Wait and See: the SSPX and Rome and the August recess

A number of readers have asked via email and other means for comments on the latest SSPX developments.   I am primarily writing this piece for them.

As I have said numerous times on this blog over the past months, Bishop Fellay is, among many things, a great strategist and politician, though he has recently overreached even in the eyes of his "fan base."  Before the official "seal of secrecy" was imposed on the Chapter, he took a vote to rubber-stamp his exclusion of Bishop Williamson from the Chapter.  This is curious for three reasons:
1.  The very action of excluding Bishop Williamson from the Chapter was, from the beginning, seen as an "executive decision."  It was *not* something that Bishop Fellay or the General Council postulated as needing "official approval" from the District Superiors, etc.
2.  Why not enclose this as business within the Chapter and the vow of secrecy and hence make the leak a bit more illicit?  Addressing this item before the official start of the Chapter made it red meat to be leaked.  And if Fr. Lorans and all the rest of the SSPX PR team hadn't learned their lesson from the ongoing "Tradileaks" trend, this was just one more.
3.  Despite the fact that Bishop Fellay knew he had a majority of support in the Chapter, this was a way for him, at the outset, at the very beginning, to take the temperature of the Chapter.  And it delivered: the verdict was 29-9.  Nine clerics were convinced that despite his major public disagreements with Bishop Fellay, Bishop Williamson should have been included in the Chapter.  What other assumptions can we make about this unafraid minority?
a)  They probably agreed with Bishop Williamson.
b)  They were wholeheartedly against a deal, even if Bishop Williamson had not been a chief agitator against one.
c)  They were not afraid to stand up to Bishop Fellay.  These were men who were not content to rubber stamp the questionable leadership of The Chief Accountant.
What was the most important accomplishment of the (new) Nine?  They held off Bishop Fellay's deal.  Again.  As anyone who has studied history knows, a vocal, focused minority will always win against a complacent majority.
Bishop Fellay, through the usual sham channel of DICI, tried to paper this over by issuing statements that referred to a "profound unity."  Indeed, in the normal Orwellian double-speak we've come to expect from these men, we know that this indeed meant a "profound disunity."  25% of the Chapter opposed your decision to exclude Bishop Williamson and were brave enough to register that opposition in formal voting.  If 75% is "profound unity" I guess 51% would be "unity."  In any event, the numbers are less relevant than the effect: the deal appears to be on hold.  I'll get back to that in a moment.
I've also said throughout the "Tradileaks" controversy that there are simply too few within the Traditionalist movement with the wit and intelligence to forge official-sounding/looking documents.  (If you are wondering whether these leaked documents are authentic, don't.  They are.)  It is clear that one of the goals of the Chapter was to put together a framework by which an official deal could be approved.  The major goals were listed: ability to "critique" error, specifically from Vatican II, use of the (already semi-mauled) 1962 books, and the old 1988 Protocol promise of "one bishop."  The "desirable but not required" conditions included freedom from the diocesan bishops, a tribunal, and the old 1988 Protocol reference to a majority of the Ecclesia Dei commission coming from the SSPX.  Finally, it gave a mechanism for an extraordinary Chapter to be convened to approve a deal.  Why create such a mechanism if it wasn't expected to be used?
All of these conditions have Bishop Tissier's fingerprints all over them.  It was he who was by the Archbishop's side in 1988 as they negotiated with the then-Cardinal Ratzinger for the May 5 Protocol.  It is he who has said recently that he thinks an agreement is "30 years in the future."  It is he who created and presided over the SSPX's parallel ecclesiastical tribunal.  It is he who would insert such conditions (or at least strongly back them if not introduce them himself) to give himself some sort of surety that the SSPX would not be immediately swallowed up and compromised by the New Religion, although the SSPX is hubristic to imagine that THEY will not be like the FSSP, Campos, etc.  They are, to steal a phrase from American Neoconservatives, the "indispensable" congregation.  In their own mind, at least.  No order or congregation is "indispensable."
There was then a sort of Kabuki theater between Rome and the SSPX PR machine.  Rome basically relegated the "no compromise" document from the Chapter as an "internal document" and "awaited an official reply."  It's the eve of August, when Italy, and Rome, are on holiday.
I think that Phil Lawler over at CatholicCulture had some great comments on this point, so I'll just quote him directly:

