Sunday, November 11, 2012

A little adjunct to yesterday's post

My friend "New Catholic" gave my last post, on the "realism" I see lacking in the demands which Bishop Fellay and/or SSPX put on the Holy Father, some additional publicity, which provoked the whirlwind which one has come to expect from a popular forum like RORATE CAELI. I cannot imagine what he must have edited out!

Yesterday I saw a brief video review of a book by an Italian family author of historical works and social commentary entitled (in English translation) THE BORGIAS - The Black Legend. From his study of the Vatican's Secret Archives the author wants to vouch for the fact that Lucretia never poisoned anyone and died piously as a member of a confraternity... Is hindsight always better? Which authority trumps all others and allows a man to rehabilitate somebody who was part of a story which kept certain apartments in the Apostolic Palace closed for centuries?

I remember a discussion of thirty years ago (with my righteous friend from the post) about discernment, Divine Will/vocation and Divine Providence. He, at the time, was agonizing over choices he thought he had to make and asked me how I was facing the situation. I told him simply that I wasn't facing anything in that matter: that things just happen in my life, really, thanks be to God. God's gentle motions in my life have always required little more than grateful acquiescence on my part and then an unconditional, generous espousal of the lot entrusted to me. Problems arise when I have felt obliged to make a decision or to say: "no, that my life is not going this way". He looked back at me in disbelief and we never touched on the topic again.

I get the impression from the comments on my post that few would doubt my respect for Archbishop Lefebvre and SSPX; I'll let them stare back in disbelief when I say that I am confident that God is running the show, despite the evil He may be permitting, and that I don't need an apology before I give myself entirely to the cause cum et sub Petro, that I dare not claim to win any points sine qua non to be able to make my contribution to the body Catholic for the sake of the salvation of the world. 

Catholic catechesis has been in shambles (a point not to be forgotten, thank you, LONG SKIRTS) for more than 2 generations, but the loss of the sense of the presence of God in our families, the loss of a home-rooted Catholic culture regardless of whether the family is integral or not, disfunctional or not, this is the battle front.

Be realistic and come home! Otherwise, pick up your marbles and move on...?

28 comments:

  1. Your Grace,whilst I share with you your thoughts that at all times we have to be home "cum et sub Petro", the speech of Bishop Fellay bespeaks a lot of suffering and pain which cannot ignored. It is a call to purification.I think that Card. Dolan hit it straight on in his opening address. One cannot just resign onself that things are just the way they are. I beleive your righteous friend was right. With Card. Dolan's straight talk, the challenge is given. And, just perhaps, if enough heed the call, Bishop Fellay and his men will come home because they will feel that Home is safe and that nothing can be better than being in the heart of the Church and not outside on the porch.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you, Lux!
    Sadly, especially in the tropics people enjoy life on the porch and seem reticent to come in and help batten down the hatches for the "storm". I see no reason why SSPX should not suffer with us.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pardon me if I misunderstand, Your Excellency, but it seems to me that your point is that a perceived (even real) injustice should not keep the SSPX 'out', much as a general and his soldiers should not fail to return to to return home to defend his country, which is under constant attack, because of some dispute over recognition, awards, promotions, pay, or somesuch.

    In the end, as I see it, if the Church needs the SSPX, then the SSPX is by that very fact morally bound to reunite fully as soon as possible so that it can perform its proper service to the Church. God will give every member of the SSPX his proper reward for his service, whether or not anyone else is so inclined.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Hidden One!
      Rightly or wrongly, I cannot distinguish between the position of the SSPX and that of some of the groups which distanced themselves from the Church at the time of Vatican I... SSPX needs us, if you get my drift.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you, Excellency. Apostolic Succession, illicit (and in certain cases invalid) Sacraments, accusations of heresy in documents promulgated by an Ecumenical Council...

      And, after all, it's not "extra Fraternitatem Sacerdotalem Sancti Pii X nulla salus"! ;-)

      I simply wished to make the point that, if it is granted that the Church needs the SSPX, they still have a moral obligation to be re-united as fast as possible.

      Delete
    3. I agree totally and for their benefit.

