20, 2015
Without the three points we get a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus but this is not understood by the SSPX.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/without-three-points-we-get-rational.html
If the Holy See chooses to interpret Vatican Council without the false premise there can be a reconciliation.The announcement has first to be made by the Holy See
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/if-holy-see-chooses-to-interpret.html
The two hermeneutics depend on the use or omission of the irrational premise from Marchetti's letter
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/the-two-hermenutics-depend-on-use-or.html
If you consider the Holy Office or Fr.Leonard Feeney in heresy determines how you interpret Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/if-you-consider-holy-office-or.html