If the Vatican had wanted to pick a new fight with the SSPX, it would have been easy enough. A confrontational response might have pointed out that if the traditionalists believe that salvation is impossible outside the Catholic Church, they should be working feverishly to ensure that they are inside, not trifling with the risk of excommunication. Or that for a group that proclaims the Roman Pontiff as the supreme ruler of the Church, the SSPX shows precious little fealty to the Pope. Or that it is presumptuous for SSPX members to compare themselves to the victims of persecution, when they are suffering no hardship that they did not bring upon themselves. But Vatican officials are not making those points. The Holy See is watching carefully, silently—like a loving parent, waiting for an angry child to calm down and a reasonable discussion can resume.

The SSPX surely knows that these talks cannot go on forever. The statement from the general chapter placed heavy emphasis on the importance of reading all Church teachings in the light of the tradition “which, by its teaching authority, transmits the revealed Deposit of Faith in perfect harmony with the truths that the entire Church has professed, always and everywhere.” Here the SSPX invokes the “hermeneutic of continuity” that Pope Benedict XVI has insisted must be the key to understanding Vatican II. This pontificate has opened the door to the discussion the SSPX wants, and now the discussion is taking place in earnest. But this pontificate will not last forever, nor will the Vatican’s patience with these long-running discussions.

So we are where we ended from my last article.  We are waiting.  And we will see.  But the fat lady has not sung.  Yet.

For those who continue to use this crisis within the SSPX as an opportunity to re-examine the theological principles of "resistance" to a man one recognizes as the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, I point directly to the SSPX's official statement from the Chapter:

The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, and also in regard to the reforms issued from it. We find our sure guide in this uninterrupted Magisterium which, by its teaching authority, transmits the revealed Deposit of Faith in perfect harmony with the truths that the entire Church has professed, always and everywhere.

Those who revel in repeating talking points always say the sedevacantists are fixated on the Pope.  In the quote above we see that the contradiction in the SSPX position goes much deeper.  The Society of St. Pius X maintains that an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, the largest one in its history, is not actually part of the "uninterrupted Magisterium" (which we all know, contains zero error) but is actually "tainted with error."  No, the SSPX doesn't just take issue with the actions of the men they say they recognize as Pope.  They also decide which Councils of the Catholic Church have error.  This is not a tenable, logical, or Catholic position.

Something to chew on, at least for the thinkers out there.

Stephen Heiner

Stephen lives in Paris, France, where he attends Mass celebrated by the clergy of the IMBC. He founded True Restoration in 2006.

You may also like...

27 Responses

  1. Unknown says:

    31.03% supported Bishop Williamson at the General Chapter.

  2. Unknown

    The 29-9 number is what I was referring to and I roughed-out the numbers to 30-10 to get my percentages. The 29-9 number is accurate and not disputed.

    What is your 31.03% referring to? Something within the Chapter?

  3. pclaudel says:

    Unknown is confusing the 29–9 vote for giving RW the boot from the Chapter with a situation in which the vote was 9 of 29 opposing the motion. Now, that ratio would be 31.03 percent in his favor.

    Alas, Mr.Heiner, as you can see, it isn't only our Faith that modernity endangers! (wink wink, nudge nudge)

  4. 'if the traditionalists believe that salvation is impossible outside the Catholic Church, they should be working feverishly to ensure that they are inside, not trifling with the risk of excommunication'

    Stephen, this is a ridiculous notion; of course traditionalists mean that salvation is impossible outside the tradition of the Catholic Church, not the visible structure you're referring to.

    Now I can't go back and copy the exact words, having gone to the com box, but regarding your comment that SSPX can't prolong the talks forever–that was Bishop Fellay's point in the Candlemas sermon. That's the point of those who are open to 'making a deal,' provided it's the best deal possible. We can't stay outside forever, for a great number of reasons, and it's Fellay's argument already. So you're confusing either me or yourself.

