Edit: the usual well-wishers wish it were otherwise, but here it is. The decision still hangs in the balance.
Vatican. [kreuz.net] The Society of St. Pius X has still not delivered an answer to the last edition of the Dogmatic Preamble. This was spread around in a report from Andrea Tornielli yesterday, and just confirmed by the speaker of the Vatican Press Office, Father Federico Lombardi, for journalists.
5 comments:
Shouldn’t Vatican II be Used as a Bridge, Not as a Wedge?
Why do those who accept as relevant Vatican II's non-dogmatic, “pastoral” suggestions and who are committed to implementing the concepts and trends introduced at the Council, violate both Vatican II’s letter and spirit by using the Council as a wedge to create division, discord and scandal within the Church, instead of as a bridge to understand, harmonize, and respect fellow Catholics that do not fully agree with them?
It should be evident that it is completely contrary to the letter and the spirit of Vatican II to unjustly demand that Catholics who disagree with the Council’s non-dogmatic concepts and pastoral suggestions violate their informed conscience to get them to agree.
Did not the Council unequivocally condemn bullying, coercion, force or intimidation? How is it that Council partisans occupying the Church’s highest offices are constantly observed bullying, and trying to coerce, force, or intimidate into submission otherwise faithful Catholics who, as a matter of conscience, disagree with them when it comes to the Council’s pastoral and non-dogmatic suggestions?
To restore unity in the Church, shouldn't Vatican II partisans currently occupying the Church’s highest offices honor the wise axiom of the great St. Augustine that should always guide us as Christians: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, freedom; in all things, charity"?
In fidelity to the mind of the Church and to Vatican II itself, shouldn’t Vatican II partisans unequivocally oppose bullying, coercion, psychological pressure or intimidation against those who disagree with the Council’s non-dogmatic suggestions? Should not Catholics unequivocally oppose use of the Council as a wedge to divide, disunite or sow discord among Catholics faithful to the Magisterium?
Can we all agree that this fabricated “crisis” within the Church not only injures the Body of Christ, but is a source of scandal to the World that those currently occupying the highest offices in the Church must work to end, if their commitment to Vatican II is truly genuine and sincere?
They're also not specific about what propositions are required for belief. They just make a blanket condemnation without really specifying any instance.
WHEN WILL THE BISHOPS OF THE WORLD REALIZE THAT WE DO NOT KNOW ANY VISIBLE DEAD SO VATICAN COUNCIL II IS A PRO SSPX TRADITIONAL DOCUMENT ?
There is no dead person visible who has been saved with the baptism desire. So if the Holy Office in 1949 assumed there were, it was a mistake. It was a factual mistake since we cannot see such a person.
Do all the bishops in the world agree that we cannot see the dead saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desire, imperfect communion with the Church, seeds of the Word and a good conscience ?
So if we cannot see all these deceased then there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.If nothing in Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma outside the church there is no salvation then we are back to exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.
If Vatican Council II says outside the church there is no salvation (Ad Gentes says all need Catholic Faith) then the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) have a traditional Vatican Council II before them. There are traditional Conciliar values on other religions and ecumenism. The ecclesiology is once again traditional.
The bishops through out the world must realize that it is the traditionalists who are affirming Vatican Council II and it is Bishop Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia who are denying the traditional interpretation. They are denying it because they assume that Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to the dogma and to Ad Gentes 7. And why do they assume that ? Since for them, we can see the dead-visible. They can see the deceased saved in invincible ignorance etc who are exceptions to the dogma!.
Can the bishops see all this?
Can they state in public that Vatican Council II is a traditional document in agreement with the SSPX communique (July 19, 2012) affirming that outside the Church there is no salvation and endorsing the uninterrupted magisterium of the Catholic Church.
This is not just an SSPX issue. It is a problem, all the bishops must face. Firstly we do not know the deceased who are saved and are alive and who could be exceptions to the dogma. Secondly, since there are no exceptions Vatican Council II (AG 7) affirms the dogma outside the church there is no salvation.Thirdly, we still have the traditional ecclesiology , ecumenism, evangelisation etc. These SSPX values are pro-Vatican Council II.
So when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Prefect says the SSPX must accept Vatican Council II the answer is "Yes , they have! But what about you Bishop Muller ?".
That three SSPX bishops also do not know all this is part of the problem.-Lionel Andrades
1.
APPEAL TO BISHOP MULLER TO ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/appeal-to-bishop-muller-to-accept.html
CAN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF BOSTON AND WASHINGTON SUPPORT THE SSPX BY SAYING VATICAN COUNCIL II IS A TRADITIONAL DOCUMENT WITH TRADITIONAL VALUES?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/07/can-archdiocese-of-boston-and.html
NUMBER OF PRIESTS NOT ANSWERING THE TWO QUESTIONS INCREASES
Fr. Tim Finigan (Southwark, England), Fr. John George (Sydney), Fr.Joe Jenkins (Washington) will not respond to the two questions(1).
They will not answer these two questions on their blog while they are willing to discuss the Society of St.Pius X issue.
They will say the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 said that the baptism of desire was an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma. When asked if the baptism of desire can be an exception to the dogma they don’t answer. Was the baptism of desire irrelevant to the dogma? No answer. Can you name someone saved with the baptism of desire? No answer.Did the Holy Office make a mistake? No answer.
If the Vatican spokesman would clarify that there is no baptism of desire that we know of we are back to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Vatican Council II does not contradict the SSPX communiqué on outside the church there is no salvation.-Lionel Andrades
1.
1) Do we personally know the dead saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc ?
2) Since we do not know any of these cases, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
I think that's indisputable.
Post a Comment