      Delete
  4. Quite rightly Your Grace. The SSPX has to be home with us "cum and sub Petro". I was only suggesting that Cardinal Dolan's address to his Brother Bishops holds perhaps a key that could be part of the solution

    ReplyDelete
  5. The fault is not with Vatican Council II whichis traditional.

    The Remnant newspaper has a report by Fr.Francois Laisney .None of their correspondents, can see the Council as traditional, since they all assume that the deceased are visible to us and they use this observation in their interpretation of Vatican Council II.

    There is so much SSPX material on the Internet which wrongly assumes that we know people in the present times who are exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So in all their 'analysis' they assume that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus.

    Then they will pick up one passage here and there to prove that the Council is modernist. Of course the Council is modernist when you interpret it with the premise of being able to see the dead, the ghosts.

    This is the liberal interpretation of Vatican Council II and the only one the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) seems to know at present. This is the only one they have known all these years.

    They can only criticize the Council but cannot provide an alternative interpretation because they do not know of one and the Vatican Curia is of no help to them at this time.

    They could excommunicate the SSPX for not accepting the false interpretation of the Council, a Council which is a break from the past and which allegedly says we can see ghosts saved with 'the seeds of the Word' and in 'imperfect communion ' with the Church.

    These same ghosts can be seen by the SSPX priests Fathers Peter Scott, Francois Laisney and Joseph Pfieffer(SSPX-SO).All in the name of Tradition!The deceased are visible!

    Fr.Francois Laisney and traditionalists mention that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 suggested that the baptism of desire was relevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma. The Letter suggested first, before all of them, that they could all see ghosts.

    Anyway, if we cannot see anyone saved with the baptism of desire and the Magisterium cannot name any person in particular in the present times, and yet if the Letter still says that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma, then it was an oversight in the Letter.It was a misunderstanding.

    When the SSPX recognizes this oversight then they may be able to see that Vatican Council II is in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors and extra ecclesiam nulla salus and it is Fathers Laisney,Scott and Pfieffer who are in error and not Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades

    http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-1015-laisney-di-noia.htm

    Fr.Francois Laisney makes the same error as Archbishop Di Noia in assuming that there are explicit known cases on earth who can be saved outside the Catholic Church.
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/frfrancois-laisney-makes-same-error-as.html#links

    Archbishop DiNoia has “tried to argue that all the SSPX has to do is to say there’s nothing in the Council that is contrary to Tradition- Fr.Francois Laisney,SSPX
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-dinoia-has-tried-to-argue.html#links

    ReplyDelete
  6. FANTASY THEOLOGY : PILTDOWN MAN THEOLOGY AT THE CDF

    Theology Fiction or Fantasy theology was the description on Rorate Caeili of the conference on Teilhard di Chardin at the Gregorian University,Rome in which cardinals, bishops and priests participated approvingly.It was called fantasy theology since there was finally no scientific proof for Teilhard's theology. The Piltdown Man, the 'scientific finding' which proved at that time, the link between the ape and man in evolution, was found to be a fake. Even until today, we do not know if the ape devolved from man in a deviant species.There is no proof yet.


    However this has not stopped the Catholic magisterium today from approving a theology based on fantasy; the absence of a recognised proof or common reason. This is Piltdown theology the same as that coming officially from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

    The Secretary of the CDF Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J in two of the International Theological Commission papers says the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 of Pope Pius XII criticized Fr.Leonard Feeney for his literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and his denial of the baptism of desire etc. Since there can be cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire and these cases are known to him , the dogma is refuted.Piltdown once again.

    He does not know any one on earth saved with the baptism of desire but he assumes that it is a defacto, real exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma. Based on this error he has created fantasy theology like the 'theology of religions' and the 'ecclesiology of communion'.Welcome to fiction-land in the Vatican!

    Recently Archbishop Gerhard Muller , Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican when asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus in an interview with the National Catholic Register, said there were exceptions.His theology noted the 'exceptions' of those saved in invincible ignorance. The Prefect of the CDF is saying that there are actual, known cases on earth saved with invincible ignorance. This is fantasy. We do not know any such case. Based on this fiction he alleges that there are known exceptions to the dogma on salvation and so every one on earth does not have to convert into the Catholic Church.Shades of Teilhard!