    And last, that Rome is behaving like a patient parent while SSPX is like a raging child? Stephen, I'm really tempted to write, WTF? Really? Rome, honey, is behaving like a wolf in a sheep dress, but the neckline slipped just in time.

    I'm going to sign in with my real info because I've always liked you and I got chicken today at Chick-fil-A and rode the Chicago Red line train home with the bag of sandwiches in their labeled plastic bag and no one killed me.

  5. Dear Jane

    Well, let me start by trying to put the thought of delicious fried chicken out of my mind. I'm glad that you and it got home safe. 🙂

    Sigh, okay. Let me clarify a couple things.

    Firstly, that quote was from a Motu/EF type person and I was quoting him as a good perspective from someone who actually acts (not just says) as if Benedict XVI is the Vicar of Jesus Christ on Earth. It is not a tenable situation for the SSPX to continuously say that excommunications from the supreme legislator of canon law are invalid. It has been intimated by top SSPX leadership that if an agreement is not reached, punitive penalties may be imposed, up to an including new excommunications.

    The SSPX defense of the last excommunication they received is rather tenuously based on defense based on the 1983 CIC, which they in part reject/question. Their own book from Angelus Press suggests that should Archbishop Lefebvre have been judged by the 1917 CIC with the Pius XII addendum to account for the schismatic Chinese Catholic Church, he might not have had such a clear positive judgment. In any event, it is "ridiculous" to maintain that the SSPX, not the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, who is the head of the "visible structure" that you refer to, knows or judges who is inside or outside the Church. The SSPX, in maintaining a "negotiating" position with the man that they consider the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, lead us to believe that it is possible that the SSPX is right, and Benedict XVI is wrong. The idea that the Vicar of Jesus Christ, or an ecumenical council, can err doctrinally when promulgating a universal disciplinary norm (I'm not here talking about the Pope's extraordinary infallibility) is at best heretical and at worst, dead wrong. But the SSPX promulgates this notion by saying something like this:

    "The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, and also in regard to the reforms issued from it. We find our sure guide in this uninterrupted Magisterium which, by its teaching authority, transmits the revealed Deposit of Faith in perfect harmony with the truths that the entire Church has professed, always and everywhere."

    This double-think-based statement exposes the entire contradiction of the SSPX position: I can recognize a man as Pope and a Council as valid, but then I can go back and say that the valid Council has error and is not part of the Magisterium, when a valid Ecumenical Council is indeed part of the Magisterium, which cannot err, not because of Papal infallibility, but because of ecclesiastical indefectibility. There are numerous guarantees against error coming from the Church which have nothing to do with there being a living man wearing a white cassock.

    I'm not confused. I'm trying to continue to expose, for those open to listening and thinking through it, the contradiction of saying that a man is Pope and that a council is valid, and then going back and saying…"but

    we question your Mass
    your Code of Canon Law
    your Catechism
    and the Council you helped guide."

    This is not tenable. There is absolutely zero backing in Traditional Catholic doctrine or dogma for such a position. Universal disciplinary norms fall under the protection of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, which cannot err.

    The SSPX position can be understood in relation to this two ways:

    1. The UOM can err. (A problematic position, and one that is poorly theologically defended by both the SSPX and the FSSP).
    2. The UOM cannot err, ergo these are not acts of the real Magisterium (the closet sede admission).

    Only one of these can be true. The SSPX is trying to say "Yeah, 1, but also 2."

  6. FR.JOE JENKINS WANTS THE SSPX TO ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH THE VISIBLE DEAD THEORY: EVEN BISHOPS MULLER AND DI NOIA WANT THE SAME

    Vatican Council II has to be interpreted in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and without the visible dead theory then it could be accepted by the SSPX.It would be in agreement with the 'constant magisterium'.

    You don’t have to be a Catholic to know that marriage is between a woman and man only similarly you don’t have to be a Catholic to know that the deceased are not visible to us in their human form, as when they were alive.

    The Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican Council II does not contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus -unless we assume that the dead can be seen. If one assumes like Fr.Joe Jenkins that the dead-saved are explicitly known on earth then there would be exceptions.

