I was on the receiving end of the “crypto-lefebrvist” charge yesterday – a neat trick considering that the originator of that term is now sentenced to pay hefty restitution for defaming the founder of a religious order. Still, it would seem that in the minds of some, the charge bears a certain sting. And I suppose it does. I’m a long-standing devotee of the traditional Mass. We go to great lengths to ensure that our children are baptized in the old rite (because what kid these days couldn’t use a double-exorcism upon arrival?)
I came across yet another online discussion this morning about the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (there seems to be a new one all the time) and those who attack them. Sadly, they are always under fire from pretty much all sides, which must only deepen their sense of isolation.
Reading the back and forth, I have to admit that I do not know what to make of the SSPX situation. I have always carefully avoided becoming involved with them, because it feels like a trap. I know there is good being done there. I know good faithful people who are involved. I refuse to accept asinine arguments like the one made by Fr. Paul Nicholson about how Satanic “masses” are less offensive to God than those offered by the SSPX in good faith. But there are questions that demand consideration:
Does anyone here think it’s possible to disagree with the disobedience of Archbishop Lefebvre but still agree with the theological positions he put forth?
Does anyone believe that Rome has been in any way clear about the canonical status of the SSPX, or whether or not people can attend their Masses, support them financially, or even receive other sacraments from them?
Does anyone believe, after taking into account ALL the various pieces of documented evidence which so frequently seem to contradict each other, that they can say with 100% certitude they know that the SSPX is a) in schism or b) not in schism – based solely on the statements of popes, cardinals, and the relevant persons in the appropriate dicasteries and commissions in the Vatican?
Is there a single person reading these words who does not believe that the very existence of the SSPX serves as a perpetual indictment of the Church’s post-conciliar liturgy and ecclesiology, and that any validation from Rome provided to the SSPX beyond the occasional vague updating of the semantics of their status or the lifting of the excommunications would absolutely decimate many of the precepts upon which the current Catholic edifice stands?
Subsequent to this last point: can anyone think of a reason why, considering the modernist/gnostic/neo-pagan political machine that the Vatican has sadly become, we could reasonably expect there to be sufficient interest in Rome to accomplish reconciliation or at least offer sufficient clarification to pull us out of this morass?
It seems undeniable that we (faithful Catholics) are being manipulated by at least some of the Roman officials who should be dealing with this, and quite possibly actively being lied to. The SSPX remains a stigma-by-association deathtrap for all those traditionalists who take pains to maintain clear communion with Rome. If you show any sympathy to the SSPX and their arguments or positions, you, like me, will be branded a “crypto-lefebvrist” or a flat-out schismatic. If you cite any of the clearly-articulated theological arguments made on their websites as part of a discussion, you will be instantly dismissed and the citations disregarded. They are, for all intents and purposes, radioactive. And while they have done things over the years that demonstrate that they share the blame for this, they appear to be intentionally kept in the outer darkness by those whose very job it is to make them a full and licit part of the Church.
Perhaps most important is this: if it is schismatic or somehow un-Catholic to believe the things that they believe, then this means all of our ancestors in the faith should be similarly condemned for believing and worshiping the same way. As an institution, they do not hold a single theological position that is not clearly and unequivocally Catholic. They cannot be condemned because of their theology – it is simply not possible to show it to be in error. They even believe in and promote submission to the Petrine office. (One could cogently argue that they have more respect for the institution of the papacy than even the last few popes have – because those last few have been willing to make changes that no pope, if he desired continuity with his forebears, should have made.) Even the infamous act of disobedience has been presented with a very explicit canonical justification. Agree or disagree that this justification is valid, they do not appeal to their own authority, but to the law of the Church.
Their isolation has damaged them. I have no doubt pride has crept in in some areas, which can be very off-putting to those on the outside looking in. The act of disobedience remains a scandal to many. They are most certainly not perfect.
And yet…and yet they are what the Church was before it abandoned its patrimony. They give every appearance that they are doing their best to be faithful to an authentic Catholicism. Should any of us be surprised that there are many in the Vatican who want to keep them as far away as possible, and keep us confused and wary about them in the process? They represent, to Rome at least, the sort of problem that would by its very solution create more problems than it alleviates. Thus, I cannot accept that the confusion surrounding them is entirely an accident. Too many contradictions in official statements exist; too many distinctions without differences are made. Meanwhile, nothing moves forward, and the majority of Catholics associate all traditionalists with the black legend of SSPX schism.
What do you think?
