Saturday, April 20, 2013

Catholic Culture : kettle calls the pot black

Catholic Culture which uses an irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II is criticizing the traditionalists for doing the same thing.The pope preached about Vatican Council II being the work of the Holy Spirit.For Jeff Mirus this means Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition and so he criticizes the traditionalists (1).

Catholic Culture's Mirus understands the Council as being an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In the past he cited passages from the Council which for him contradict the dogma on exclusive salvation and the rest of Tradiiton. So for him the Council is a break with Tradition and of course he considers this the work of the Holy Spirit.

Even after being informed so many times,in what seems his political position, he still assumes that those saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) etc are known exceptions, in the present times, to the dogma on salvation in the Catholic Church. This is the new teaching of the Holy Spirit,for him,in Vatican Council II.

 
The Holy Spirit teaches this irrationality ! The dead saved are visible. So they are exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church for salvation.Every one does not need to convert into the Catholic Church as in the past since now there are known exceptions. There were not these known exceptions in the past.

Even after being informed he will not give up this view.Now he is criticizing traditionalists for rejecting the Council. The traditionalists like him also use the false premise and assume that the Council is a break with the past.We have the black kettle and pot. The modernist Jeff Mirus is making the same error as the traditionalists SSPX in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. They are in the same boat.
He welcomes the Council as a break with the past and the traditionalists reject it. Both use the false premise of being able to see the dead saved in invincible ignorance etc.As if a wild premise would nor result in any Magisterial document being a break with the past.

He believes this is the work of the Holy Spirit and so along with 
EWTN, Jeff Mirus' Trinity Communication has placed a report on the Internet, Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard Feeney.In it he alleges that the late  Fr.William Most had written that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. In other words these cases are physically visible, they are personally known for them to be exceptions to the literal and traditional interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney.Visible ghosts now in Heaven. Possibly Mirus assumes that this is also a sure teaching of the Holy Spirit since he will not issue a correction.-Lionel Andrades 


1.
we have those who claim to be more Catholic than pope or council. They agree that the Council was indeed a revolution, but a calamitous and ultimately illegitimate one. They argue that the Conciliar acts are replete with a combination of error, imprudence and vagueness which makes them positively harmful, and not at all a fitting inspiration for legitimate Catholic development. Often calling themselves Traditionalists, these almost literally stand on ceremony, ossifying the Church’s pre-Vatican II culture in accordance with their own comfortable piety. http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1072

How can the Holy Spirit teach error,Pope Francis ?

Pope Francis said that the Second Vatican Council “was a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit,” according to a Vatican Radio report recently.
 
According to whom?
Did the Holy Spirit teach that Lumen Gentium 16 refers to visible- in- the- flesh cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance ?
Or did the Holy Spirit mean that there can be persons saved in invincible ignorance and these cases would not be known to us ?
Did the Holy Spirit say that Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as is widely reported in the media over so many years ?
Or did the Holy Spirit mean that Lumen Gentium 16 is irrelevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to Ad Gentes 7 which says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?
According to EWTN,Catholic Culture, Catholic Answers, Catholics United for the Faith, Ecclesia Dei's Vice President, the Vatican Curia, Jesuits and popes including Pope Francis-  LG 16 is visible and so is a break with the past.This is irrational.
How can the Holy Spirit teach error?
-Lionel Andrades

One simple question and there is no answer:MHFM,St.Benedict Centers,SSPX

On Dec16,2012 I asked Peter and Michael Dimond, sedevacantists of the Most Holy Family Monastery(MHFM) to answer just one question.(1)

Do we know any one saved with the baptism of desire?

They still will not answer it. There is also no reply from Fr.Leonard Feeney's communities in the USA, to the same question, asked months back.It has been as long now and there is no formal reply to the letter I e-mailed to the District Superior of the SSPX in Italy. Though priests with the SSPX community in Albano,Italy with whom I have spoken to in Rome, have acknowledged there is no visible case of the baptism of desire or being saved in invincible ignorance.
One simple question and they will not formally answer it!
If there is no visible salvation then there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus .Then it means Vatican Council II is traditional on the issue of other religions and Christian communities.LG 16 is not the usual exception it is made out to be of AG 7 which says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation. It would also then mean that it was the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing who was in error and not Fr.Leonard Feeney.
So if they honestly answered this question they would have to review their apologetics, or a part of it, especially on Vatican Council II.
Vatican Council II is a break with the past only if there is visible- to- us cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance etc.
Vatican Council II is a continuity with the past if those saved in invincible ignorance etc are invisible for us.
There is no ambiguity or two positions.
Since one of the two views is irrational and contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction.
So rationally we are left with only the traditional interpretation of the Council.
-Lionel Andrades
 

1
Dec.16,2012
I would like to quote you. Please answer this question it is related to your book and the subject you write on often.
Do we know any one saved with the baptism of desire?
(In other words can we see someone on earth saved with the baptism of desire?