    Similarly Nostra Aetate , Vatican Council II does not contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma- unless we assume that the ‘good and holy ‘ people in other religions, non Catholics who are saved, are known to us on earth and so they are exceptions to the dogma.

    It’s this visible dead premise that Fr.Joe Jenkins wants the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) to accept.

    This is irrational and non traditional and the Vatican Curia also expects the SSPX to accept this irrationality before they receive canonical status.

    How can religious Superiors and the hundreds of bishops all over the world be silent about the claim of knowing the dead on earth, who are exceptions to the dogma on salvation and to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II ?

    The Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley also will not answer two questions (1) like Fr. Jenkins. Since it expresses the truth of the media- created interpretation of Vatican Council Ii which Bishop Gerhard Muller and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia want the SSPX to approve.
    -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 ?

    ___________________________________

    NOSTRA AETATE VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/nostra-aetate-vatican-council-ii-does.html#links

    DECREE ON ECUMENISM SUPPORTS THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/decree-on-ecumenism-supports-dogma.html#links )

    FR.JOE JENKINS STILL WILL NOT SAY THAT HE CANNOT SEE THE DEAD AND THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/frjoe-jenkins-still-will-not-say-that.html#links

    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/frjoe-jenkins-wants-sspx-to-accept.html#links

  7. Only one of these can be true. The SSPX is trying to say "Yeah, 1, but also 2."

    Stephen, didn't you send me the TR Press' Faith Imperiled by Reason on the one day it was available? I read it at the time, and didn't understand much, but was very recently hospitalized and had a chance to go over it in more detail, and understood so much more, finally. You have here, in this thread, given me once again a very thorough answer, and I do not doubt it will take me the rest of my life to unpack it. I'm pasting it into Word and plan to give it some study.

    However, at this moment, I am exactly in the conundrum you describe above. And, aren't you, too? Where can we go? Bishop Fellay described it so well in the Candlemas sermon–we stand outside in the rain knocking, and they say come in and we say, We can't. Because we can't.

    All I know is, they deny sin, they deny that the cross is the debt for sin, and make of it instead an impulse of love (who can argue with that? smirk smirk o pure council) which will be infinitely repeated no matter our offense, from abortion to usury and all in between, and souls are being lost from this, and the poor have never been so abused by the utter lack of justice or hope of justice. And I cannot make myself go inside one of their dens and stand there as if I support it. May Christ forgive me for it, but I don't know what else to do. I just have to stay out here in the rain!

    From what I have read, SSPX says just what you say here, and then excuses itself (and me and as far as I know, you) with the explanation that begins and ends with, 'It's a state of emergency.' Which sounds like a rock song. But okay then, that's all I got. I know one and two are in contradiction but I try to make up for it by doing brave things.

  8. Jane

    As a sedevacantist, I don't have to worry about those contradictions.

    I don't accept the New Mass, Vatican II, or any part of the New Religion because it is impossible for the Bride of Christ, His Church, to officially give us error. Therefore we are dealing with an era of antipopes. We have had dozens and dozens of antipopes in Church history, but never this many in a row and for so long. But nowhere is it in Church teaching that such a happening is impossible.

    What is impossible is to believe that the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth promulgates error to the entire world.

  9. Whats Up! says:

    "I don't accept the New Mass, Vatican II, or any part of the New Religion because it is impossible for the Bride of Christ, His Church, to officially give us error."

    Mr Heiner,
    Prove that the Novus Ordo, Vatican II and any part of the official ecclesial juridical structure of the Visible Church, are in error.

    You have made up your own "magisterium" if you believe this.

    Please prove that your statment on this, carry's Magisterial truth and you know better than Pope Benedict XVI.

  10. Dear "What's Up"

    Surely you don't expect me to "prove" such things in a comment box.

    I'll simply put it this way.

    The reason for the resistance to Vatican II, the New Mass, the new Code of Canon Law, and the new Catechism, resides in a normal Catholic revulsion for the ambiguous when it comes to doctrine. While the group of people who attend the Traditional Mass exclusively is a pretty wide-ranging group, from FSSP types to sedevacantists, it must be said that the vast majority of those attending (and who have reservations about Vatican II) do not do so simply because they *prefer* the Traditional Mass, but because they have *real problems* with the New Mass.

