Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate have to support a lie to offer the Traditional Latin Mass while the SSPX have also to maintain the lie to get canonical status

Fr. Lanzetta, paolo siano
The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (F.I) have to support a lie to offer the Traditional Latin Mass while the SSPX have also to maintain the lie to get canonical status.
They both have to interpret Vatican Council II  with hypothetical cases  not being hypothetical.They have to claim that these hypothetical references are explicit and objectively known.They both have to conclude that these alledgedly 'explicit cases' are exceptions to the traditional ecclesiology, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general.
The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) and the Institute of Christ the King Soverieign Priest, both traditionalist communities, have compromised and accepted the lie.They interpret Vatican Council II with this irrationality.So their priests are allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass.
"The postulants ask for the companionship of the community and the habit of the @[155177834665185:274:Sisters, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary]."
The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,traditionalists, also interpret Vatican Council II with the lie.So they are allowed to have the Traditional Latin Mass at their premises in the dioceses of Worcester and Manchester,USA.
The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate priests,on the other hand, have had their seminary taken away from them.They are not allowed to offer the TLM .They have been called 'crytpto Lefebvrists' by the late Fr.Fidenzio Volpi.
The other group of  Franciscans of the Immaculate who offer Mass in Italian and do not offer the TLM, are approved by Pope Francis:Since they interpret Vatican Council II with the lie.
Archbishop Guido Pozzo and the rest of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith( CDF) interpret Vatican Council II with this lie and next month, when talks resume with the SSPX, the whole world will watch.They will want to see if  the SSPX accepts Vatican Council II with the lie or condones the lie, in the Vatican Curia,  in exchange for canonical status.
I accept Vatican Council II without the lie.
I have chosen the rational option.I am also in accord with the old ecclesiology and Tradition. The Franciscans of the Immaculate and the SSPX could do the same.In fact all Catholics religious communities can do the same.
I avoid the lie.
Bishop Bernard Fellay  and Archbishop Pozzo could do the same.
All Catholic professors can teach this.The can follow my example at the universities and seminaries. They simply avoid the lie in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the Council changes.From being non traditional it changes to being traditional.They simply avoid the New Theology, which is based on the lie and the old theology emerges in the text of Vatican Council II.
Catholics do not know this.
The former Fischer More College faculty did not know this.They assumed that they key issue was the TLM.They did not know that the main issue was ecclesiology and it determined how the TLM was offered - with or without the lie.
image
Similarly for Fr.John Zuhlsdorf, the liturgy is the man issue.So he interprets Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) during Holy Mass.He cannot affirm EENS.He has to interpret EENS with exceptions; with the lie.So he maintains his incardination status in the Church.He does this by affirming a falsehood.
Like priests in general, he has to lie in theology, to keep his priestly status.
I attend the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass saying hypothetical cases are not explicit in real life. Fr. Z cannot say this on his blog.I cannot see any baptism of desire case in dowtown Rome. Fr.Z has to assume that  all of can see these ghosts.
So ecclesiology for me is still the same as that of the 16th century missionaries.This is irrespective if I attend the Traditional Latin Mass, the Novus Ordo Mass, the Greek Byzantine or the Syro Malabar Mass.
-Lionel Andrades



August 23, 2016
Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate are being forced to lie
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/franciscan-friars-of-immaculate-are.html






campo bambine 1

Ask Archbishop Guido Pozzo if Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Cushingism( as done by the Vatican Curia) or with Feeneyism( as I interpret the Council) and if Cushingism can be replaced with Feeneyism, by all
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/all-these-years-sspx-made-big-thing.html

 https://www.facebook.com/SaintBenedictCenter/
https://liturgyguy.com/tag/fr-john-zuhlsdorf/

 

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate are being forced to lie

Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz,President and Fr.Sabino Ardito ,Secretary respectively of the Congregation for Institutes of Religious Life and Societies of Apostolic Life are not allowing Catholics to affirm implicit, invisible for us baptism of desire along with the literal and traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite).All Catholic religious communities  must accept that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us on earth, we know these cases in real life. This is a lie.1


It is a lie being  forced upon on all religious communities including the Franciscans of the Immaculate.This is a lie which is being imposed also on Fr.Stefano Manelli, the founder of the Franciscans of the Immaculate.

missionaria3 All members of the Franciscans of the Immaculate must have the right to be rational and truthful.
They must have the right to affirm the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II (LG 16, UR 3, LG 8 etc)  as being implicit and invisible for us and not explicit, visible in the flesh.They must have the right to say that they cannot see the dead who are now saved in Heaven.
All the religious communities, Dominicans, Jesuits, Carmelites , Franciscans, must have the right to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with salvation (LG 14- those who know and do not enter) as being implicit for us and explicit only for God.
 
