SSPX issues lengthy critique of new Pope's approach to inter-religious dialogue
"Quo vadis, Domine?" St. Peter once asked the Lord when he was preparing to leave Rome to escape the ordeal.
"I let myself be crucified a second time", the answer should have been.
"Quo vadis, Francisce? " all faithful Catholics ask after what happened yesterday. Yesterday, at an audience of representatives of Christian churches and other religions .
It is Wednesday 20 March 2013, in the Clementine Hall of the Vatican Apostolic Palace. Pope Francis has asked the representatives of the non-Catholic churches, Judaism, Islam and other religious communities to an audience.
The Pope thanked the Orthodox Christians, that they appeared at his inauguration. He had during the Mass "felt the presence of their spiritual communities" said the pontiff.
The Council is praised, more specifically, the spirit of ecumenism, which the Council has produced and which culminates in the desire " ut unum sint "-" that they may be one ". The desire of the Pope at first sounds traditionally faithful: "Let us ask the merciful Father, that we live the faith that was given to us on the day of our Baptism, in abundance, and that we can make a free, happy, courageous witness to him." Unity in the true faith: That was certainly the desire of Jesus.
The way of "ecumenical dialogue" Pope Francis will continue. The commitment to promote "friendship and respect between men and women of different religious traditions," he says twice.
This is all very laudable, that's all desirable. The other religions should be treated with respect. For the Catholic Church that is - in contrast to some other religion that has spread through blood and war - nothing new. Respect and friendship for other faiths have been maintained in the High Middle Ages: Each scholastic discussion started with the arguments of those who think differently. Their objections were heard first, and formulated, the opposite was paid faithful attention.
Therefore there may be a good dialogue, a dialogue that is characterized by respect, but also has the courage to ask the crucial question: "Is Jesus Christ the Messiah for all people or not?"
Back to the speech of the Pope. It will be more concrete, one is curious in the hall. Jewish and Muslim representatives are present and expect to be addressed by the Pope. What is Francis now say to them?
The Pope speaks softly, almost a little nasally, holding both hands in front of the manuscript, which he reads verbatim, speaks into the microphone, which winds its way from the stand up from his mouth:
"And now I turn to you, dear representatives of the Jewish people, with whom we share a very special spiritual bond, since - as reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council -" the Church of Christ [recognizes] that according to God's salvation, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets, see "(Declaration Nostra Aetate, 4). Thank you for your presence and trust that we, with the help of the Most High to continue those fraternal dialogues as the council wished (cf. ibid) and was actually implemented but has born particularly in recent decades, not much fruit.
Everything perfect, everything right. Yes, and yes: we share an incredibly intimate bond: Jesus Christ, our Lord, Savior, and founder of the Church, with the Jewish people. The Council says in the passage quoted nothing new, for the mysteries of salvation began in fact in the Old Covenant. The Pope goes on only on the surface, more precisely: circumnavigating diplomatically the cliffs. He does not speak of conversion, not the recognition of Christ, he speaks only of the "fraternal dialogue" that he wishes to "continue profitably." Here, too, every Catholic faithful to Tradition could follow, for without discussion, for without dialogue, it is not possible to announce Christ as the Son of God.
Then follow the words about Islam. Perhaps the tension is also so great because they are the first words of the man, to whom seven days ago the Keys of Kingdom were entrusted. Because he first as the Successor of Peter directly addresses those who oppose the founder of the Christian religion as the Son of God, the Muslims:
"I greet you all well and thank you, dear friends, you who belong to other religious traditions, especially the Muslims, who adore the one, living and merciful God, and call to prayer, and you all. I really appreciate your presence here today. In it I see a tangible sign of the will to grow in mutual respect and cooperation for the common good of humanity. "
Quo vadis, Francisce? "The Muslims worship the one living and merciful God"? Of course, that's a quote, that is one of those points , for which the SSPX insists on a definitive review of certain conciliar texts . "Muslims pray with us to the same God." (Nostra Aetate 3, Lumen Gentium 16)
Is that not a direct, open betrayal of Christ? " Isa ", as the Qur'an calls Jesus. And " Isa "is a prophet, not more. This is the teaching of the Koran, which says in Surah 4.171 , "Verily, the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah [...] It is far from Allah, that he had a son.".
