Friday, March 1, 2013

SEDEVACANTISTS CRITICIZE VATICAN COUNCIL II SINCE THEY BELIEVE SALVATION IN HEAVEN IS NOT INVISIBLE BUT VISIBLE TO US

Sedevacantists and traditionalists are again churning out the same ignorance on Vatican Council II, while they assume people saved and now in Heaven are not invisible to us but visible in the flesh. The  same irrationality of the liberals.They can allegedly see the dead.

The sedevacantists are ready to begin speculation on the new sede vacante and a criticism of the Council.They will take it for granted that salvation referred to in the Council,is physically visible to us.This premise they do not realize actually creates the Council as modernist.
The Council becomes a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors because of the premise used.Something new has been added to the Deposit of Faith.Something irrational .

If we cannot physically see the dead who are now in Heaven, then those saved with a good conscience (LG 16), elements of sanctification (LG 8), seeds of the Word , imperfect communion with the Church etc are not known exceptions to the dogma which says all need to be visible members of the Church for salvation.So if there are no known exceptions , to every one needing to be a visible member of the Catholic Church for salvation (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441) Vatican Council II is not a break with the past on other religions and ecumenism. The fault is not with the Council but with the premise used by the sedevacantists in the interpretation of the Council.

Traditionalists and liberals also cannot see that when someone claims there are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus he is also saying that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are not invisible to us but visible to us!

How can what is invisible for us and only visible for God be an exception? If it is invisible then can it be an exception?

Even the leaders of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) take it for granted that there are visible cases of the dead who are now saved and are in Heaven.While there are Catholic priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass in Rome who know that these cases, known only to God, are not exceptions to the dogma, since they are invisible.

So the fault is not with the Mass or the Council, but with the person interpreting the Council.The fault is with the person and the premise he uses.

Sedevacantists MHFM and CMRI ,Bishop Richard Williamson and the SSPX-SO have the same understanding of the Council as the liberals and modernists.Some of the liberals must be laughing up their sleeve seeing that traditionalists agree with them.

Irrespective of what every one believes and says( theories, opinions, faith) and irrespective of the Church document (Council, Catechism etc), if for you the dead who are saved (baptism of desire etc) are not invisible, but visible (physically seen with the naked eye) you have a modernist Church document.

Beauty,like error, is in the eye of the beholder.
-Lionel Andrades

Invincible ignorance etc were never relevant or an issue with extra ecclesiam nulla salus: the Americanists made it one



Invincible ignorance etc were never relevant or an issue with extra ecclesiam nulla salus: the Americanists made it one. It had nothing to do with the dogma.

Pope Pius XII mentions implicit desire in Mystici Corporis (1943) in response to a campaign at that time by the modernists.

Pope Pius XII had no need to mention implicit desire in Mystici Corporis since implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are always invisible to us.

So they are not exceptions to the traditional understanding of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Archbishops in Boston maintained the excommunication on Fr.Leonard Feeney for some 19 years and consolidated the error of implicit desire etc being exceptions to the dogma on salvation.How could they be exceptions when we do not know any such case ? They are possibilities known only to God.

The Americanists were determined to change the dogma on salvation.Now after so many years it is becoming clear. It is being asked how can there be exceptions when we do not know any case of the baptism of desire etc ?

The Jesuit Superior dismissed Fr.Leonard Feeney from the Congregation even though the priest was not teaching anything new.The Archbishop deprived the priest of his priestly faculties to dispense the Sacraments even though the baptism of desire etc was not an issue relative to the literal interpretation of the dogma.

When the excommunication was lifted he was not asked to recant and there was still no apology from the Jesuits and the Archbishop.

The media reports continued to say invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma and so they criticized Fr.Leonard Feeney and his communities.There was no correction from the Vatican. Even today the Americanist error has spread throughout the Church.The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has not corrected it.

It is wrongly assumed that Vatican Council II also mentions known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation being there in only the Catholic Church.  Pope Benedict XVI expected the Society of St.Pius X to accept this version of Vatican Council II, which is modernist because of the error of the Americanists.
Until today the Jesuits, like those in Boston in the 1940's, believe there are known,visible to us, exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.There is no apology from them also for the dismissal of the Catholic lay professors at the Jesuit Boston College who refused to consider invincible ignorance etc as being relevant to the dogma.
-Lionel Andrades
 
Thursday, January 24, 2013
The Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing was in heresy and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was addressed to him.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/the-archbishop-of-boston-richard.html