Monday, 30 April 2012

“Enlightenment” Darkness

The weekly “Eleison Comments” of Bishop Richard Williamson. This blog editorial is strongly opposed to any “sell out” by the SSPX.

Number CCL (250)

28 April 2012

Whether or not the Society of St Pius X finally decides to by-pass the doctrinal disagreement and to enter into a purely practical agreement with the authorities of the Conciliar Church in Rome, souls concerned for their eternal welfare must understand as fully as possible what is at stake. In this connection a friend of mine just sent me an admirable synthesis of the heart of the matter:

“From 2009 to 2011 so-called “Doctrinal Discussions” took place between Vatican experts and four theologians of the SSPX. These discussions made clear just how firmly the Roman authorities are attached to the teachings of Vatican II. That Council attempted to reconcile Catholic doctrine with the concept of man as developed by the “Enlightenment” of the 18th century.

“Thus the Council declares that by reason of the dignity of his nature, the human person has the right to practise the religion of his choice. Accordingly society must protect religious liberty and organize the peaceful co-existence of the various religions. These are invited to take part in ecumenical dialogue, since they all possess their own part of truth.

“In effect, such principles deny that Christ is truly God, and they deny that his Revelation, the deposit of which is guarded by the Church, must be accepted by all men and all societies. Thus the doctrine of religious liberty, as expressed in the Conciliar document Dignitatis Humanae #2, contradicts the teachings of Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, of Pius IX in Quanta Cura, of Leo XIII in Immortale Dei and of Pius XI in Quas Primas. The doctrine expressed in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium #8, according to which divine Providence uses non-Catholic sects as means of salvation, contradicts the teachings of Pius IX in the Syllabus, of Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum and of Pius XI in Mortalium Animos.

“These novel doctrines which along with many others contradict the formal and unanimous teachings of Popes before the Council, can only be qualified in the light of Catholic dogma as heretical.

“Therefore since the unity of the Church rests on the integrity of the Faith, it is clear that the SSPX cannot come to any agreement, be it only “practical” with those who hold such doctrines.”

When my friend accuses the 18th century movement of intellectual emancipation known as the “Enlightenment” of being at the root of the churchmen’s 20th century collapse, he is making essentially the same point as Archbishop Lefebvre when he said to priests of his, half a year before he died in 1991: “The more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II... the more one realizes that what is at stake is... a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism... It is a wholly different version of Revelation, of Faith, of philosophy... It is truly frightening.”

So how does one get one’s mind back in subjection to God’s reality ? One way might be to get hold of the papal Encyclicals mentioned by my friend above, and study them. They were written for bishops, but Conciliar bishops are not reliable. Today’s laity must take in hand their own formation, and their own Rosary.

Kyrie eleison.



  1. Tuesday, May 1, 2012
    An injustice was done to the priest and St.Benedict Center

    The secular media and the liberals say Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 does not say it was for heresy but for disobedience.Pope Pius XII in the Letter supported Fr.Leonad Feeney on doctrine.He was excommunicated for disobedience. He refused to go to Rome when summoned.He was also being opposed by the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing.

    The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supported Fr.Leonard Feeney when it referred to ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible’statement.(1) The text of the dogma is a literal interpretation of the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The dogma does not mention any explicit exception. So this was exactly what was taught by Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.

    Some passages in the Letter however are critical of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.(2) So if it was assumed that the baptism of desire etc was an explicit exception to the dogma then they were mistaken.There are no known cases of people saved with the baptism of desire etc. To claim so would be an objective,factual oversight.

    The Letter of the Holy Office does not directly claim that those saved in invincible ignorance etc are explicit exceptions to the dogma or that we can know these cases. This was the error of the Archbishop of Boston and the media which supported him.

    The Letter which was addresed to the Archbishop had technical irregularities and so could also have been a bishop-to-bishop document.It was hastily placed in the Denzinger by the liberals.

    The communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney today, recognized by the Catholic Church, know there are no exceptions to the dogma. This is common sense.

    So if Fr.Leonard Feeney rejected the baptism of desire etc for whatever reason it is irrelevant. The baptism of desire etc is not issue with reference to the dogma.

    For centuries the Church upheld the literal interpretation of the dogma alongwith implicit baptism of desire known ,of course, only to God.

    It was Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits who created this false issue, that of the visible- to- us baptism of desire.

    So we are back to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance out of the way, as exceptions.


  2. Saturday, May 12, 2012

    Historic decision for the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

    According to the diocese of Worcester,USA there are no known cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

    So there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Neither are there exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.

    So the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in Worcester who have been granted canonical status, can affirm the dogma just as Fr.Leonard Feeney.

    The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, including a monastic community in Worcester, are free to proclaim the centuries old interpretation of the dogma in accord with Vatican Council II (AG 7).

    Even other religious communities in the diocese are free to proclaim (AG 7) that all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (to avoid Hell) and there are no known exceptions of invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16).

    They accept the possibility of people being saved in invinciblle ignorance etc but acknowledge that in reality these cases are known only to God and are unknown to us.

    So there is nothing in Vatican Council II e.g seeds of the Word etc, which contradict the dogma as understood by Fr.Leonard Feeney,Sister Catherine Goddard Clarke, Bro.Francis MICM and other founders of the Slaves of the Immmaculate Heart of Mary.
    -Lionel Andrades
    Friday, May 11, 2012
    Two U.S Catholic dioceses agree that we can hold the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (AG 7)

    Thursday, May 10, 2012
    NO DENIAL FROM DIOCESE OF WORCESTER, USA: All religious communities are permitted to hold the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (AG 7)


Share our blog link!