Now one could to save the Pope pointing out Nostra Aetate 3 and Lumen Gentium 16, refer indeed to God the Father, not Christ. The Muslims pray to one God yes, so are monotheistic, and that God indeed is the same as in Christianity.
But this argument shows just how far our time has been removed from the true image of God. Basically exactly what Christ said of the Pharisees applies to the representatives of the thesis "God-is-still-in-all-religions-the-same "If God were your Father, you would love ME, for I came out from God. " (John 8:42) And again. "No one comes to the Father but by me." (John 14:6)
In other words, whoever does not believe in Christ to be the Son of God does not believe in the Father. These are not the words of the SSPX, those are the words of St. John: "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. (He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also.)" (1 John 2:23) And the Evangelist pushes it to: "Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? (This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son.") (1 Jn 2:22) (Cathcon note- my brackets- SSPX do not use the full quotes shown here- just the text outside the brackets)
One can formulate the question to Pope Francis differently: How, Your Holiness, how do you move the Muslims ever to accept faith in Christ, the Son of God when they worship without Christ the true God?
The speech closes with humanist rallying calls. It is about- how could it be otherwise - "friendship", "respect among people", "responsibility for Creation", "reconciliation", "peace", "defense of human dignity," "peaceful coexistence among peoples" , "integrity of creation" etc. etc. etc.
Inner worldly horizontalism, which since the break of the Conciliar years has been worn like a greasy leather jacket from the same period.
The Pope awakens only once even a vague hope, one almost has the impression that in the pre-prepared speech, the unconventional Argentines added these sentences:
"Above all, we need to break into the world's thirst for the absolute life as we cannot permit a one-dimensional view of people to take the upper hand, according to which people are limited to what they produce and what they consume: The is one of the greatest threats to our time. "
Anti-Consumerism, which is Franciscan, that's good. It is to be praised, especially in our hedonistic prosperous industrialized countries for which the church just as the scapegoat of all humanly possible misdeeds from a sinister pre-enlightened time.
"Keep the thirst for the Absolute alive" - Yes, Holy Father, yes.
But why does the 266th Successor of Peter, not say who or what this absolute is? It is like a drama, in which the curtain falls before the climax is reched, like an advertisement that pours out intensive images, failing to mention the product by name.
Oh, that the Pope had but repeated those words spoken by his predecessor, two thousand years earlier and a little more than two thousand miles to the east. Back then, in Caesarea Philippi, the situation was similar: People did not know what they thought about Jesus as in the audience of the Pope. Some said - similar to the Islamic representatives present- he was merely a prophet, others thought he was a reincarnation of an enlightened predecessor. In all the confusion of opinionsm, the first Pope takes a position saying: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matthew 16:16)
Francis could have said that, at the very least, to the representatives of non-Christian religions . He could have written hisstory, he would be immortal in the annals of the Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana as the first pope, who would have ventured after the Council, to again say the word "error" .
"They are in error," Pope Francis could have said, and thus approached the doctrine of his patron saint who went once to the Sultan to get him to repent of his error, "they are in error, whoever deny that Jesus Christ is the true Son of Hod"
At the same time, he could have been thus accepted as the first truly tolerant Pope in history. Tolerance consists not in the talking away of all differences- and now mistakenly assumed by everyone these days. They can be dismissed or swept under the carpet, under the motto: "Nothing results from Christ, come on, we're talking about protecting the environment."
That's just tolerance, that's respect, that's respect, if I do not share the opinion of the other but in spite of that highly esteem them as a people, not storming at them, on the contrary, I listen to their arguments, let them finish, and then answer in peace.Or even more sharply worded: "Tolerance is only possible where there are two really different opinions ."
The post-Conciliar church has forgotten in the Dionysian frenzy of brotherhood to proclaim the truth. Not for nothing now so many a Catholic on the street thinks: "What truth is to be proclaimed since the Council all the differences between religions have disappeared?".