    Then Archbishop Augustine Di Noia , Vice President, Ecclesia Dei, CDF when asked about extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the interview with the National Catholic Register, said there were exceptions. Those who are saved with grace are exceptions to the dogma for him. He knows cases on earth, in some new finding, who are saved with grace and so who did not have to convert into the Catholic Church as the dogma taught. This is Piltdown theology. Fake theology with no substantial basis. The stuff of fantasy.

    So the CDF assumes that Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors. This is assumed based on their fantasy theology.-Lionel Andrades

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson,
    Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.
    I would welcome your answer to the following two questions which are related to the SSPX crisis.

    1. Do we know in the year 2012 any one saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a good conscience, seeds of the word (AG 7), imperfect communion with the Church ?

    2. If we do not know any of these cases in 2012 can they be considered exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors?

    In Christ

    Lionel Andrades
    Ctholic layman in Rome

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Lionel,
      Permit me to be confused by all of this. Our point of departure is always extra ecclesiam nulla salus est. As a child in catechism (pre-Vatican II)I learned there were 3 types of baptism: by water and the Trinitarian formula, of course, and two other forms for those seeking baptism: by desire for the righteous catechumen, who dies without the possibility, and baptism of blood, for the unbaptized Christian martyr, St. John the Baptist, pray for us. Once you move beyond these three you have to cope with St. Augustine and Limbo. Once you get beyond the three, you enter into the mystery of the Creed about the Lord's descent into Hell, opening the gates of heaven to all of the righteous since Adam and Eve. Awake o sleeper and rise from the dead!

      Delete
  8. St Thomas Aquinas taught in Summa II. 68.2 that God "is not bound to the visible sacraments" while St. Paul says that the pagan partner married to a Christian is made holy through union with the Christian, "Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is,they are holy." (1 Cor 7:14)
    Tradition is alive,and the Holy Spirit guides the magisterium through the ages to understand in greater depth the mysteries of salvation. Proof of this is the proclamation of the recent Marian dogmas which came after the best part of 1500 years of theological reflection. Concerning those who refute the teachings of Vatican II, are they really that different from the protestants who desired to have their own magisterium?
    In terms of the SSPX, it would be good for them to reflect that the greatest reformers (in its proper sense) are the Saints-co workers for the Truth fighting from within, not on the sidelines.
    Stephen

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear Archbishop Thomas Gullickson,

    There are three types of baptism water, desire and blood.
    You would agree that desire and blood are graces of God and are known only to God. We do not know anyone on earth saved with the baptism of desire or blood in 2012. So while in principle we accept the baptism of desire and blood we know they are not visible and repeatable as the baptism of water.

    So I come back to my question:

    1. Do we know in the year 2012 any one saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a good conscience, seeds of the word (AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church(UR) ?

    Lionel: The answer would be no we do not? Since these cases are known only to God.

    2. If we do not know any of these cases in 2012 can they be considered exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors?

    Lionel: So if we do not personally know any of these cases can they be considered de facto (explicit ) exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

    In Christ
    Lionel

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lionel, Thank you!
      To my mind your analysis is air tight. How can we know what is known to God alone? Our point of departure is Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Est. Everything beyond baptism by water and the word is caught up in the mystery of Divine Providence and God's infinite mercy.

      "Imperfect communion" is ecclesiological terminology which says nothing about the eternal salvation of an individual soul. Invincible ignorance goes well for matters of conscience and moral culpability, but otherwise I'd like to think that many people around the world A.D. find themselves in the same situation as people B.C. that is, with no possibility to know Christ. We think of St. Francis Xavier wanting to roust out of the universities of Europe as many as possible for the mission in India or of his urgency to reach China.

      Simply said, anyone who claims that in 2012 we don't stand in continuity with the great tradition of the Church or that for some reason we are less anxious for souls today, is simply spinning and has not understood the thrust of Vatican II.

      Delete
  10. Dear Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson

    Thank you for your answer!

    We have two interpretations of Vatican Council II.
    A. We do not know in the year 2012 any one saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a good conscience, seeds of the word, imperfect communtion with the Church etc and Vatican Council II does not contradict Tradition.

