Monday, March 3, 2014

Fischer-More College : TLM with ideology

Fisher-More denied ability to offer TLM
http://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/fisher-more-denied-ability-to-offer-tlm/

FMC Chapel
It seems as if there was the TLM there with the extra ecclesiam nulla salus 'ideology'.
Vatican Council II interpreted with the dead man walking theory was accepted . With the dead-saved-are-visible interpretation Vatican Council opposes the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.So the college rejected the Council.

Instead it followed Tradition associated with the TLM and affirmed the dogma on salvation.

On the other hand if the FMC had accepted Vatican Council II without the dead man walking premise, the students could still affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition associated with the TLM.


There is no new Revelation in the Catholic Church to do away with Tradition and especially the dogma on salvation.However we see this being done after Vatican Council II since the Council is interpreted with an irrationality. Even Archbishop Lefebvre and other traditionalists made this objective error.

So now the powers that be can end the TLM and claim they are doing so in the name of Vatican Council II.The traditionalists in ignorance just accept this
.
-Lionel Andrades
 
Three years after the College set out to add traditional Catholic spirituality and doctrine to its already established classical curriculum, we occupy a campus (the former Our Lady of Victory convent in Fort Worth) that was built to serve God and the Church for this specific purpose, that is perfectly suited for our long-term mission, that houses students striving for holiness while they pursue an education and staff who daily pour themselves out in faith, hope, charity, and sacrifice for a noble cause. In addition, we operate an online Academy with 450 students from all parts of the country who receive instruction and support from over 40 teachers and staff. After investing significant resources into developing the College and Academy to reach this point, we believe it is poised to truly serve Catholic families in desperate need of traditional, excellent, and affordable education for their children. Finally, we have an overall institutional plan for sustainability which, we believe, is better than any college not sitting on a large endowment. It is a plan driven by the goal of simplicity and affordability, it does not depend on debt and government subsidies, and it offers a unique, integrated program of Catholic education from grade school through college.(emphasis added)
 

Fr.Angelo Geiger F.I can the Franciscans of the Immaculate understand Vatican Council II as I do ?

The Apostolic Commissioner of the Franciscans of the Immaculate (F.I) who approves of Fr.Angelo Geiger F.I, has asked the members of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate to accept Vatican  Council II.
Could the Franciscans of the Immaculate accept Vatican Council II as I, Lionel do ? So far there has been no criticism from Fr.Geiger.However neither has there been approval or comment on this important subject.
Here is the original blog post which I sent him.

I accept Vatican Council II.
However I accept that salvation mentioned, referred to or alluded to in Vatican Council II is invisible for me and visible only for God. Since it is invisible for me in 2014 there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There is nothing in Vatican Council II which contradicts the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Do you also believe that all salvation referred to in Vatican Council II is invisible for us on earth ?

So being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) is irrelevant to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the saints Robert Bellarmine, Francis of Assisi and St.Anthony Marie Claret ?
I am not denying Vatican Council II. I am only denying that being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) etc, can be visible in the flesh for all of us. I am accepting invisible for us LG 16 as a possibility. I am denying explicit for us LG 16.
I am affirming the baptism of desire in faith. I am denying that it is defacto and visible to us human beings.
This would mean all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and others need 'faith and baptism' (Ad Gentes 7) to avoid Hell and there are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II ?

This is the traditional teaching that Dignatis Humanae(DH),Vatican Council II asks us Catholics to proclaim.DH mentions that we have the religious liberty, in a state with a secular Constitution, to proclaim traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.
So what about the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) ? Would it be sufficient for you if they affirm Vatican Council II just like me?
And what about Fr.Stefano Mannelli F.I and other members of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, could they also accept Vatican Council II just like me?




Can the Franciscans of the Immaculate accept that all salvation mentioned, referred to or alluded to in Vatican Council II is invisible for them and visible only for God. Since it is invisible for them in 2014 there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There is nothing in Vatican Council II which contradicts the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church ?
 