The objection of diplomacy still remains. Sure, the representatives of Islam and Judaism reject Jesus as the one true Messiah, just as John describes it. But if the Pope would have told them with John to the face, you are "liars", the "Antichrist"? After all, the representatives have appeared at his inauguration, at least they pay respect to the Pope. Such a speech would have been almost an affront and would have caused a scandal.
In fact, a speech to non-Christian religions must be given with sense and sensibility. But also by a desire for the proclamation of the truth - according to the words of Christ: "For this I have come into the world to give witness to the truth." (John 18:37)
Could Pope Francis have used these word or similar?
Dear representatives of non-Christian religions, I am glad that they came. I assure you ofd my deepest friendship and esteem. Jesus Christ is the true Son of God and the founder of the one true religion. You know, my dear friends, this is our unwavering faith. And we have a longing that Christ was even more known, loved even more by all people on this earth. The mission of the Church is not a humanitarian mission, but a mission of faith. From the true faith follows love, from the love of God, the love of neighbor, and from this human charity, which in contrast to the humanism of the world is not done for money, but for love of Christ, whose incomparable phase was a legacyto the Faithful: "What have you done to the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (Mt 25:40)
We ask you to formulate as the very first step of our common dialogue your personal beliefs, your arguments but also your objections. We will make every effort not only to listen but also to understand them properly. We will repeat it and only start with the answer, if you, dear religious leaders say: Yes, my point was understood. For this first, real dialogue, we invite you on behalf of the Catholic Church. I say 'first real dialogue', for it is a dialogue in which the differences are not discussed to death, but remain standing. For every choice of faith, both yours and mine, must be free and come from within, as St. Thomas Aquinas said 750 years ago, and today remains just as true as ever. I am sure that this dialogue will show us Catholics, what arguments you give for your convictions, but also vice versa: it will open up a variety of arguments which speak for the Catholic faith. After the exchange of arguments everything else is your highly personal decision which you alone take before the face of the Most High. Because '(And the Lord said to Samuel: Look not on his countenance, nor on the height of his stature: because I have rejected him, nor do I judge according to the look of man:) for man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart."(1 Sam 16:7) (Cathcon- I give the whole verse- SSPX does not use the part in brackets)
By the way: After Peter's confession, "You are the Son of the living God" the office of Supreme Pastor twas entrusted to Peter: "I tell you, you are Peter, upon this rock I will build my church." (Matthew 16:18)
This has a profound meaning: This position is given to Peter, to Christ, to proclaim the Son of God. This was true of the first representative of Jesus, that also applies to the 266th Successor: Pope Francis. (PAS)
"I let myself be crucified a second time", the answer should have been.
"Quo vadis, Francisce? " all faithful Catholics ask after what happened yesterday. Yesterday, at an audience of representatives of Christian churches and other religions .
It is Wednesday 20 March 2013, in the Clementine Hall of the Vatican Apostolic Palace. Pope Francis has asked the representatives of the non-Catholic churches, Judaism, Islam and other religious communities to an audience.
The Pope thanked the Orthodox Christians, that they appeared at his inauguration. He had during the Mass "felt the presence of their spiritual communities" said the pontiff.
The Council is praised, more specifically, the spirit of ecumenism, which the Council has produced and which culminates in the desire " ut unum sint "-" that they may be one ". The desire of the Pope at first sounds traditionally faithful: "Let us ask the merciful Father, that we live the faith that was given to us on the day of our Baptism, in abundance, and that we can make a free, happy, courageous witness to him." Unity in the true faith: That was certainly the desire of Jesus.
The way of "ecumenical dialogue" Pope Francis will continue. The commitment to promote "friendship and respect between men and women of different religious traditions," he says twice.
This is all very laudable, that's all desirable. The other religions should be treated with respect. For the Catholic Church that is - in contrast to some other religion that has spread through blood and war - nothing new. Respect and friendship for other faiths have been maintained in the High Middle Ages: Each scholastic discussion started with the arguments of those who think differently. Their objections were heard first, and formulated, the opposite was paid faithful attention.
Therefore there may be a good dialogue, a dialogue that is characterized by respect, but also has the courage to ask the crucial question: "Is Jesus Christ the Messiah for all people or not?"