I used to be very anti-SSPX, but I’m not so much any more, and debates about their status I don’t consider particularly fruitful, especially in the current climate of the Church.
I think there is a sound argument to be made against the legitimacy of the SSPX’s actions and status – one that I would probably tend to agree with – but the bottom line is that their very existence is an indictment of the whole post-conciliar orientation of the Church.
I know some SSPX priests and Mass attendants who are problematic (as is the case anywhere in the Church), but I also know families who have been mocked and ridiculed by their bishop and local pastors to the extent that their only hope of some normal Catholic life can be found at an SSPX chapel. If I had a godchild who lived in certain parts of the country, I would have greater hope for their remaining Catholic attending an SSPX chapel than a diocesan parish. If the Vatican commission competent in such matters states that one can fulfill a Sunday obligation at an SSPX chapel, I’d say take that and run with it.
So chalk me up to the “agree with their position, but not necessarily all their actions” camp who sees efforts to paint the SSPX as evil/dangerous/diabolical as ridiculous and horribly out of place. We Catholics have much more pressing and urgent dangers facing us.
Finally, it would take a supreme act of pride for me to look upon the life of Archbishop Lefebvre – all his work and sacrifices for the Church – and sit in judgment of him. Simple charity would demand a more nuanced approach to the man than many armchair tribunals are giving him.
I believe Catholics must always remain faithful to Christ’s Bride… it good times and bad. I WISH and PRAY that one day that our Church will turn from the modernism we are in (no denying it) and return to the traditions we had- that the SSPX cling to. I WANT to worship in a Church that is more like that SSPX than the folk music filled protestant-like parish I have now.
But I am not going to be disobedient to the ONLY Church Jesus created because the one down the street LOOKS more like the Church I fell in love with. I won’t encourage their disobedience by joining it. I will however pray that the SSPX and our Church can come together and unite.
I had very high hopes when Pope Benedict worked so hard to reach out to the SSPX.
I DREAM of the day when the beauty of the Faith kept by the SSPX is once more found in all Catholic parishes. I hope I live to see it.
In Christ,
Julie @ Connecticut Catholic Corner
Mr. Skojec,
Thank you for this piece. While I have a few minor quibbles about the points you bring up, in the main I am gladdened that you have taken the time to reflect on the tensions which exist between the Society of St. Pius X and other sectors of the Catholic Church.
As someone who both supports the work of the SSPX and contributes to their flagship publication, The Angelus, I have had to learn to deal with the petty “guilt by association” charges so many of the Society’s critics routinely make. Still, that’s a small price to pay for standing up for the truth.
Once again, bravo for this article. I hope it wins wide readership.
My daughter went to the Phillippines on their Rosa Mystica medical mission a few times. And honestly is there anyone else that you would trust to send your daughter with?
I question I’ve had – Pope Benedict said that the impediment to reconciliation with the SSPX is (are) doctrinal, not merely disciplinary. Does anyone know what the supposed doctrinal question is? Has it ever been articulated?
Christophe,
That’s a complicated question which comes attached with its own ambiguities because, it seems, Rome has never been consistent with where it takes doctrinal umbrage with the Society. The SSPX, on the other hand, has been fairly clearly over the decades. Although it does not reject the Second Vatican Council in toto, the Society does believe certain statements and positions emanating from the Council to be in error and therefore difficult to reconcile with tradition. Still, the SSPX, and Archbishop Lefebvre, have tried to find some clarity on these matters from Rome — only to get stonewalled.
On the question of religious liberty, for instance, Lefebvre submitted an extensive series of dubia to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Those dubia have been translated and republished as the book Religious Liberty Questioned. What was the CDF’s response? A rather rambling text in French which came without signature and which Rome has never saw fit to translate or disseminate widely. Thankfully, an excellent Thomistic blogger recently decided to translate the CDF’s reply. I think if you give a look at the response, you can see why the Society was less than impressed.
You can find them here:
http://stomachosus-thomistarum.blogspot.com/
In addition to points concerning Vatican II, there is also significant disagreement between Rome and the Society concerning the Novus Ordo Mass. To simplify a complicated subject, the SSPX believes the New Mass is valid, but not licit. While Lefebvre was not required to recognize New Mass as licit in the 1988 Protocol he signed as part of a canonical regularization deal he had negotiated with Rome, apparently Bishop Fellay was told, during the 2012 talks, that the Society must recognize the Novus Ordo as licit.
