It will now be for Pope Benedict XVI to decide whether the traditionalist group's response is sufficient to permit them back into full communion with the Catholic Church.
Weekend media speculation suggested that there has been behind-the-scene dialogue between both sides in recent weeks trying to smooth reconciliation.
“Unofficially and in the utmost discretion, the envoys have worked on both sides to reach agreement,” wrote Jean-Marie Guenois, religion correspondent for the French newspaper Le Figaro April 13.
“In recent weeks, the final adjustments have been finalized between Rome and Ecône (the Society’s Swiss headquarters) to best respond to requests for ‘clarifications’ sought by the Vatican, 16 March.”
A public announcement by the Vatican on the latest state of play with negotiations is likely to be made this week.
If agreement can be reached, the Society could be offered the status of Personal Prelature within the Church. That is a jurisdiction without geographical boundaries designed to carry out particular pastoral initiatives. At present, the only personal prelature in the Church is Opus Dei.
The Society of St. Pius X was presented with a “doctrinal preamble” by the Vatican in September 2011, which outlined points of belief that the Church needed clarified before finally healing the decades-long rift between the two sides.
An initial reply in January 2012 was deemed “not sufficient” by the Vatican who then invited the Society to further clarify its position by mid-April.
The Society has had a strained relationship with the Vatican since its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebrve, consecrated four bishops against the orders of Pope John Paul II in 1988.
Archbishop Lefebrve founded the Society in 1970 as a response to what he described as errors that had crept into the Catholic Church following the Second Vatican Council.
In 2009, Pope Benedict remitted the excommunications of the Society’s bishops and set talks in motion aimed at restoring “full communion.” The Pope said at the time that to achieve full communion the members of the Society would have to show “true recognition of the Magisterium and the authority of the Pope and of the Second Vatican Council.”
WELL DONE SSPX! NOW YOU HAVE TIME TO REFLECT. VATICAN COUNCIL II SUPPORTS THE TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF ECUMENISM, INTER RELIGIOUS DIALOGUE AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
ReplyDeleteIt's good that the SSPX has responded positively to the Doctoral Preamble and removed the threat of immediate excommunication. They now have time to reflect on there being only one interpretation of Vatican Council II possible since we do not know of any non Catholics saved in the present time in invincible ignorance,a good conscience, seeds of the Word etc.
So SSPX, keep rejecting the Jewish Left interpretation of Vatican Council II.
The liberals cannot support their interpretation with any quotation from Vatican Council II. LG 16 does not support them.
Whereas the SSPX can cite AG 7 as being in accord with the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and there are no known exceptions.Once it is understood that Vatican Council II embraces the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus we realize that the SSPX traditional position on ecumenism and inter religious dialogue is in agreement with Vatican Council II.
So we have the religious freedom according to Vatican Council II (DH) to say other religions are false paths to salvation and they do not have a moral right to profess their faith even though defacto they can and we do not force them to stop.
-Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/well-done-sspx-now-you-have-time-to.html
POPE CONTRADICTS BIBLE, CARDINAL LEVADA ISSUES NO CLARIFICATION. EXPECTS OFFICAL CLARIFICATION FROM BISHOP FELLAY
ReplyDeleteThere are two errors of Pope Benedict in Light of the World p.107:-
1) He assumes that those saved in invincible ignorance etc are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II even though we do not know any of these cases saved in invincible ignorance etc. Since we do not know any of these cases saved they cannot be explicit exceptions on earth.
2) The pope says Jews do not have to convert in the present times and the Revised Good Friday Prayer is not for their conversion while they live .This contradicts the Bible (John 3:5,Mk:16:16 etc),Vatican Council II(AG 7), the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846, Dominus Iesus 20.
The pope denies the Faith in public and expects the SSPX to do the same (with reference to the Jews) or face the penalty of excommunication. There is now a foreign doctrine on the Jews which is not part of the Deposit of the Faith.Yet all the religious have signed a profession of faith.They have all recited the Nicene Creed which says I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. And yet the Jews do not need the baptism of water in the present time 2012?
The pope expects the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II when the Council indicates Jews need to convert for salvation. (AG 7).The pope has never said this clearly in public.
Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) never issued a clarification over the pope’s error on the Jews. He is expecting a clarification from Bishop Bernard Fellay.