Back to the speech of the Pope. It will be more concrete, one is curious in the hall. Jewish and Muslim representatives are present and expect to be addressed by the Pope. What is Francis now say to them?
The Pope speaks softly, almost a little nasally, holding both hands in front of the manuscript, which he reads verbatim, speaks into the microphone, which winds its way from the stand up from his mouth:
"And now I turn to you, dear representatives of the Jewish people, with whom we share a very special spiritual bond, since - as reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council -" the Church of Christ [recognizes] that according to God's salvation, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets, see "(Declaration Nostra Aetate, 4). Thank you for your presence and trust that we, with the help of the Most High to continue those fraternal dialogues as the council wished (cf. ibid) and was actually implemented but has born particularly in recent decades, not much fruit.
Everything perfect, everything right. Yes, and yes: we share an incredibly intimate bond: Jesus Christ, our Lord, Savior, and founder of the Church, with the Jewish people. The Council says in the passage quoted nothing new, for the mysteries of salvation began in fact in the Old Covenant. The Pope goes on only on the surface, more precisely: circumnavigating diplomatically the cliffs. He does not speak of conversion, not the recognition of Christ, he speaks only of the "fraternal dialogue" that he wishes to "continue profitably." Here, too, every Catholic faithful to Tradition could follow, for without discussion, for without dialogue, it is not possible to announce Christ as the Son of God.
Then follow the words about Islam. Perhaps the tension is also so great because they are the first words of the man, to whom seven days ago the Keys of Kingdom were entrusted. Because he first as the Successor of Peter directly addresses those who oppose the founder of the Christian religion as the Son of God, the Muslims:
"I greet you all well and thank you, dear friends, you who belong to other religious traditions, especially the Muslims, who adore the one, living and merciful God, and call to prayer, and you all. I really appreciate your presence here today. In it I see a tangible sign of the will to grow in mutual respect and cooperation for the common good of humanity. "
Quo vadis, Francisce? "The Muslims worship the one living and merciful God"? Of course, that's a quote, that is one of those points , for which the SSPX insists on a definitive review of certain conciliar texts . "Muslims pray with us to the same God." (Nostra Aetate 3, Lumen Gentium 16)
Is that not a direct, open betrayal of Christ? " Isa ", as the Qur'an calls Jesus. And " Isa "is a prophet, not more. This is the teaching of the Koran, which says in Surah 4.171 , "Verily, the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah [...] It is far from Allah, that he had a son.".
Now one could to save the Pope pointing out Nostra Aetate 3 and Lumen Gentium 16, refer indeed to God the Father, not Christ. The Muslims pray to one God yes, so are monotheistic, and that God indeed is the same as in Christianity.
But this argument shows just how far our time has been removed from the true image of God. Basically exactly what Christ said of the Pharisees applies to the representatives of the thesis "God-is-still-in-all-religions-the-same "If God were your Father, you would love ME, for I came out from God. " (John 8:42) And again. "No one comes to the Father but by me." (John 14:6)
In other words, whoever does not believe in Christ to be the Son of God does not believe in the Father. These are not the words of the SSPX, those are the words of St. John: "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. (He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also.)" (1 John 2:23) And the Evangelist pushes it to: "Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? (This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son.") (1 Jn 2:22) (Cathcon note- my brackets- SSPX do not use the full quotes shown here- just the text outside the brackets)
One can formulate the question to Pope Francis differently: How, Your Holiness, how do you move the Muslims ever to accept faith in Christ, the Son of God when they worship without Christ the true God?
The speech closes with humanist rallying calls. It is about- how could it be otherwise - "friendship", "respect among people", "responsibility for Creation", "reconciliation", "peace", "defense of human dignity," "peaceful coexistence among peoples" , "integrity of creation" etc. etc. etc.
Inner worldly horizontalism, which since the break of the Conciliar years has been worn like a greasy leather jacket from the same period.
The Pope awakens only once even a vague hope, one almost has the impression that in the pre-prepared speech, the unconventional Argentines added these sentences:
"Above all, we need to break into the world's thirst for the absolute life as we cannot permit a one-dimensional view of people to take the upper hand, according to which people are limited to what they produce and what they consume: The is one of the greatest threats to our time. "
Anti-Consumerism, which is Franciscan, that's good. It is to be praised, especially in our hedonistic prosperous industrialized countries for which the church just as the scapegoat of all humanly possible misdeeds from a sinister pre-enlightened time.
