Wednesday, September 18, 2013

SSPX-SO and MHFM do not realize that the Magisteria (two magisteriums) is created by two interpretations of Vatican Council II (Cushingism and Feeneyism).

Bro.Peter Dimond is 'obdurate' in this error and is calling the SSPX a heretic unaware that they are all (SSPX; SSPX-SO and MHFM)  using irrational Cushingism in the interpretation of so many magisterial texts. (Letter of the Holy Office, Vatican Council II, Redemptoris Missio, Catechism of the Catholic Church etc).
 
 
 
 
3. There is an illusion that one can join the Vatican II Church without accepting Vatican II.
 
Which Vatican Council II ? According to Cushingism or Feeneyism?
 
Many priests are personally disillusioned with Menzingen for doctrinal reasons
 
Where does Catholic doctrine state that there are known exceptions to the Catholic Church's teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the Syllabus of Errors?

Is the MHFM a heretic for rejecting the baptism of desire, for assuming that the baptism of desire is a known exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

Where has the infallible magisterium said that the baptism of desire is visible to us or an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Which pope in the ordinary magisterium makes this claim ? None!
-Lionel Andrades
 
 This is the declaration of the SSPX of the Strict Observance that is discussed in the video:
+“ONLY SHE CAN HELP YOU”+
Vienna, Virginia, 10th August 2012 Priest Meeting.
TODAY’S SITUATION
1. The Society of St. Pius X declaration of July 14th, 2012, while proclaiming the notion of the Divinity of Christ and His Kingship, actually moves in the opposite direction by using ambiguous language and by preparing to place the SSPX under the authorities of “the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies.”(1974 Declaration)
2. There has been a longtime slide in the SSPX towards Vatican II and a growing silence about Novus Ordo scandals against the Faith.
3. There is an illusion that one can join the Vatican II Church without accepting Vatican II.
4. There is a need to assure souls that the combat for Catholic Tradition, maintained by Archbishop Lefebvre against Modernist Rome, will continue.
5. A new attitude favoring compromise has infected the leadership of the SSPX.
6. This new attitude now prevails in publications, websites, seminaries and pulpits.
7. The priests who resist this new attitude are being punished or threatened with punishment and in all cases are being silenced. The present crisis demands a public response of priests and faithful against this compromise with Modernist Rome.
8. Many priests are personally disillusioned with Menzingen for doctrinal reasons but are unsure, cowed or do not know what to do.
9. Many independent priests trust the SSPX less and less. They hope to pass on their parishes to doctrinally reliable priests.
10. There is a replacement of the original Fatima solution, which is the consecration of Russia by the pope united with the bishops, by a belief that the SSPX can negotiate Modernist Rome back to the Catholic Faith.
11. The imprudent and reckless willingness to agree to a “suitable condition” of abandoning the flock to the “wolves” of the diocesan bishops.
DECLARATION
The heart of the Faith is the Divinity of Christ and his Kingship over all nations: “Oportet illum regnare”. The errors of Vatican II are an indirect attack against his Divinity and a direct attack on his Social Kingship. They will forever remain the Revolution of 1789 within the Church.
Today’s Vatican has only changed for the worse since the Council (more damage, more new heresies, more effective semi-modernism), to such an extent that we can repeat the Archbishop’s words of 1974 and 1976: “The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is therefore not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (June 29, 1976)
The Pope has allowed the True Mass, but only within the Pantheon of modernist liturgies. Further, he has made clear his espousing of the false doctrine of Religious Liberty by preaching it to be the model of how the Church and State are to relate one to another. Lastly the doctrine of Ecumenism has been widely and consistently professed by the Pontiff in his visits to protestant temples, synagogues and mosques and Assisi III confirms that the spirit of Assisi is alive and well. It was this spirit that moved the Archbishop to undertake an “Operation Survival”, that is now itself in great peril.
Today’s SSPX clearly wants to place itself under this Conciliar Church, mitigates the poison of Vatican II, is more and more silent in face of the abuses by the conciliar hierarchy, uses ambiguous language referring to two opposite Magisteria. At the same time that it is ever ready to believe in a constant debate with obdurate Roman officials, it uses strong arm tactics toward those standing against wicked reconciliation.
We must wait for Our Lady to convert the Pope and inspire him to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart in union with all the bishops and we must persevere in the Charity of the Truth and the Truth of Charity, organized in a united corps of priests faithful to the position always maintained by Archbishop Lefebvre.
Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer, Fr. Ronald J. Ringrose, Fr. Richard Voigt, Fr. David Hewko, Fr. François Chazal
-Lionel Andrades
 