    I don't have to "prove" in a comment box to someone who doesn't even use his/her real name that there are huge problems with Vatican II and the New Mass. Regarding the former, I would refer you to the Archbishop's book "I Accuse the Council," and regarding the latter, Fr. Anthony Cekada's definitive "Work of Human Hands: a Theological Critique of the Mass of Paul VI."

    To your meta-question that started your comment – you've hit on a much more relevant point – the Magisterium.

    Since I believe that there are errors in these teachings, as a Catholic I cannot believe that this is the authentic Magisterium. To believe that the Magisterium contains error is itself a heresy. Instead, I make the more logical distinction that since there is error, this cannot be authentic Magisterium, and that Paul VI and all his successors are questionable as claimants to the Papacy.

    If you have read any Church history, you will note that throughout history there have been antipopes. During those periods, it wasn't always clear to those living under those men that he was actually an antipope. Indeed, most famously, in the Great Western Schism, St. Vincent Ferrer, a Doctor of the Church, backed an antipope.

    I can be wrong – and so can a Doctor of the Church – that's not the point. The point is that you do the best with the information provided to you. Given all that I have read and prayed about, and given my knowledge that the Magisterium cannot err, it is manifestly evident to me that the normal Magisterium headed by a valid Pope, has not been operative since probably the time of Pope Pius XII. I don't care what Benedict XVI has to say, as he has over and over proven himself to be at odds with Traditional Catholic teaching on just about everything.

  11. Whats Up! says:

    Mr Heiner,

    My real name is Dan.
    I just go by the nickname for no particular reason, just fun I guess.

    I believe that you honestly believe your sedevacantist position and have prayed much to Our Lady about it and you sincerly love God.

    I have read and own Fr Cekada's book [Work of Human Hands] and the Archbishops books and cannot find in them any doctrinal or dogmatic errors that the Magisterium has committed and promulgated, in their pages.

    If you honestly believe that the visible Church in Rome is in error and is leading souls to hell, I would like you to point out official tangible written proof of the Church and the HF promulgating erroneous doctrine and dogma.
    Thank you and God bless.

    Dan

  12. Dan

    I also reject your statement that the "official visible Church" is leading souls to hell. That is impossible and dangerous for you to say.

    I would parse it by saying the "usurpers of the official Church"…

  13. Whats Up! says:

    Thank you Mr Heiner, but do you have anything posted by a non-sedevacantist?
    I never use sources from those who are sympathetic to any cause when trying to understand an opposing argument.

    Also, do you believe that Benedict XVI and the whole Roman Curia is hellbent on the destruction of souls, on purpose?

    They and all in union with them are the visible Church.

    You are talking about an "invisible" version, which is non-existant and protestant.

  14. Dan

    That's awfully simplistic, no? The Church's "visibility" is not defined by having a Pope. Go look it up – it's in Vatican I and in Trent.

    If it were, the Church has been invisible 260 times. It's not a light switch, you know.

    I think it's awfully convenient for you *not* to read opposition views – that's not very Catholic, at least for serious theologians like St. Thomas – they read the opposition all the time.

    In any event, you can read about Benedict XVI's errors in Bishop Tissier's 81-page piece on him. We provided the translation from the original Sel de la Terre article. There is a link to it here:

    http://bibliaytradicion.wordpress.com/tradicion/faith-imperiled-by-reason-benedict-xvis-hermeneutics/

    Bishop Tissier is one of those interesting types that considers Benedict XVI a heretic AND the pope.

    Whether they are doing it "on purpose" is 1000000% irrelevant. They are destroying souls. That is a fact.

  15. Dan

    You are a clown and not serious.

    You asked for documentation. I gave it. You then made up some excuse for why you couldn't read it, as if you were afraid of the truth. I then provided you with Bishop Tissier's dossier, which Bp. Williamson endorses. You then respond by quoting back to me Bishop Williamson.