    B.We do know in the year 2012 persons saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desie, a good conscience, seeds of the word, imperfect communtion with the Church etc and Vatican Council II does contradict Tradition.

    B is obviously irrational, since we cannot see the deaceased on earth.It is also non traditional.

    So the SSPX could choose interpretation A which is in keeping with their position on other religions ?

    When they say they want to continue criticizing the Council they could mean they want to criticize interpretation B.

    Similarly when Arcbishop Augustine Di Noia says the SSPX has to accept Vatican Council II's teaching on the Jews ( and other religions) he is referring to interpretation B.

    The SSPX could still hold the traditional teaching on Jews and other non Catholics according to Vatican Council II with interpretation A?
    In Christ
    Lionel




    1. Do we know in the year 2012 any one saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, a good conscience, seeds of the word (AG 11), imperfect communion with the Church(UR) ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lionel,

      The leaders of SSPX are smarter than I am. They have to know that adherence to the Council and the Catechism does not put them at odds with what the Church has taught always and everywhere. I do not think that the last word has been said on living and dealing with the tension between zeal for souls and respect for those outside the only communion with the Church which I can know, the visible one.

      Delete
  11. Dear Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson,

    We agree that there are no cases of the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance known to us humans in 2012.

    1.
    So if the SSPX priests assume that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma it would be a factual error, since we cannot see the dead, this is a fact ?

    2. Do you think the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston could also lend itself to this error when it states the following :-
    Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.

    3.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 though does not directly say
    1. The baptism of desire etc are explicit and known to us?
    2. The baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma or extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

    Do you think the secular media has just misinterpreted the Letter of the Holy Office ?

    The Letter mentions 'the dogma', the dogma does not mention any exceptions. So this part of the Letter is in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney?

    In Christ
    Lionel


    ReplyDelete
  12. Monday, November 19, 2012
    Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson has said that the Society of St.Pius X must know that adherence to Vatican Council II and the Catechism does not put them at odds with Tradition.
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-thomas-egullickson-has-said.html#links

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Lionel,
    Please answer this question: Do we know of anyone who has died in a state of mortal sin and gone to hell in 2012?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Please answer this question: Do we know of anyone who has died in a state of mortal sin and gone to hell in 2012?

    Lionel: No and so we do not posit this as an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma.

    On the other so many Catholics assume that we know of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance etc who are defacto exceptions to the dogma and the Syllabus.

    Case in point is Wikipedia.Access extra ecclesiam nulla salus and you will have Wikipedia telling you that Vatican Council II has changed the teachings of the Church with respect to the dogma. Why? Lumen Gentium 16 says a non Catholic can be saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience.
    If these cases were not known they would not be exceptions to the dogma however since they are now known, and no Catholic objects or protests, they are exceptions to the dogma defined by three Church Councils.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Lionel,
      Wikipedia is often worth ignoring.

      Delete
  16. SECULAR CATECHESIS FOR CATHOLICS : NO ONE OBJECTS IN THE MEDIA

    Wikipedia makes two major errors on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and no one points it out to them.

    1.
    The Roman Catholic Church also teaches that the doctrine does not mean that everyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned .-Wikipedia
    Defacto every one needs to enter the Church for salvation according to the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence .
    If there is any one saved who is not a visible member of the Catholic Church it would be known only to God. We do not know any such case on earth and so it does not contradict the dogma Cantate Domino.

    2.
    This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and His Church:

    "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, 16).-Wikipedia

    We do not know anyone saved on earth ‘through no fault of their own…’. So they are not an exception to the dogma which says every one with no exception needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.

    Here are Catholic priests with the same message,contrary to Wikipedia.