Vatican Council II says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (AG 7) and this includes the Jews. It says the Church is ‘the new people of God’ (NA4) and the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church (LG 8).It does not state that we know cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience(LG 16) or that this contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or AG 7.
It’s a shame that the members of Ecclesia Dei nod their heads in silent acquiescence.
Lionel Andrades
______________________________________
REPORT IS AN EXPOSE OF APOSTASY AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE CHURCH-ROBERT SUNGENIS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/02/report-is-expose-of-apostasy-at-highest.html
DID THE POPE REALLY DENY THE FAITH ON THE NEED FOR JEWS TO CONVERT ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/did-pope-really-deny-faith-on-need-for.html#links
CONTINUED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/pope-contradicts-bible-cardinal-levada.html
SSPX WEBSITE: ' I believe in three baptisms for the forgiveness of sins’ ?
ReplyDeleteSo when the SSPX bishops and priests recite their Oath of Fidelity to Pope Benedict XVI and they are asked to say aloud the Nicene Constantinople Creed, which we pray in Church, they will say 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin’ and mean ‘I believe in three baptism for the forgiveness of sin, the baptism of water, desire and blood’.
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer on the SSPX website,THE THREE BAPTISMS writes that Fr.Leonard Feeney in his 1952 book, Bread of Life, states on p.25:
It is now: Baptism of Water, or damnation! If you do not desire that Water, you cannot be justified. And if you do not get it, you cannot be saved."
Yes without the baptism of water no one on earth can be saved and we cannot give anyone the baptism of desire or judge who has a genuine baptism of blood (martyrdom). So obviously any non Catholic you meet needs the baptism of water for salvation.So Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct.
The baptism of desire can never ever be an exception to the need for the baptism of water. Since we cannot know any such case.
So when the SSPX bishops and priests take their oarth of fidelity to Pope Benedict XVI and they are asked to recite the Nicene Constantinople Creed they will say 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin’ and mean ‘I believe in three baptism for the forgiveness of sin, the baptism of water, desire and blood’.
CONTINUED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/04/sspx-website-i-believe-in-three.html
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
ReplyDeleteIF THEY EXCOMMUNICATED FR.LEONARD FEENEY FOR SAYING THAT THERE WAS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THEN THEY MADE A MISTAKE.THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA.
An injustice was done to the priest and St.Benedict Center
The secular media and the liberals say Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 does not say it was for heresy but for disobedience.Pope Pius XII in the Letter supported Fr.Leonad Feeney on doctrine.He was excommunicated for disobedience. He refused to go to Rome when summoned.He was also being opposed by the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supported Fr.Leonard Feeney when it referred to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible’statement.(1) The text of the dogma is a literal interpretation of the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The dogma does not mention any explicit exception. So this was exactly what was taught by Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.
Some passages in the Letter however are critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.(2) So if it was assumed that the baptism of desire etc was an explicit exception to the dogma then they were mistaken.There are no known cases of people saved with the baptism of desire etc. To claim so would be an objective,factual oversight.
The Letter of the Holy Office does not directly claim that those saved in invincible ignorance etc are explicit exceptions to the dogma or that we can know these cases. This was the error of the Archbishop of Boston and the media which supported him.
The Letter which was addresed to the Archbishop had technical irregularities and so could also have been a bishop-to-bishop document.It was hastily placed in the Denzinger by the liberals.
The communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney today, recognized by the Catholic Church, know there are no exceptions to the dogma. This is common sense.
So if Fr.Leonard Feeney rejected the baptism of desire etc for whatever reason it is irrelevant. The baptism of desire etc is not issue with reference to the dogma.
continued
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/if-they-excommunicated-frleonard-feeney.html
Thursday, May 10, 2012
ReplyDeleteNO DENIAL FROM DIOCESE OF WORCESTER, USA: All religious communities are permitted to hold the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (AG 7)
The men’s religious communities in the diocese can teach that in reality everyone needs to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation and there are no known exceptions.
Also the women’s religious communities and lay persons in the diocese can affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma and Ad Gentes 7 along with implicit baptism of desire.
They agree that they do not know anyone saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.
Explicitly known baptism of desire was the heresy, knowingly or unknowingly, of the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing. If the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumed that the baptism of desire was explicitly known then it would be an objective, factual error.