 
They would not be denying Vatican Council II. They would only be denying that being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) etc can be visible in the flesh for all of us. They would be accepting invisible for us LG 16 as a possibility. They would be denying explicit for us LG 16. 
-Lionel Andrades

Dave Armstrong let me ask you what I have asked Fr.Angelo Geiger F.I

A comment on the apologist Dave Armstrong blog.
March 1, 2014
Dave Armstrong interprets Vatican Council II and accepts the Novus Ordo Mass using the irrational premise

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/dave-armstrong-interprets-vatican.html#links

Dave Armstrong agrees he uses the irrational premise ?

He assumes that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2014?

Dave Armstrong, a Catholic, assumes that the baptism of desire is explicit and visible for us and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

He uses this same principle to assume that Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Is this not heresy? Is this not irrationality?
__________________________

Dave responds:
"You can't talk about abortion because you're not a woman!"

The topic is not baptism of desire.
___________________________

Dave let me ask you what I have asked Fr.Angelo Geiger F.I.
First of all I,Lionel, accept Vatican Council II.

However I accept that salvation mentioned, referred to or alluded to in Vatican Council II is invisible for me and visible only for God. Since it is invisible for me in 2014 there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There is nothing in Vatican Council II which contradicts the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Do you Dave also believe that all salvation referred to in Vatican Council II is invisible for us on earth ?

So being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) is irrelevant to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the saints Robert Bellarmine, Francis of Assisi and St.Anthony Marie Claret ?


I am not denying Vatican Council II. I am only denying that being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) etc, can be visible in the flesh for all of us. I am accepting invisible for us LG 16 as a possibility. I am denying explicit for us LG 16.

I am affirming the baptism of desire in faith. I am denying that it is defacto and visible to us human beings.

This would mean all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and others need 'faith and baptism' (Ad Gentes 7) to avoid Hell and there are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II ?

This is the traditional teaching that Dignatis Humanae(DH),Vatican Council II asks us Catholics to proclaim.DH mentions that we have the religious liberty, in a state with a secular Constitution, to proclaim traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.

So what about the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) ? Would it be sufficient for you if they affirm Vatican Council II just like me?

And what about Fr.Stefano Mannelli F.I and other members of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, could they also accept Vatican Council II just like me?



-Lionel Andrades


http://socrates58.blogspot.it/2014/02/peter-kwasniewski-fr-thomas-kocik-and_26.html

Fr.Angelo Geiger will not say that he finds nothing wrong with my interpretation of Vatican Council II. Neither will he say he approves of it and the SSPX and the F.I could use it

Fr.Angelo Geiger was critical of the founder of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate and the Traditional Latin Mass was made an issue.On his blog he is critical of Michael Vorris, Patrick Archbald and the SSPX.
He comments on Michael Voris' programs and Patrick Archbald's articles but will not reply when I ask him if he has objections to the way I accept Vatican Council II.
Voris and Archbald who have his attention could observe that a Catholic lay man has asked the priest , Fr.Angelo Geiger F.I if the SSPX and the F.I could accept Vatican Council II as he does and is reported on the blog Euharist and Mission.Here is a copy of the post.
 
I accept Vatican Council II.
However I accept that salvation mentioned, referred to or alluded to in Vatican Council II is invisible for me and visible only for God. Since it is invisible for me in 2014 there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There is nothing in Vatican Council II which contradicts the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.Do you also believe that all salvation referred to in Vatican Council II is invisible for us on earth ?
So being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) is irrelevant to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to the saints Robert Bellarmine, Francis of Assisi and St.Anthony Marie Claret ?
I am not denying Vatican Council II. I am only denying that being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) etc, can be visible in the flesh for all of us. I am accepting invisible for us LG 16 as a possibility. I am denying explicit for us LG 16.
I am affirming the baptism of desire in faith. I am denying that it is defacto and visible to us human beings.
This would mean all Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and others need 'faith and baptism' (Ad Gentes 7) to avoid Hell and there are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II ?

This is the traditional teaching that Dignatis Humanae(DH),Vatican Council II asks us Catholics to proclaim.DH mentions that we have the religious liberty, in a state with a secular Constitution, to proclaim traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.
So what about the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) ? Would it be sufficient for you if they affirm Vatican Council II just like me?
And what about Fr.Stefano Mannelli F.I and other members of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, could they also accept Vatican Council II just like me?
 
 
Fr.Angelo Geiger will not say that he finds nothing wrong with my interpretation of Vatican Council II. Neither will he say he approves of it and the SSPX and the F.I could use this interpretation of Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades