Monday, December 31, 2012

ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE DID NOT POINT OUT THE VISIBLE-DEAD ERROR TO CARDINAL OTTAVIANI NEITHER DID THEY MAKE IT KNOWN

Cardinal Ottaviani was the Secretary of the Holy Office in the Roman Curia from 1959 to 1966 according to Wikipedia, when that dicastery was reorganised as the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), of which he was Pro-Prefect until 1968.

When Cardinal Ottaviani ceased being the Prefect of the CDF Archbishop Lefebvre was in his fifties.He was an Archbishop at that time.

Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Archbishop Lefebvre participated in the debates and drafting of documents at Vatican Council II.

Archbishop Lefebvre was aware of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. Did he assume that the media's interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office was correct ?

Neither did he or Cardinal Ottaviani object. Neither did Cardinal Ottaviani lift the excommunication against Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated on 13 February 1953 for disobedience to Church authority i.e the bishop. He was reconciled to the Church in 1972, but was not required to retract or recant his interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

If the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus why did none of them object to the excommunication and the maintaining of the excommunication for some 19 years? The excommunication was for disobedience but the media was reporting that it was for heresy.

Being saved with the baptism of desire , invincible ignorance, a good conscience etc has nothing to do with the dogma since we do not know these cases. So they are not exceptions.

Did Cardinal Ottaviani and Archbishop Lefebvre not know this? Was there not an injustice being done in Boston to the former Jesuit priest?

Did Archbishop Lefebvre assume that the dead saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known to us in the present times and so are explicit exceptions to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

So like Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston, did they assume that Vatican Council II was a break with Tradition,  Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance and a good convcience) contradicted the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?


The SSPX was founded in 1970 and so they have continued to assume that Vatican Council II contradicts the traditional teaching on other religions. For the SSPX bishops and priests, the dead saved are visible and so are exceptions to the traditional understanding of the dogma on salvation.Lionel Andrades

If I spoke to an SSPX priest in Rome

Cardinal Christoph Schonborn says the Council is in accord with Tradition. At the same time he says there is a development of doctrine in Vatican Council II.

There as been no development of doctrine in Vatican Council II , on the subject of other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty.

I am sure if I spoke to an SSPX priest in Rome he would be critical of Cardinal Christoph Schonborn's statement on the 'development of doctrine' in Vatican Council II.

He would agree that we do not know anyone in the present times saved in invincible ignorance , a good conscience, seeds of the word, imperfect communion with the church etc.So there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.There is nothing written in Vatican Council II which changes the Catholic Church's teachings on other religions.So there cannot be a development of doctrine on the subject of other religions.

The Council does not state that other religions are valid paths to salvation.

Since it is possible for a non Catholic to be saved, it does not mean there is such a case in 2012 or during the last 100 years.Vatican Council II does not make this claim, otherwise it would be contradicting Ad Gentes 7 which states all need' faith and baptism' for salvation.It would also be contradicting Nostra Aetate 4 which states Catholics are 'the new people of God'; the Chosen People.

Nostra Aetate does not say that Jews and Muslims are saved in general in their religions, or that they do not have to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.

So Cardinal Schonborn cannot cite text in Vatican Council II which could suggest there has been 'a development of doctrine' on other religions and ecumenism.

If Ad Gentes 7 is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors then the Council is saying all non Catholics need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.This would mean non Catholics have a moral obligation to give up other religious beliefs and practices and then enter the Church with faith and baptism (AG 7).

This would mean that they are defacto legally free in a secular state with a secular Constitution to follow other religions (Dignitatis Humanae) but are morally obliged by the truth, to give up their religions which are false paths to salvation (AG 7,LG 14 etc).

Dignitatis Humane endorses the religious liberty of a Catholic to practise his religion freely and without coercion in a state with a secular Constitution.He also has the right to affirm it.Proclaining the one true faith is not coercion. It is a human right.

So there as been no development of doctrine in Vatican Council II , on the subject of other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty.

The bottom line is that there is no known salvation outside the church mentioned in Vatican Council II. There is no implicit salvation which is explicitly visible to us. So the ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is still traditional.-Lionel Andrades

SSPX NEVER BROUGHT SCHONBORN'S ERROR TO THE ATTENTION OF CDF PREFECTS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/sspx-never-brought-schonborns-error-to.html#links
 
THERE IS NO DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT IN VATICAN COUNCIL II AS CARDINAL CHRISTOPH SCHONBURG ALLEGES : SINCE THE COUNCIL DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE TRADITIONAL TEACHING ON OTHER RELIGIONS