Steve, Your examination/cross examination of the questions posed, ultimately result in the only conclusion one can arrive at, that is consistent with what many in the church have said, including Benedict XVI, that is that the “problem” posed by the SSPX, is an internal matter for the church in Rome, which would imply that “schism” does not exist. All of your answers to the questions you present, are answered well by you already, so if you are asking then, do you agree with me, then the answer is an unequivocal,YES. I believe John Vennari’s and Louie Verrecchio’s charitable response to the Voris absolute decree that the SSPX is in schism, are spot on, and are much more legitimate as well as logical, than Michael Voris, yet again, and the Vennari and Verrecchio response is also absolutely consistent with the answers to the questions you pose to yourself, and your readers. As this all evolves, I suspect that the SSPX will feel very much like a “shelter in the storm” and remain a focal point of what can only be described as what will become, the Remnant Church..Come Lord Jesus!
More clarity from Chris Ferrara and Michael Matt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tze_qOw6ezY&feature=youtu.be
It is just as you say Steve. Just as Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice in broader Western society, the same is true with SSPX in the Church. There is so much excitement in Rome about being reunited with our Lutheran and XYZ brethren, and even worshipping in common with other religions, meanwhile the same folks turn their backs on their parent’s form of Christianity. (Oh, but Jon, our parent’s wouldn’t disobey the Pope…)
The justification or condemnation of Lefebvfre’s action depends on a very nuanced theological point, which few seem interested in answering and even fewer feel comfortable discussing for the reasons you mentioned: the perpetual vs. living conceptions of magisterium. It is clear that previous popes cannot bind future popes with declarations because to each is given the same authority, however it is equally clear that the Successor of Peter is bound by a law superior to ecclesial law, the divine law (i.e. Christ himself) which transcends time. So the question becomes, who is to be the interpreter of what contravenes the divine law? Off the cuff the answer should be the current magisterium. However, SSPX claims it is the perpetual magisterium – that is, language/semantics itself makes clear enough for any man (c/o Lefebvre) to determine himself to stick with only previous declarations of faith and morals (which in so doing, in theory there is no harm to salvation). This is an interesting point, because despite what you believe when it comes to the present pope vs. past popes in communion with him debate…there does still seem to be a practical answer as to whether SSPX should be allowed to practice its beliefs.
Even with a view such as Pope Benedict’s espousing a ‘living magisterium’ we would have to say that, just as the Tridentine Mass is an earlier formulation/expression of the same developing valid Mass, so too we can say that the doctrine the SSPX espouses, if it is so preserved, is equally a valid earlier formulation of the same deposit of the faith, just as the teaching being given centuries after Christ left the earth. At the very least, there is some new angle on the same deposit they are missing out on with not accepting Vatican II (which still requires much overdue clarification as to the degree of its magisterial quality.)
Worst case scenario, the serious question more simply put becomes, IF Peter were to teach, unofficially or officially (were waiting on the status of the Council-a huge piece), something in direct conflict with what Christ had commanded, would Paul be absolved of obedience to canon law by following its first principle for states of necessity ‘suprema lex salus animarum’ and continuing to teach what Christ did (or to ignore Peter’s reformulation)? It is fully a matter of obedience from both sides of the debate. If I were Paul, I would want to be damn sure there is a conflict and that Peter will eventually apologize a third time.
With all the blasphemies, sacrileges, injustices, outrages, moral depravity, heretical teaching, et cetera, going on within the Church for half a century, involving clergy and laity alike, even to the highest echelons of the Church, and with the loss of Faith running into the millions, it is beyond belief that there are still people who spend even a minute’s worth of time badmouthing Archbishop Lefebvre and the priestly society he founded.
Can’t they even give him a little credit for trying?
If these “little holy cards,” to borrow a phrase from a rather famous person, had spent half as much of their energy attacking the real enemies of the Church lo these many years as they have expended attacking the SSPX, the Catholic Church would have been out of this mess decades ago. But that would mean opposing the hierarchy; and we can’t have that now, can we?
They have developed a new sola: salvation by obedience alone.
– DJR
One important thing to note: the Society provides the Faithful with Catholic priests ordained in the old rite by Bishops consecrated in the old rite.
Love the post! As a lifelong Catholic, I’ve become increasingly disgusted with the bickering, accusations, and “holier at hand thou” attitudes on either end of the Catholic spectrum. It saddens me to think what someone considering conversion to the faith would do after seeing the current situation. I don’t blame Vatican II. I think its deeper that this, or that, Council.