The question Bro. Peter addresses to Fr.Z is futile

     FIRST LETTER TO ‘FR.’ Z
Subject: Your Dishonesty
I must say that you are an outrageous liar. Francis’ statement clearly indicated that atheists can be saved. You are a heretical apostate who defends the heresies in Vatican II and the Counter Church. Those include the heresies that Protestants are in the Church, that false religions are to be esteemed, and more. Francis is a heretical antipope. You are not remotely Catholic, as you reject many dogmas of the faith. If you want to have a telephone debate about whether Francis is a Catholic or whether Vatican II is heretical, please let me know.
Bro. Peter Dimond
www.vaticancatholic.com
 
Bro.Peter Dimond interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism which indicates that there are known exceptions to the Catholic Church's teachings on faith and morals. Example : the baptism of desire is visible and known to us in present times and so is a known exception to the literal and traditional teaching which says all need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.
 Bro.Peter Dimond is critical of Pope Francis's statement which indicates that atheists can be saved.It must be remembered that Pope Francis is a Jesuit and in general they use Cushingism. They opposed Fr.Leonard Feeney in Boston with this irrationality. They assumed that a possibility known to God is an actuality in the present times and so Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong.
So for them there are known exceptions to the traditonal Catholic teaching on atheism which states, atheists are oriented to Hell unless they find faith in the Catholic Church.
Both Fr.John Zuhlsdorf and the pope could be referring to this possibility, accepted in principle and with no cases known to us of an atheist being saved be a Merciful God.
The pope true to his Jesuit formation then goes one step further and assumes that there are defacto, known cases. He knows of a particular case. He could see some such case in Heaven and then builds a new theology upon this irrationality. He creates a new doctrine which is a scandal.
Perhaps he is doing so  innocently since the Pope, Fr.Zuhlsdorf and the Bro.Peter Dimond are unaware of the Cushing interpretation which has pervaded the whole church,  possibly like the Arian heresy did in times past.Even Catholic encylopedias carry this factual error.
So the question Bro. Peter addresses to Fr.Z is futile and they will go through the usual merry go round of intellectual speculation over a non issue and an irrationality.
-Lionel Andrades
 
 

The Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) refer to the 'Vatican Council II sect' which Vatican Council II are they referring to, according to Cushingism or Feeneyism ?

When the sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery refer to Vatican Council II they know only one interpretation. Irrational Cushingism. Their entire concept of Vatican Council II is built on the theory of their being known exceptions to the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on faith and morals. This was the original error of the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing.
So when they criticize the Catholic Church for their interpretation of Vatican Council II, according to Cushing, they do not seem to realize that there can be a Vatican Council II interpreted according to Feeneyism, which states there are no known exceptions to the Catholic Church's teachings on faith and morals.
The sedevacantists Peter and Michael Dimond themself err when they call Catholics heretics for accepting the baptism of desire, since they assume that the baptism of desire is a known exception to the Catholic Church's traditional teaching on a faith- issue, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So what about someone like me in the Catholic Church. Am I in the Vatican Council II sect when I accept Vatican Council II with Feeneyism and reject Cushingism ?
There can be Catholics, who do have to be sedevacantsts since for them Vatican Council II is in agreement with the Catholic Church's teachings on other religions and Christian communities and churches.
For me the MHFM would be a Catholic sect since they interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the past but then so also would be the Vatican Curia. They also interpret the Council, like the MHFM, with irrational Cushingism.
-Lionel Andrades

Detroit Bankruptcy

Vatican Council II is not ambigous on the issue of other religions and Christian communities.