So could the Manelli family members confirm that:
1. They affirm Vatican Council II along with the traditional, centuries-old interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation. The text of the dogma does not mention any exceptions. Neither do they know of any exceptions in 2016.
2. Also could they ask Fr.Sabino Ardito  and Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz if they affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or do they assume there are visible exceptions known to them in 2016 and these exceptions are mentioned in Vatican Council II.
Are they lying intentionally? 
Are they forcing this lie on on religious communities including the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate who offer only the Traditional Latin Mass?
Could the members of the Third Order  and especially the Manelli family members clarify this issue personally or ask their lawyer to do so.
Image result for Photo Catholic Canon LAw
According to Canon Law Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz and Fr.Sabino Ardito  need to affirm all the teachings of the Catholic Church.
1. Explicit for us baptism of desire is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.
It's a false inference.
affirm implicit for baptism of desire.
2. It is not allowed to deny an ex cathedra dogma, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible teaching' (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).With explicit for us baptism of desire they are rejecting the dogma EENS, like the rest of the Vatican Curia.
Presently there is doctrinal ambiguity and they use a falsehood to interpret Vatican Council II, which makes the Council a break with the past.
Why must Catholics accept Vatican Council II with this irrationality ? Fr.Lombardi will not answer.
Catholics are being forced to proclaim a lie and are persecuted if they do not conform.This is coercion. It is illegal.
There has been a factual error in the Marchetti Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which the F.I are not obliged to follow.No Catholic should be obliged to follow it.
Pope Francis, Cardinal Muller and Cardinal Ladaria  refuse to accept a Vatican Council II in which Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance) are seen as being invisible on earth for us.Instead for them it refers to seen in the flesh cases in 2016. 
So they conclude that Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II  is a visible exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They want the SSPX to interpret and accept Vatican Council II with this irrationality.(The SSPX is already using the same irrational reasoning but are rejecting the non- traditional conclusion)

This is unethical. It is also dishonest. This is lie by Catholic religious.
Image result for Photo Fisher More CollegeImage result for Photo Fisher More College

Image result for Photo Fisher More College
Fischer More College and the Franciscans of the Immaculate had to accept these lies to be able to offer the Traditional Latin Mass.  Being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), elements of sanctification and truth (LG 8), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), seeds of the Word (AG 11) are implicit, invisible in personal cases and hypothetical  for us all.
The FFI and FMC  were expected to assume that these cases are visible, explicit and , known in reality in 2016 for them. Only if they made this objective error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus could they be allowed to offer the TLM. They had to LIE. 




Cardinals and bishops  do not know the name of anyone saved outside the Catholic Church in 2016. Yet the FMC and FFI had to assume that there are such persons. This is another LIE.

The FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King are allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass since they have chosen to compromise.They have chosen to lie.
I interpret the following terms with Feeneyism and Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz and Fr.Sabino Ardito do so  with Cushingism(so does the SSPX)
 
I use Feeneyism and Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz and Fr.Sabino Ardito use Cushingism.
For me the Baptism of Desire is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.
For me Invincible Ignorance is Feeneyite and for them it isCushingite.

For meVatican Council II is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.

For me Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.
For me the Nicene Creed is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.
For me the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.
I avoid the  New Theology, while they uses it. 
For me the Catechism of the Catholic Church is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.
-Lionel Andrades
 

TERMS EXPLAINED

Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reaoning which says there are no  known exceptions past or present, to the dogma EENS.There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.

Cushingism:  It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes  there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.

Baptism of  Desire (Feeneyite): It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it is not relevant to the dogma EENS.

Baptism of  Desire (Cushingite): It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is a visible case or the SSPX it is relevant to the dogma EENS.

Invincible Ignorance ( Feeneyite): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.

Invincible Ignorance (Cushingite): This refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.

Council of Florence.One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was Feeneyite.

Liberal theologians:They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.

Vatican Council II (Cushingite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Cushingism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.

Vatican Council II (Feeneyite):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite-one baptism),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and  the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).

Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.

Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( Feeneyite). It means accepting the Letter as Feeneyite based on the first part .It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.
Letter of the Holy Office ( Cushingite). It is based on the second part of the Letter.It rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( Cushingite-explicit) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( Cushingite-explicit cases) as being exceptions to EENS ( Feeneyite).It worngly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.

Baltimore Catechism. It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.
(The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with the confusion)
Catechism of Pope X. It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.
Nicene Creed ( Cushingite) It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.

Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite). It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.

New Theology: It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Cushingite) .It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Feeneyite).It  refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.

Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite).CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).

Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite).CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known exceptions, since God is not limited to the Sacraments.
When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needin to formally enter the Church. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.

________________________

1.


FEBRUARY 7, 2014


Third Order members of the Franciscans of the Immaculate clarify Cardinal Braz and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi's position : all religious communities must accept implicit or explicit salvation http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/third-order-members-of-franciscans-of.html#links