Steve:
As an institution, they do not hold a single theological position that is not clearly and unequivocally Catholic. They cannot be condemned because of their theology – it is simply not possible to show it to be in error.
Louie Verrecchio is a speaker at SSPX conferences and uses the liberal theology which is a break with the past.
February 18, 2015
Louie Verrecchio’s wife is not Catholic, he interprets the dogma on exclusive salvation with an irrational premise and so it is not a sin for him
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/louie-verrecchios-wife-is-not-catholic.html
The SSPX must clarify it’s position on the Marchetti Error. This will the liberals, those supporting the Masonic agenda, on the defensive.
The SSPX must identify the Marchetti error and reject it.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/the-sspx-must-identify-marchetti-error.html
For the SSPX, Bishop Robert Morlino, Robert Sungenis and Louie Verrecchio the Church’s teachings on marriage, the family and salvation has changed.
February 19, 2015
For Bishop Robert C. Morlino, Louie Verrecchio and Robert Sungenis the Church’s teaching on marriage, the family and salvation has changed
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/for-bishop-robert-c-morlino-louie.html
From what I can see, it’s okay with a lot of people if a Catholic leaves the Church for the Orthodox, the Episcopalians or even the Evangelicals but they flip out if a person goes to an SSPX Mass. I think that’s nuts. If a soccer Mass is okay, and Seahawks Mass is okay and dancing girls are okay then what isn’t? I’ve never been to a SSPX chapel but I thank them. If it wasn’t for them I wouldn’t have the FSSP or ICK or and indult to go to now.
February 21, 2015
For the SSPX magisterial teachings are accepted on the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 but rejected with respect to Vatican Council II (with the premise)
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/for-sspx-magisterial-teachings-are.html
Steve, to put it quite simply, I think you pose a very good question and I think you are correct.
I do wish some of the commenters could bring their commentary down to a more readable level. I am a post graduate, but I do not feel the need to speak is such an esoteric manner.
am a post graduate, but I do not feel the need to speak is such an esoteric manner.
Kathleen,
I am still banging my head against the wall trying to get someone, especially from the SSPX, to understand what I am saying.
Here is another attempt.
FANTASY PREMISE
For instance they all (Fr.Nicholas Gruner, Chris Ferrara, John Vennari, John Salza, Louie VVerrecchio and other well meaning traditionalists ) will accept the Letter of the Holy Office which infers that salvation in Heaven is known and visible on earth and so there are cases of persons dead who are living exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. Where does it say it ? The text does not mention it? Not directly.Though this is implied by the Letter and is accepted in general.
Ask yourself- how could the baptism of desire for instance be an exception to the traditional teaching on salvation by Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center ? It was an exception since it was implied that in 1949 there were exceptions. There were exceptions in 1949 who were saved without the baptism of water and they were known to the Holy Office and the Archbishop of Boston. If there were no such people alive how could there be exceptions? They would have to be known. This is implied.
STRANGE INFERENCE
So this was the inference.The problem is that there were no exceptions and there cannot be an exception. Period. 1) Since those saved with the baptism of desire are in Heaven. 2) We also cannot say that any particular person will be saved without the baptism of water.So exceptions are physically not visible.They are humanly not there.
There could not have been exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.Impossible. Whatever be Fr.Feeney’s theology or opinion on whatever,it is a fact of life that we cannot see persons in Heaven.Nor can we predict that someone will be saved without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.
IRRATIONAL REASONING
There being exceptions is the irrational reasoning used to interpret Vatican Council II by John Vennari, Chris Ferrara, John Salza and Louie Verrecchio and other traditionalists.
Here it is. Lumen Gentium 16 refers to those who are saved in invincible ignorance. This is acceptable to the three of them. No problem here. These cases are saved without the baptism of water. It’s fine for them. This was the original inference in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. These cases are known in the present times. This is acceptable for them. This was also Marchetti’s inference when he issued the Letter in 1949. These cases being known, are now explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the false conclusion which comes from Cardinal Marchetti. Even this is recognised. However here, since they are exceptions to the dogma they reject LG 16. They reject Vatican Council II.Here there is a turn around.
ONE IS ACCEPTED. THE OTHER REJECTED.
The same irrational reasoning is used with the Marchetti letter and Vatican Council II. In both cases there is a false premise ( the dead are visible on earth) and a false conclusion ( and these living- deceased are explicit exceptions to Tradition and in particular the dogma on salvation).However the Letter is accepted but Vatican Council II is rejected.