    You clearly are into operating with emotions and not with logic or actual research, so I'm not going to waste any more time publishing and allowing your comments, but unlike you, I'm able to work with, and even admire, people I severely disagree with on the Pope question.

    You don't seem to know much else, so you might not know that I published all of Bishop Williamson's letters, so I'm very familiar with his thoughts on sedevacantism – we have talked about the topic at length in person on 3 different continents.

    http://truerestorationpress.com/4volsletters

    God bless you sir, and I hope you do get to a point in your life where you actually care about the truth, not about reinforcing what you think you know.

    (Oh, and unlike the Seminary website, I don't censor or hide the letters of Bishop Williamson. I published all of them, uncensored. I'm not afraid of the truth.)

  16. ambrosio says:

    The Oratory Catechism has a section entitled The Christian in the End Times, which answers some of the queries raised by Dan. It was published in 2000, but I do not know if it is still easily available.

    SAKA-Verlag, D-66119, Saarbrucken.Germany.

    http://www.oratorium-editor.de

  17. Good day to all!

    I am NO Catholic, if you will like to put it that way. I have attended the Byzantine Liturgy, Tridentine Liturgy, NO Liturgy. I have seen the abuses that occur frequently as the NO liturgy. I can see where the INTERPRETATION of the Vatican council has come in to place where it is quite personal, and not obejective. The Vatican council must be interpretated from the Light Of Tradition.

    I am not an intelectual, not am i one to say what is true and what is heresy. I trust Our Lord that he is in fact present and operates the Church every day.

    Where is the faith? Stephen, you say you are not afraid of the truth, but quote from your way of thinking.

    I understand many points of view, but none that will change my own.

    Jesus was also not understood. But he was and is a visible example of faithfulness to God.

  18. Stephen, i have read your comments and above all thing, you are pretty solid in the intelectual side of the church. Now, what about having faith in the Church?

    The truth is not scary if you accept it with faith. Knowledge is very important but also leads to a road of pride and vanity when used the wrong way.

    In no way i say you are using it the wrong way, but yes that you do not accept the truth from a faith point of view.

    why i say this? Because reading the comments, it seems that it is more important to satisfy the mind than satisfy God in service and obeying.

    You can call me what you like, but it seems pretty clear the attidute adopted by SSPX, SEDEVACATES and others is one of protestant. Better be away from the Church of Rome because we have the truth!

    If so that no salvation is without the Church, where are you? You are not united with the Pope.

    Just a thought. Look for whatever point to JUSTIFY YOUR POSITION. But Jesus did never justify HIS position.

    Good day!

  19. Unknown says:

    Obedience is in service to the Faith. If you really think the Novus Ordo Church is faithful to the teachings of Christ, then why does Pope Benedict condone still false ecumenism, especially with Assisi III? You really believe Catholics can pray in interfaith gatherings such as that happened at Assisi? Tell us what doctrines the sedes and the SSPX have denied to make them Protestant. It seems to me you don't know the meaning of the term.

  20. Unknown says:

    What doctrines have the sedes and SSPX denied, to make them Protestant? Not even the Novus Ordo Church has officially called SSPX Protestants. So why do Novus Ordos make judgments contrary even to their church?!

  21. Apollonius says:

    Stephen, do you think that the SSPX will ever abandon its current position?

    Their whole structure is founded upon the battle cry "I Accuse the Council"

  22. Oh, I didn't know you were a sede. Well, that makes for consistency, dear heart, forgive me (although I would have been right, then, if you weren't)(just sayin' heh heh). Well I'll just stay out here in the rain. But I certainly share the understanding of the present Vatican as modernist. It's just that maybe 'error' as in, 'not possible,' is spread over a longer time than we know. Maybe on the short term . . . .

  23. SSPX COULD CHOOSE THE SISTERS OF ST.BENEDICT CENTER MODEL FOR AFFIRMING VATICAN COUNCIL II IN ACCORD WITH TRADITION
    The Sisters are traditionalists who affirm Vatican Council II in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors. They have been granted canonical status.

    The Sisters, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Worcester, affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation similar to the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) July 19,2012 communique.The Sisters interpret Vatican council II according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and not Cardinal Richard Cushing.