"Keep the thirst for the Absolute alive" - Yes, Holy Father, yes.
But why does the 266th Successor of Peter, not say who or what this absolute is? It is like a drama, in which the curtain falls before the climax is reched, like an advertisement that pours out intensive images, failing to mention the product by name.
Oh, that the Pope had but repeated those words spoken by his predecessor, two thousand years earlier and a little more than two thousand miles to the east. Back then, in Caesarea Philippi, the situation was similar: People did not know what they thought about Jesus as in the audience of the Pope. Some said - similar to the Islamic representatives present- he was merely a prophet, others thought he was a reincarnation of an enlightened predecessor. In all the confusion of opinionsm, the first Pope takes a position saying: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matthew 16:16)
Francis could have said that, at the very least, to the representatives of non-Christian religions . He could have written hisstory, he would be immortal in the annals of the Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana as the first pope, who would have ventured after the Council, to again say the word "error" .
"They are in error," Pope Francis could have said, and thus approached the doctrine of his patron saint who went once to the Sultan to get him to repent of his error, "they are in error, whoever deny that Jesus Christ is the true Son of Hod"
At the same time, he could have been thus accepted as the first truly tolerant Pope in history. Tolerance consists not in the talking away of all differences- and now mistakenly assumed by everyone these days. They can be dismissed or swept under the carpet, under the motto: "Nothing results from Christ, come on, we're talking about protecting the environment."
That's just tolerance, that's respect, that's respect, if I do not share the opinion of the other but in spite of that highly esteem them as a people, not storming at them, on the contrary, I listen to their arguments, let them finish, and then answer in peace.Or even more sharply worded: "Tolerance is only possible where there are two really different opinions ."
The post-Conciliar church has forgotten in the Dionysian frenzy of brotherhood to proclaim the truth. Not for nothing now so many a Catholic on the street thinks: "What truth is to be proclaimed since the Council all the differences between religions have disappeared?".
The objection of diplomacy still remains. Sure, the representatives of Islam and Judaism reject Jesus as the one true Messiah, just as John describes it. But if the Pope would have told them with John to the face, you are "liars", the "Antichrist"? After all, the representatives have appeared at his inauguration, at least they pay respect to the Pope. Such a speech would have been almost an affront and would have caused a scandal.
In fact, a speech to non-Christian religions must be given with sense and sensibility. But also by a desire for the proclamation of the truth - according to the words of Christ: "For this I have come into the world to give witness to the truth." (John 18:37)
Could Pope Francis have used these word or similar?
Dear representatives of non-Christian religions, I am glad that they came. I assure you ofd my deepest friendship and esteem. Jesus Christ is the true Son of God and the founder of the one true religion. You know, my dear friends, this is our unwavering faith. And we have a longing that Christ was even more known, loved even more by all people on this earth. The mission of the Church is not a humanitarian mission, but a mission of faith. From the true faith follows love, from the love of God, the love of neighbor, and from this human charity, which in contrast to the humanism of the world is not done for money, but for love of Christ, whose incomparable phase was a legacyto the Faithful: "What have you done to the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (Mt 25:40)
We ask you to formulate as the very first step of our common dialogue your personal beliefs, your arguments but also your objections. We will make every effort not only to listen but also to understand them properly. We will repeat it and only start with the answer, if you, dear religious leaders say: Yes, my point was understood. For this first, real dialogue, we invite you on behalf of the Catholic Church. I say 'first real dialogue', for it is a dialogue in which the differences are not discussed to death, but remain standing. For every choice of faith, both yours and mine, must be free and come from within, as St. Thomas Aquinas said 750 years ago, and today remains just as true as ever. I am sure that this dialogue will show us Catholics, what arguments you give for your convictions, but also vice versa: it will open up a variety of arguments which speak for the Catholic faith. After the exchange of arguments everything else is your highly personal decision which you alone take before the face of the Most High. Because '(And the Lord said to Samuel: Look not on his countenance, nor on the height of his stature: because I have rejected him, nor do I judge according to the look of man:) for man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart."(1 Sam 16:7) (Cathcon- I give the whole verse- SSPX does not use the part in brackets)
By the way: After Peter's confession, "You are the Son of the living God" the office of Supreme Pastor twas entrusted to Peter: "I tell you, you are Peter, upon this rock I will build my church." (Matthew 16:18)
This has a profound meaning: This position is given to Peter, to Christ, to proclaim the Son of God. This was true of the first representative of Jesus, that also applies to the 266th Successor: Pope Francis. (PAS)
.jpeg)
Comments
E.g., in his book Truth & Tolerance I kept anticipating him to say that the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, has the fullness of truth; but unfortunately he didn't say it.