Really, it is because the irrational premise and conclusion from the Letter is accepted that Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They overlook this point in their comments on the Council.
AVOID THE PREMISE THE RESULT IS DIFFERENT
Avoid the premise and the result is different. If they did not presume that the dead are visible on earth then LG 16 would not be an exception. There would be no exceptions to the dogma in the Council.
If there are no exceptions to the dogma in the Council ( and there aren’t any) then it means Vatican Council II has not changed the traditional interpretation,on other religions and Christian communities. All need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. UR 3 refers to a possibility but not an exception to the dogma. NA 2, LG 16,LG 8 etc are only possibilities. They are possibilities and are not explicit.Hypoththetical possibilities cannot be defacto exceptions.
So why will they all keep using the false premise ?
If Louie Verrecchio stops using it he would be able to see the Council with a rational perspective.
His commentaries on Vatican Council II are based on those, who like him, use the false premise to reach a non traditional conclusion.
Kathleen,
Do you understand what I mean by the false premise and false conclusion?
Kathleen,
Here I will define my terms.
If a pope uses the irrational premise and comes to an irrational conclusion it still is an objective error, even if he is the pope.
What premise, what conclusion, what theology, what Tradition.
Lionel:
what premise ?
The irrational premise is “The dead are visible to us on earth”.
____________________
what conclusion ?
The conclusion is since the dead are visible to us on earth those who are saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are explicit ( visible in the flesh) exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
___________________________
what theology,
So the post -1949 theology says every one needs to enter the Catholic Church except for those in invincible ignorance or with the baptism of desire.
Defacto there are known exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
_________________________
what Tradition?
Pre- 1949 Catholic Tradition, on salvation ( soteriology) says there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. The three dogmas on extra ecclesiam nulla salus ,defined by three Church Councils do not mention any exception. The text also does not mention the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance.I am referring to Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441.
Also Mystici Corporis and the Council of Trent mention implicit desire etc but do not state that these cases are known to us, to be exceptions to the dogma .Neither do they state that there are exceptions to the dogma.
Yet with the false premise and false conclusion this is how the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc are interpreted.
If a pope uses the irrational premise and comes to an irrational conclusion it still is an objective error, even if he is the pope. It is a fact of life that we cannot see persons in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire. We do not know any one this year saved without the baptism of water. So so how can these cases be postulated as exceptions?
Try and look at this issue using the Left Hand and Right Hand Column. Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus can be interpreted with the red or blue column.
SSPX has only to interpret Vatican Council II with the left hand side column and there is no break with their traditional beliefs on other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/sspx-has-only-to-interpret-vatican.html
The Magisterium promotes heresy for political reasons ?
The popes, the teaching authority of the Catholic Church ( magisterium) pleases the political Left. It does not identify the Marchetti heresy.It has allowed an irrationality to enter theology.
It does not correct the false inference from 1949.Instead it has made the error the basis of a ‘new theology’. It is a factual error. The error ( new theology) is linked to Pope Pius XII.The pope who cannot be beatified because the Jewish Left objects.
They have welcomed the beatification of Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI, who opened and closed Vatican Council II.This was Vatican Council II interpreted with the Marchetti premise.Without the premise the Council would be Feeneyite and objectionable for them.
There are two important points that Pope Francis and Pope Benedict may have intentionally overlooked. It could be intentional since there are so many reports on the Internet which identify it. To please the political Left they do not clarify these two points.
1) Before 1949 no Church document stated that there were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It was never said that salvation in Heaven in any form, was explicit in personal cases.Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 inferred this.
2) In 1949 no one personally knew of any one saved outside the Church i.e without ‘faith and baptism'(AG 7).They could not name anyone.
So to reject a defined dogma,defined by three Church Councils, with this irrational reasoning is heresy.It also changes the interpretation of the Nicene Creed and Vatican Council II. This is magisterial heresy.
The Magisterium does not announce that Vatican Council II really says all need to convert into the Church and Catholics are the new people of God, the Chosen People. Vatican Council II indicates that we really cannot have a reasonable hope that all men are saved, and that all Jews, Muslims and Christians ( non Catholics) in Rome, are on the way to Hell ,unless they convert into the only Church Jesus founded.1
Instead the Curia at Vatican City assumes that Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance) etc refer to known cases in the present times (1965-2015).So they have an explicit exception, in LG 16, to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. This results in a new theology, a new ecclesiology.
