Moderator:

Is it just me, or does the human mind interpret

FR.KUNG

as a certain swear word?

Remember the e-mail forward about how the human brain only reads the first and last letters of every word, so you can mix up the middle ones all you want?

Anyhow...

SSPX AND THE FR.KUNG DECEPTION: NEGOTIATIONS WITH CDF MUST CLARIFY LG 16

Talks with CDF,Vatican must clarify if Lumen Gentium 16 refers to de jure or de facto salvation, explicit salvation or just a concept.[/b][/i]

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) is presently in closed-door negotiations with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican to ascertain Catholic doctrine. Yet the SSPX itself could be in heresy according to its website and reports by SSPX priests. If the SSPX does not interpret Lumen Gentium 16 as referring to de jure, implicit salvation, then it is the Kung Deception. If they interpret Lumen Gentium 16 as referring to something defacto-personally-knowable then it is heresy. If they do not see the Baptism of Desire as implicit then they would contradict the ex cathedra dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The dogma refers to explicit entry into the Catholic Church, through the baptism of water and Catholic Faith, which is explicit and objectively verifiable.
The SSPX has been saying correctly that everyone needs to enter the Catholic Church for salvation but have also been using the mantra ‘except for those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire’.
This is confusion to put it politely.

It would be rational to say everybody(all non Catholics) with no exception need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation (to avoid Hell) and those who are in invincible ignorance or have the baptism of desire known only to God and He only will judge them.
Here is the ex cathedra dogma.

1. “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215). Ex Cathedra
2. “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 302.). Ex Cathedra
3.“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) Ex Cathedra – from the website Catholicism.org and “No Salvation outside the Church”: Link List, the Three Dogmatic Statements Regarding EENS:  http://nosalvationoutsideofthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/ )

There is no Church docuмent which says Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. Even his critics like Fr. William Most admit he was excommunicated for disobedience, he did not go to Rome to defend himself. He made accusations against the Holy Office and was disobedient to the Archbishop of Boston.

If the SSPX or the CDF did not affirm the dogma, one could make the same accusations of heresy against them.

Fr. Feeney was removed from the Jesuit Order because he affirmed the above dogma. Till today the Jesuits at Boston College, where he taught and was removed as a professor, deny the dogma. Archbishop Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston who placed Fr. Feeney and the Benedict Center under interdict, died without ever affirming the dogma in public.

A priest for our times, a man for all seasons, Fr. Leonard Feeney did not use the mantra ‘except for those in invincible ignorance and with the baptism of desire’. Since, it is obvious there is no explicit (de facto) Baptism of Desire that we can know of. Genuine invincible ignorance is implicit and we cannot discern it. None of us know whom God will judge as having a good conscience on the Day of Judgement.


The SSPX needs to clarify its position in public. The Jesuit Superior General and the present Archbishop of Boston need to make a public apology.

In SEEING THROUGH THE KUNG DECEPTION ON THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS (May 26,2010 Blog : eucharistandmission ) I wrote:

A few days back on a Catholic Forum on the Internet, Jim had an insight. He began to look differently at the familiar mantra “except those in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire”.

The Baptism of Desire is always implicit. It is hypothetical, subjective and de jure he observed.

So how can the Baptism of desire and invincible ignorance contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus i.e. everybody needs to be an explicit member of the Catholic Church to be saved?

And if it did not contradict the dogma (even if it did) it would mean every Jєω, Muslim or Buddhist is on the way to Hell.

The infallible teaching says everyone explicitly needs the baptism of water to avoid Hell. It says everyone needs Catholic Faith, which is objective, it has to be learnt and one’s knowledge can be tested explicitly.

So the mantra is a deception when it suggests the baptism of water and invincible ignorance are explicit and can be judged in specific persons.

This error is being repeated parrot-like by just about every Catholic. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Doctrine Committee in the Clarification on Fr. Peter Phan repeats a few times that the Church is necessary for salvation ‘except for those in invincible ignorance…’ The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) says everybody needs to enter the Church for salvation except for those in invincible ignorance and with the baptism of desire.Apologist Art Sippo also says everybody has not to be a card carrying member of the Catholic Church to be saved from Hell.

Here is part of the Forum discussion:-

What do you mean by implicit Baptism of Desire? When is the Baptism of Desire not implicit?
Do you assume that the Catechism and Vatican Council II is referring to explicit baptism of desire and invincible ignorance?

This (Baptism of Desire) is obviously purely speculative, conceptual, de jure...

The mantra had been popularized in the writings of Fr.Hans Kung, who is still allowed to offer Holy Mass. Fr.Kung saw the mantra as referring to explicit and de facto salvation-instead of a possibility ,something hypoterical, de jure (in principle only).

After this faulty premise Kung rationalized that the popes are no more infallible.He believed that Vatican Council II had created a ‘revolution’ even thought the mantra (Lumen Gentium 16) was not mentioned for the first time in the Council, as he could suggest.The Hans Kung Deception was popularized by the secular Jєωιѕн-Left media.

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience...-Lumen Gentium 16

Since King interpreted the mantra as referring to explicit salvation he believed the dogma was contradicted.

The popes and Councils, on the contrary, interpreted the mantra as a reference to de jure salvation.It was also accepted in principle, as a concept by St.Thomas Aquinas. Only a concept.

Jim, could now say that the USCCB, SSPX,Patrick Madrid and Fr.Hans Kung are in heresy. Why mention the mantra if you know it is de jure and does not contradict the infallible teaching?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/05/sspx-succuмbs-to-frkung-deception.html#links


E-mail: lionelandrades10@gmail.com

Blog: http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/

YouTube: http://it.youtube.com/LionelAndrades

_______________________________________________

1. The SSPX believes the Novus Ordo rite is the "ordinary rite of the Catholic Church"

This is incorrect.  The SSPX does not accept the Novus Ordo as a legitimate Rite of the Church.

When are people going to understand that the pope is NOT infallible in everything says, writes, or does.  Vatican I clearly defined the conditions required for infallibility.  If the pope was always infallible, then why would these conditions be presented?

When are people going to understand that the pope is NOT infallible in everything says, writes, or does.  Vatican I clearly defined the conditions required for infallibility.  If the pope was always infallible, then why would these conditions be presented?

That's exactly right.  The position is based on a caricature of Catholic doctrine that only adds fuel to the enemies of the Church.  The internal contradiction of demanding unquestioning assent to purely suggestive, ill-defined and utterly novel "orientations" and "opinions" cannot be surmounted.  

 

Here:

"2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world."

That a pope only had to be obeyed when he spoke ex cathedra.

Quote from: Alexandria

That a pope only had to be obeyed when he spoke ex cathedra.

I'm not sure where you got this understanding from what I said.  I simply meant that in matter of Faith and Morals, the pope is not always infallible.

Then I misunderstood what you wrote.

The SSPX believes the Novus Ordo rite is the "ordinary rite of the Catholic Church"

You make a good point.  Defenders of the SSPX please step forward.  Do you believe that the NOM is the "ordinary rite of the Catholic Church"?