My point is that although all Catholics should obviously agree with the premise that Christ is the only way to salvation and that all are called to His Church, the manner in which this is proclaimed in a volatile and hostile international and political arena must be considered with a lot of tact.
If the pope came out and suggested (even in a subtle manner) that Islam is wrong and Christianity is right) then you can expect an explosion of mania in some Muslim countries (i.e. see the 2006 Regensburg address by Pope Benedict). Although what Benedict said was totally appropriate and true, the maniacs used and manipulated his words at the detriment of innocent Christians.
I think Pope Francis does pray for and desire the coversion of Muslims on an individual and communal level, but he has chosen to do it in a way where he comes across "wise as a serpant and gentle as a dove". He knows that if he wants to reach these people he has to portray the humble side of Christ's Church to soften hearts and bring the sheep back into the fold.
Pope Francis and Yahya Pallavicini's understanding of Vatican Council II
Yahya Pallavicini, vice president of the Italian Islamic Religious Community, shook hands with Pope Francis last Wednesday and presented him with a book exploring the contemplative dimensions of Islam.
What would be his opinion if the pope handed him a little booklet on Vatican Council II. It was Cardinal Angelo Amato who said that we should evangelize with Vatican Council II and especially mentioned AG 7 and LG 14.The former Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had said in an interview with the daily Avvenire that the Church needs to be missionary.
So what was so special with the pope meeting religious leaders last Wednesday since all of us are participating already in the 'dialogue of life'.
Vatican Council II indicates that all Muslims need to convert for salvation and Yahya Pallavicini is not an exception.Vatican Council II says outside the Church there is no salvation (AG 7,LG 14) and LG 16 is not an exception since we cannot name any case saved with a good conscience or in invincible ignorance.
The leftists media made a big thing about it since they have their one world religion agenda to work towards.The dogma on exclusive salvation does not fit in with their goal.If anyone says outside the Church there is no salvation the leftist media would mistake it for sedevacantism. Since for them the baptism of desire etc contradicts extra eclesiam nulla salus. For them these cases are allegedly visible , they can see these cases for them to be exceptions.
So they accept a Vatican Council II with visible exceptions , of people now in Heaven and whom they can allegedly see in person.This is a new doctrine since no magisterial document says these cases are visible to us or are an exception to the defined dogma or to Ad Gentes 7 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846. This is not a Catholic teaaching.It is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. It is an added-on from the 1940's.
So the leftist media welcomes the meeting of Pope Francis with Yahya Pallavicini since according to them Vatican Council II indicates Pallvicini is going to Heaven.Possibly this is also Pallavicini's undrstanding of Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades
No one reminded Pope Francis on Wednesday that Vatican Council II says outside the church there is no salvation
Last Wednesday Pope Francis met non Catholic religious leaders at the Vatican and said dialogue would continue based on Vatican Council II.No Catholic commented in public saying Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) like the Catechism of the Catholic Church(846,845) says outside the Church there is no salvation.
So according to Vatican Council II all those smiling non Catholics, would be lost for eternity if they do not convert. Such an important message and no one mentioned it
The Jesuits interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past, with their visible baptism of desire, personally known cases saved in invincible ignorance, the ability to shake hands with those in Heaven saved with the 'seeds of the Word' and being able to name all in 2013 who are saved in 'imperfect communion with the Church'.