George:
I am not sure that I agree that he thinks that VCII is a rupture in itself but that the infiltration by the likes of Cardinal Cushing, John Courtney Murray and the countless other modernists that undermined the Council.

Lionel:
Yes he thinks Vatican Council II is a rupture with the past since he thinks the Council is ambigous.

He has accepted the interpretation of the Council according to Cardinal Richard Cushing, John Courtney Murray and the others.

He also does not seem to know that he has a choice.

He does not seem to know that if he does not use the premise of the visible dead, the Council is not a break with the past, on other religions and Christians communities and churches.
Delete
 
George:
I am not sure that I agree that he thinks that VCII is a rupture in itself

Lionel:
George he does think that Vatican Council II is a rupture with the past since he says it is ambigous.The Council is not ambigous on the issue of other religions and Christian communities.

AG 7 and LG 14 interpreted with Feeneyism and not Cushingism affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There are no known exceptions mentioned in AG 7 or LG 14 or other texts of Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades

(from commensts on the blogpost : Michael Voris, Louie Verrechio using Cushingism instead of Feeneyism to analyse Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/michael-voris-louie-verrechio-using.html


 
In a video entitled simply "The Jews", Michael Voris claims, about the Jewish Faith in ancient times: “they had a Temple and offered sacrifice; the entire religion was focused on this one singular point.... Once however the Romans were done with their work, the Jews as the religion of the Covenant no longer existed.... No temple, no sacrifices, no priesthood, no Judaism. What replaced it in history is what has come down to us today: Rabbinical Judaism. This is not the Judaism of the Covenant. It is a man-made religion.”[7] He then went on to equate modern Judaism with Protestantism, labelling both religions originating with man.
Using a press release issued by the Archdiocese of Detroit, the Diocese of Scranton issued this statement in response to a planned speaking engagement of Voris in that diocese:
"The Diocese of Scranton has determined that Mr. Voris will not be allowed to speak in a Diocesan or parish facility. After these engagements were scheduled, the Diocese became aware of concerns about this individual’s views regarding other religious groups. In videos posted on the Internet, Mr. Voris makes comments that certainly can be interpreted as being insensitive to people of other faiths. The Catholic Church teaches us to respect all people, regardless of their faith tradition."
"Although the Diocese shares Mr. Voris’ support of efforts to protect human life, his extreme positions on other faiths are not appropriate and therefore the Diocese cannot host him."[]
-Wikipedia, Michael Voris
In April 2011 Voris (who had intended to give a talk entitled "Living Catholicism Radically"[9]) was banned from speaking at Marywood University and any facilities owned by the diocese of Scranton, Pennsylvania.[1] This action was taken after complaints were made about Voris's statement about other religions.[1] In a letter to the talk's organizers (Paul and Kristen Ciaccia), the diocese declared that "it had been informed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Mr. Voris's home Archdiocese of Detroit that Voris had caused "a number of controversies" and "that his programs are not endorsed by his home archdiocese".[9] The diocese held that some of his statements "certainly can be interpreted as being insensitive to people of other faiths".[2] Voris ascribed this decision to "political correctness. Anything somebody takes offense at, whether it's true or not, seems to be out of bounds."[1] The speech was moved to the Best Western Genetti Hotel and Conference Center in Wilkes-Barre, and the talk's organizers invited local Bishop Joseph Bambera to attend "to evaluate Mr. Voris's knowledge of the faith, free from opinions formed by others."[9] The bishop did not take up the offer. The Ciaccias said the ban "belies deeper inconsistencies in diocesan policy."[9] Voris spoke about the events in a video segment, noting the diocese allowed Sara Bendoraitis, the director of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Ally Resource Center at American University, to speak at the University of Scranton the previous spring-
-Wikipedia, Michael Voris