Monday, August 18, 2014

Sedevacantists "traditionalists in name only" share the same very mistake with the liberals Novus Ordo Catholics-Cantarella

Avatar
Cantarella said:
The Holy Office 1949 made a mistake.

 As you know, I for one question whether the Cardinal actually wrote that letter, or whether it was edited.  Certainly the fact that it was released in 1952, after the Cardinal had died, and published only in Cushing's rag raises the suspicion of funny business.
Cantarella:
 It is possible. Whoever actually wrote the letter, aligned himself with the partisans of error. The enemies of the dogma and the Church are responsible of spreading this letter and carrying the error over Vatican II documents as to give the impression to the world that the Roman Catholic Church has changed Her salutary dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and could live in harmony with the world. They were very successful in doing this as it is easily seen nowadays.

What is beyond comprehension though, is that the sedevacantists "traditionalists in name only" share the same very mistake with the liberals Novus Ordo Catholics they abhor and furthermore, they promote and spread this error, as coming from the devil himself.

It is evident that the deceiver of humans, the father of lies, Satan, is behind the negation of EENS, as it gains him billions of souls every single day. It is the same old lie. At the beginning of the century, Satan used the progressive liberal thinking plaguing and infiltrating the Church to this purpose as it was fitting to the age and what was appealing to the world. Nowadays, Satan does the same very thing but hides behind the "traditionalist movement" making Catholics sour and bitter and against each other but still, the same EENS denial prevails! more especially, in the radical minded sedevacantists. 

Hopefully, the good willed soul who reads this is able to perceive the diabolical mastery of the whole thing.

St. Michael, pray for us!

The Holy Office 1949 made a mistake. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani assumed there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus-Cantarella, CathInfo forum

Avatar
 The Holy Office 1949 made a mistake. Cardinal Marchetti-Selvaggiani who issued the Letter of the Holy Office assumed there are known exceptions to EENS (those saved in invincible ignorance or implicit desire) as these cases could ever be de facto visible cases.

Denial of EENS paves the way to the indifferentism, universalism, and false ecumenism of the day.
  -Cantarella

The SSPX uses the same irrational theology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in its interpretation of Vatican Council II

The Society of St.Pius X uses the same theology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949  in its interpretation of Vatican Council II.
 
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
1.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949( also referred to as the Suprema Haec by progressivists) assumes that all salvation in Heaven ( baptism of desire, invincible ignorance etc) are physically visible on earth. These visible in the flesh cases of the deceased who are now saved and in Heaven, it is inferred are explicit exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.THEY ARE VISIBLE IN THE FLESH CASES.
This irrationality forms also the thelogical understanding of Vatican Council II for the SSPX and the liberals.
 
VATICAN COUNCIL II
2.The SSPX rejects Vatican Council II since for them  being saved with ' a ray of the Truth(NA 2), imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3), elements of sanctification and truth(LG 8), invincible ignorance(LG 16) ARE ALSO VISIBLE IN THE FLESH CASES. So for the SSPX they are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Since there are visible in the flesh exceptions in Vatican Council II to extra ecclesiam nulla salus the  SSPX  rejects Vatican Council II.
The same error is there also in the Letter of the Holy Office but the SSPX accepts the Letter of the Holy Office. Archbishop Lefebvre approved the Letter of the Holy Office.
Archbishop Lefebvre made the same irrational error in the interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office and Vatican Council II.
The liberals use the same irrationality.They however except Vatican Council II.
Ambrose on the forum CathInfo notices: .

 It is good that you see this, because there are many who falsely attribute the teaching of the 1949 letter(Letter of the Holy Office) with Vatican II theology.
  1

When the SSPX bishops and priests are  aware of this error they simply have to affirm that all salvation in Heaven is visible and known only to God and is not physically visible to us on earth.
This will set things right.
 Catholics will understand.
 They will see that Vatican Council II is traditional.-Lionel Andrades 




1.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=33276&min=9&num=3

Fr.Francois Laisney and CathInfo are a block to the SSPX Reconciliation

Ambrose on the Cath Info forum cites Fr.Francois Laisney's book Is Feeneyism Catholic ?. 1.He concludes that it is Catholic Teaching.
Ambrose says:
 I am defending Catholic Teaching right before your eyes.  You have been deceived by heretics.  The door is always open for you to recant, don't let your stubbornness stop you.