They dead who are now saved and are safe in Heaven are explicit exceptions on earth! They are explicit exceptions (to all needing ‘faith and baptism’ )for the popes and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
So ‘I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins’ (Nicene Creed) is changed into ‘I believe in three or more KNOWN baptisms for the forgiveness of sins. They are the baptisms of desire, blood, seeds of the Word (AG 11), elements of sanctification and truth (LG 8), invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) etc.These are baptisms without the baptisms of water since there are is known salvation outside the Church.’
This is irrational, non traditional and heretical.It is a first class heresy in the hierarchy of truths.
This is magisterial heresy which the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX), Franciscans of the Immaculate,traditionalist and conservative Catholics have to accept to avoid being labelled schismatic, heretical, etc.
-Lionel Andrades
1
VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/vatican-council-ii-says.html
What was Fr. Hardons error that Cd. Burke approved? Just trying to keep up.
Lionel:
Fr.John Hardon’s error was that he made an irrational inference. He assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance or with implicit desire referred to personally known, nameable cases in the present times.This was a false inference.This then became a false premise for him. Since he concluded that these cases of persons saved, this category of people, now in Heaven, were explicit exceptions to all needing the baptism of water, in the present times.They were exceptions to all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. So based on the wrong premise, he wrongly concluded that every one did not defacto, in the present times, need to enter the Church for salvation. He used an irrational premise ( the dead-saved are visible on earth) which resulted in an irrational conclusion ( everyone does not have to defacto enter the Church).
Since he assumed that salvation in Heaven is explicit for us, those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance, became exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So for him every one did not have to become a formal member of the Church, but only they had to, who were not in invinciblle ignorance.While those who knew about Jesus and the Church and yet did not enter were on the way to Hell.So he changed the original teaching which said all with Original Sin need the baptism of water.
This was the original mistake made by the Holy Office and the Archdiocese of Boston in 1949 when they assumed that a category of people now in Heaven were objective exceptions on earth to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Fr.Hardon wrote an article on outside the Church there is no salvation in which he repeated this mistake.Also as a consultant to the Holy See on the Catechism of the Catholic Church he let this error pass conspicuously in CCC 1257 (The Necessity of Baptism) and with confusion in CCC 846 (Outside the Church No Salvation).
Cardinal Raymond Burke approved this article by Fr.Hardon. Cardinal Buke also recommends the Catechism of the Catholic Church which incorporates this confusion while he has never affirmed the traditional strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is also observed in Cardinal Raymond Burke’s criticism of Vatican Council II. Salvation in Heaven is an explicit exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma. So LG 16,LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to visible in the flesh cases in 2015. Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors for Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke. It is a break with the traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities.This was also Fr.John Hardon’s mistake.
If salvation in Heaven was not explicit, seen in the flesh for them, then there would be nothing in Vatican Counicl II to contradict the ‘rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Vatican Council II would be Feeneyite.It would not contradict the traditional teaching on non Catholics needing to convert into the Church to avoid Hell. Since the ecclesiology would still be traditional.
-Lionel Andrades
March 4, 2015
Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon’s error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/cardinal-raymond-burke-approved-fr-john.html
SSPX must note:
Dominus Iesus, Redemptoris Missio carry the Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani mistake
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/dominus-iesus-redemptoris-missio-carry.html
What I think, I believe ‘what was Sacred then, is Sacred now’ I am F.S.S.P.X and thank God for Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre /Bishop A. Castro de Mayer.
“Does anyone here think it’s possible to disagree with the disobedience of Archbishop Lefebvre but still agree with the theological positions he put forth?”
Certainly. Michael Davies, who was probably the biggest defender of Archbishop Lefebvre, disagreed with Msgr. Lefebvre’s consecration of the four Bishops. He did not believe it was a schismatic act based on his understanding of canon law, but he did think it was highly imprudent.
I felt the same way in the late eighties and early nineties, but I now personally see the wisdom of his position. Especially in light of the current Pontificate.
Cardinal Gerhard Muller like AP interprets Vatican Council II with the error from the Baltimore Catechism
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/cardinal-gerhard-muller-like-ap.html
the only blemish on The SSPX today is the ridiculous waste of time Fellay has taken The Society through and the more than one hundred priests he has lost The Confraternity in the process. he should have listened well to Archbishop Lefebvre’s benchmark – no deal with modernist Rome until it returned to “eternal Rome” of The Roman catholic Faith. he even stated boldly not long before his death that an arrangement was impossible with Rome on this basis alone.