    WE DO NOT KNOW ANYONE SAVED WITH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE OR INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE SO EVERYONE NEEDS TO ENTER THE CHURCH AS DON BOSCO TAUGHT- Salesian Rector and Parish priest in Rome
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/we-do-not-know-anyone-saved-with.html

    WE DONT KNOW ANYONE IN PARTICULAR SAVED BY THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE, BY JESUS AND THE CHURCH-Fr. Brian Crawford OSJ
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/we-dont-know-anyone-saved-by-jesus-and.html

    VATICAN COUNCIL II AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS- Fr. Davide Carbonaro
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/vatican-council-ii-affirms-cantate.html

    Its a mortal sin to deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is a sacrilege to receive the Eucharist in this condition- Fr. Gabrielle, priest of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/07/its-mortal-sin-to-deny-dogma-extra.html#links

    THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF- Fr.George Puthoor
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/there-is-no-baptism-of-desire-that-we.html#links

    THERE IS NO DE FACTO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE KNOW OF-Fr. Masimilliano dei Gaspari F. I
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/05/there-is-no-de-facto-baptism-of-desire.html#links

    EVERYBODY NEEDS THE EUCHARIST TO GO TO HEAVEN - Fr.Marcos Renacia, Augustinian Recollect priest
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/06/everybody-needs-eucharist-to-go-to.html

    MONS.IGNACIO BARREIRO CARAMBULA, INTERIM PRESIDENT,HUMAN LIFE INTERNATIONAL,USA SAYS "We don't know any case of the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance.Only Jesus can judge"
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/10/monsignacio-barreiro-carambula-interim.html#links

    FR.TULLIO ROTONDO AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/08/frtullio-rotondo-affirms-cantate-domino.html

    So acording to the dogma every non Catholic needs to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation.
    The dogma says every one needs to enter the Church while Wikipedia suggests the opposite.

    Catholics need to speak out against this error in Wikipedia and the secular media.
    Lionel Andrades

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lionel, unless you've been blocked from Wikipedia, you're personally capable of editing the article.

      Delete
  17. Why could not an Archbishop do it? His view would carry more weight.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Tuesday, November 20, 2012
    WIKIPEDIA SAYS VATICAN COUNCIL II CONTRADICTS EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS AND THE SSPX AND THE VATICAN DO NOT PROTEST
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/wikipedia-says-vatican-council-ii.html#links

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dear Archbishop Thomas Gullickson,
    Praised be Jesus and Our Lady.
    Could you do something ?!! Could you bring these points to the attention of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith ? So that before they excommunicate the SSPX again they addres the points mentioned here.
    It would not be fair to the SSPX if they ignored all this and would still go ahead and penalize them,unaware of the false premise being used by the CDF.
    In Christ.
    Lionel
    _________________________________________________________

    They excommunicated Archbishop Lefebvre unaware of the Richard Cushing Error:Excommunication N.2 will also imply that implicit salvation is always explicit for us.

    There is political pressure on the pope to excommunicate the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) unless they approve an interpretation of Vatican Council II which says there is salvation outside the church and these cases are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It other words these cases are visible and known to us, it is implied, for them to be exceptions.

    The Vatican is likely to go ahead with Excommunication N.2 as they did with the first one unaware of the premise they use in Vatican Council II : of the dead being visible to us on earth. No text in Vatican Council II makes this claim.The premise is implied and generally accepted by the magisterium.

    Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre knew that the interpretation of Vatican Council II was modernist but he did not trace its source in the wrong premise.So he could only criticize the Council and not present an alternative.

    Today when we celebrate the anniversary of Vatican Council II we are unaware of the Cardinal Richard Error of being able to see the dead saved, which permeates the Council.Without this premise the Council is traditional and in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

    Since the SSPX has to accept the false premise to gain canonical status they are being asked to claim that they can see the dead saved with 'the seeds of the word.' They can meet cases on earth saved in 'invincible ignorance' or 'a good conscience'. There are those who can be known personally.They are saved in 'imperfect communion' with the Catholic Church. All exceptions to the traditional dogma on salvation.

    If they do not adopt the Richard Cushing error in their interpretation of Vatican Council as the traditionalists who offer the Latin Mass in Rome, they could be declared schismatic.-Lionel Andrades

    They excommunicated the SSPX once unaware of the false premise they could do it a second time not knowing that without a precise, false premise being used by all, the Council is traditional
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/they-excommunicated-sspx-once-unaware.html#links

    No magisterial document says implicit desire and invincible ignorance are explicit exceptions to Tradition.
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/no-magisterial-document-says-implicit.html#links

    ReplyDelete