    For them Vatican Council II (AG 7) affirms the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney while invincible ignorance etc (LG 16) are not exceptions to the dogma.

    This religious community granted full canonical status knows there is no salvation outside the church.So the theology of religions and ecclesiology of communion would be irrational for them.

    They acknowledge the possibility of a non Catholic being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire however for them this would also include receiving the baptism of water provided in a way known only to God.

    Since there is no salvation outside the Chruch ,there being no known exceptions,this year or during the last 100 years or more,Vatican Council II is in accord with Tradition. The Council is traditional.The Council does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors, Pascendi, Mystici Corporis and of course extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

    The Sisters of St.Benedict Center are a model for the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II and at the same time reject the non-traditional, irrational Ladaria-Koch version of the Council, based on the Richard Cushing error of claiming to be able to see the dead who are saved.

    -Lionel Andrades

    MSGR.CAMILLE PERL, SECRETARY OF ECCLESIA DEI IN A LETTER TO AN AUSTRALIAN LAYMAN DID NOT MENTION THAT THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE WERE NOT EXCEPTIONS TO THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

    http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/msgrcamille-perl-secretatry-of-ecclesia.html#links

  24. SSPX IF THE SISTERS HAVE CANONICAL STATUS SO CAN YOU

    Reject the Muller-Ladaria version of Vatican Council II and accept the Council in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

    SSPX priests call up the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Worcester USA.

    May be the conversation will go like this:-

    SSPX PRIEST : Our communiqué (July 19, 2012) affirmed the dogma outside the church no salvation and excluded any exceptions.
    SISTERS OF ST.BENEDICT CENTER: Yes there are no exceptions to the dogma also for us.

    SSPX: We don’t know anyone saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.
    SISTERS: Neither do we.

    SSPX: Since we don’t know any exceptions, the literal interpretation of the dogma strands.
    SISTERS:We don’t know any exceptions and the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney still is the teaching of the Church.

    SSPX: So if there are no exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation then there are no exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors.
    SISTERS: None.

    SSPX:Neither are there exceptions to Mystici Corporis and other Church-documents.
    SISTERS: None. Since invincible ignorance and implicit desire are acknowledged – but they are not exceptions to the dogma on salvation.

    SSPX: So Vatican Council II also does not contradict the dogma.
    SISTERS:It does not, since we do not know any exceptions.We do not know any one saved with a good conscience or in invincible ignorance (LG 16) or the seeds of the Word etc. While Ad Gentes 7 supports the dogma.

    SSPX: So if Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and other magisterial documents then the Council is traditional.
    SISTERS: Yes. It is traditional.

    SSPX: So your really saying the Council says there is no salvation outside the Church?
    SISTERS:Yes. It is saying there is no salvation outside the church in the present times.None that we know of or can know of.

    SSPX: If there is no salvation outside the church then there cannot be a theology of religions or an ecclesiology of communion.
    SISTERS: No.It would be irrational.

    SSPX: So the SSPX can accept Vatican Council Ii and maintain its traditional position on other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty.
    SISTERS: Yes, since the Council affirms the literal interpretation of the dogma outside the church no salvation.

    SSPX: So we can publicly affirm the Council and maintain our traditional values on faith and morals.
    SISTERS: Yes the Council is traditional since you affirm the dogma like Fr.Leonard Feeney.
    -Lionel Andrades

  25. SSPX DON'T USE THE FALSE PREMISE OF 'those who are saved in invincible ignorance, who have not had the Gospel preached to them through no fault of their own and who are now dead, are known to us, they are visible to us on earth.'

    The Sisters of St.Benedict Center do not make this mistake and they are in full communion with the Church.

    Keep rejecting the irrational interpretation of the Council with the false premise.

    The theology of religions and ecclesiology of communion are based on the false premise.Lay Catholics are confused since LG 16 contradicts AG 7. LG 16 could indicate there is salvation outside the Church when the false premise is used. AG 7 says there is no salvation outside the Church.

    This is an irrationality and not the deposit of the faith.

    -Lionel Andrades