So they too must have been smiling when the pope didn't tell the Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and Muslims and Orthodox Christians that it was urgent that they all convert to avoid the fires of Hell and that he was telling them all this based on Vatican Council II.
No statement was also issued by the St.Benedict Centers, USA nor by the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) or any Catholic organisation.
According to the SBC, the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney, the baptism of desire (which includes the baptism of water), invincible ignorance, 'good and holy' non Catholics who are saved(NA) etc are exceptions to Ad Gentes7, Vatican Council II. Since they are exceptions it means these cases are visible.So the Council also contradicts the dogma for them.
Similarly for the SSPX priests, those saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16)are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to Vatican Council II(AG 7).These cases of the dead now in Heaven,are visible to them in the flesh.So for the SBC and the SSPX, Vatican Council II contradicts itself, AG 7 contradicts LG 16.The Council also contradicts the dogma on salvation according to them.
When Pope Francis said there would be relations with non Catholics based on Vatican Council II no one mentioned that the Council says outside the church there is no salvation.-Lionel Andrades
Pope Francis met representatives of different religions on Wednesday.We cannot expect much from the pope on this issue since he is a Jesuit. According to their religious formation there are known exceptions; physically visible cases, who contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney's interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since they consider the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as exceptions to the dogma, they imply that these cases are visible to us, for them to be exceptions. Since they can 'see' the exceptions, for them, not every one needs to be a 'card carrying' member of the Catholic Church.
CONTINUED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/03/pope-francis-is-jesuit-so-he-probably.html#links
All the Jews in Sydney and Boston are oriented to Hell according to Vatican Council II
Vatican Council II says non Catholics need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
Vatican Council II is in agreement with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in which Pope Pius XII referred to 'the dogma' the 'infallible teaching'.
So for Catholics in inter-religious dialogue the Church is the ordinary means of salvation.(Redemptoris Missio 55).
Vatican Council II would be considered an anti Semitic document by the Jewish Left, who have created relativistic hate laws directed at non Jews.People have been imprisoned, fined and deprived of their employment under these leftist laws.Property has been confiscated.ADL, SPLC, ACLU, Binai Birth are major sellers of this legislation, appropriately called hate laws, but they praise Vatican Council II.
They assume that Vatican Council II names people saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16), they assume those saved in imperfect communion with the Church(UR), seeds of the word, elements of sanctification(LG 8) etc are physically visible exceptions to AG 7 and LG 14 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is irrational.
Dominus Iesus, like Vatican Council II, indicates Jews and other non Catholics are 'in a deficient situation'. Their religions have errors and superstition.Vatican Council II appeals to Catholics to be missionary and this is contrary to the Jewish Left laws.
The Catholic Church is missionary out of love for Jews. The Council referred to 'the great religions. Nostra Aetate indicates that there could be good and holy Jews.Pope John Paul II called the Jews our elder brothers. Pope Francis has said that we have a special link with the Jews.
According to Vatican Council II the Church is now the fulfillment of the Jewish religion. The Church is the new people of God(Nostra Aetate, Vatican Council II).Catholics are the new people of God they are the new Chosen People. They have a new and everlasting Covenant.
They have the Jewish Messiah foretold by the Jewish prophets.They have the Eternal Sacrifice in the Holy Mass.They have the tabernacle with the Presence of God like the Ark of the Covenant.They remember the Passover with Easter and they are the only Church founded by Jesus Christ outside of which there is no salvation.(Vatican Council II Ag 7,LG 14).
The acknowledge the existence of Gehenna (Hell) with a 'devouring fire for all time' (Isaiah 33) and know now that non Catholics all over the world are going there for all eternity according to Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who is one with Jesus Christ.
Catholics love Jews.Our Lady and the Apostles were Jews.Catholics also believe in Yahweh and are children of Abraham.They follow the Ten Commandments of Moses.
They invite all Jews,and other non Catholics, to enter the Catholic Church which is the only Ark of Noah that saves in the flood, it is the only door to everlasting peace in Heaven.
'Jesus wants you to be a Roman Catholic', Fr.Brian Harrison would tell all non Catholics, Jews included.
-Lionel Andrades