Fr. Leonard Feeney’s position is consistent with the Church Fathers, Church Councils, popes, saints, Catechisms, Vatican Council I, Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(reference to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible statement’).
An apology is over due from the Archdiocese of Boston and the Jesuit Superior General.
-Lionel Andrades
No one from the Diocese of Worcester,USA will answer if they know any one saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/no-one-from-diocese-of-worcesterusa.html
BISHOP ROBERT J.MCMANUS CAN ALL RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES IN WORCESTER BELIEVE THAT WE DO NOT PERSONALLY KNOW ANY CASE SAVED WITH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/bishop-robert-jmcmanus-can-all.html
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/no-denial-from-diocese-of-worcester-usa.html
Saturday, May 12, 2012
ReplyDeleteCOMMUNITY OF FR. LEONARD FEENEY IN WORCESTER CAN AFFIRM THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS ACCORDING TO THE DIOCESE
Historic decision for the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
According to the diocese of Worcester,USA there are no known cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.
So there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Neither are there exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.
So the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in Worcester who have been granted canonical status, can affirm the dogma just as Fr.Leonard Feeney.
The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, including a monastic community in Worcester, are free to proclaim the centuries old interpretation of the dogma in accord with Vatican Council II (AG 7).
Even other religious communities in the diocese are free to proclaim (AG 7) that all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (to avoid Hell) and there are no known exceptions of invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16).
They accept the possibility of people being saved in invinciblle ignorance etc but acknowledge that in reality these cases are known only to God and are unknown to us.
So there is nothing in Vatican Council II e.g seeds of the Word etc, which contradict the dogma as understood by Fr.Leonard Feeney,Sister Catherine Goddard Clarke, Bro.Francis MICM and other founders of the Slaves of the Immmaculate Heart of Mary.
-Lionel Andrades
Friday, May 11, 2012
Two U.S Catholic dioceses agree that we can hold the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (AG 7)
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/two-us-catholic-diocese-agree-that-we.html
Thursday, May 10, 2012
NO DENIAL FROM DIOCESE OF WORCESTER, USA: All religious communities are permitted to hold the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (AG 7)
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/no-denial-from-diocese-of-worcester-usa.html
Friday, May 18, 2012
ReplyDeleteBEFORE MEETING THE THREE SSPX BISHOPS CDF NEEDS TO BE ASKED TO ENDORSE AD GENTES 7 WITH RESPECT TO JUDAISM AND CLARIFY THAT INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE (LG 16) IS NOT AN EXPLICIT,KNOWN EXCEPTION TO AG 7 AND THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
What is the moral authority of the pope and cardinals over the three SSPX bishops when they are in public heresy?
If the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) cannot affirm Vatican Council II (AG 7) with respect to Jews and ecumenism, and if they do not admit that invincible ignorance and being saved with a good conscience (LG 16) are not explicit exceptions, then how can they expect the Society of St. Pius X bishops to accept Vatican Council II, and that too, their version of Vatican Council II with no supportive texts from the Council?
The SSPX bishops could insist that the CDF relationship with the Jews should be based on Vatican Council II and that they should be able to cite texts from Vatican Council which says Jews do not have to convert in the present times or that Jews are the Chosen People of God today. There is no such text in Nostra Aetate or Lumen Gentium with reference to the Jews.
Nostra Aetate also does not say that for good relations with the Jews Catholics must deny the Faith.
-Lionel Andrades
________________________________
Thursday, May 17, 2012
CARDINAL KOCH MOUTHS HERESY AT THE ANGELICUM UNIVERSITY: THROWS AWAY VATICAN COUNCIL II, BIBLE AND DOGMA
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/cardinal-koch-mouths-heresy-at.html
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
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/pope-benedict-xvi-has-rejected-vatican.html#links
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
CONFUSED CDF MEETS TODAY
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/confused-cdf-meets-today.html#links
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
CATHOLICS COULD CONDUCT AN EDUCATION CAMPAIGN OUTSIDE GERMAN EMBASSIES SAYING : ‘Don’t tell us how to interpret Vatican Council II.Neither tells us our faith and what we should believe in !’
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/catholics-could-conduct-education.html
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
Friday, May 25, 2012
ReplyDeleteDID THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949, THE MAGISTERIUM, MAKE A MISTAKE? NO
The 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