Fr.Francois Laisney is a priest of the Society of St.Pius X and this book is published by the SSPX. In this book Fr.Laisney assumes that the baptism of desire is visible to us. Then he concludes that this visible to us baptism of desire is an explict exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
 
He does not realize that the baptism of desire is always implicit, invisible, subjective, theoretical and only hypothetical for us.Hypothetical cases cannot be known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in 2014 for salvation.There are no exceptions.
It is this error which the SSPX has extended to Vatican Council II.It is blocking their reconciliation.
 
In a previous post I wrote:
The Society of St,.Pius X (SSPX) priests and leadership are afraid to admit that there is a a rational interpretation of the Council and it is in accord with Sacred Tradition.
Lay Catholics, friends of the SSPX must not allow the progessivists to take advantage  of this general ignorance.2
There is is one simple step required for this reconciliation.It is this.
The SSPX must admit that all salvation in Heaven is not physically visible and known to us in 2014.These persons are seen and known only to God.
Now with this rational statement, appeal to the SSPX to do theology and philosophy.
Also ask them to have the integrity to answer questions about the Catholic Faith and to admit when they are irrational and wrong.
Ask Bishop Bernard Fellay and the SSPX priests how can they imply that Nostra Aetate 2( saved with a ray of the Truth)  is an exception to Tradition? (Do they know any case in 2014 ? Does Vatican Council II say that these cases are known to us? Does Vatican Council II say that these cases are an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?)
 
Fr.Francois Laisney and CathInfo do not realize that if there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to extra ecclesiam nulla salus the Council is traditional on other religions.If the Council is traditional then it is not a block for the SSPX being reconciled.
-Lionel Andrades
 
1.
 
2.

Reconciliation with the SSPX
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/reconciliation-with-sspx.html

 

Another baptism of desire list in which it is assumed that the deceased are visible to us

Avatar
Ambrose on the forum CathInfo says that the Church teaches the baptism of desire and baptism of Blood which he assumes are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus .If they are exceptions then these cases must be explicit. If they are not seen in real life how can they be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
 
So here is his list. Except for the Holy Office 1949 none of those whom he has mentioned states or infers  that the baptism of desire is explicit for us .Neither is it said that they are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
It is Ambrose who assumes that the baptism of desire and blood refer to explicit, visible cases in the present times.He infers it! The text does not mention it!He infers that these cases are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The text does not state this.
 
The Holy Office 1949 assumes that the deceased now in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire are explicit for us.The dead are visible for us! So these deceased are saved outside the Church. So these deceased, the Holy Office inferred are explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
The SSPX like Cath Info makes the same mistake as Ambrose.
Here is Ambrose's list.

The fact is that the Catholic Church teaches Baptism of Desire and Blood. 

This teaching has been taught by the Church by:

The Council of Trent,
The Catechism of the Council of Trent (St. Pius V),
Many Popes,
The Holy Office,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Bernard of Clairvoux,
St. Bonaventure,
St. Catherine of Sienna (in her dialogues with God),
St. Robert Bellarmine,
St. Alphonus Liguori,
St. Pius X,
Pope Pius XII,
The Code of Canon Law,
All Dogmatic Theologians in the last millennium,
Dozens of approved Pre Vatican II Catechism,
All approved Catholic books published in the last 1,000 years,
And the list can go on.

Do not be tricked by sophistries out of your Catholic Faith.


Before the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 the catholic Faith did not consider the Baptism of Deisre as an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.How can the deceased be exceptions?
Implicit baptism of desire is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So for instance, St. Catherine of Siena could refer to someone who may have been saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance and she , at the same time, also believed that all need the baptism of water with no exceptions, for salvation.It is only because Ambrose assumes that the baptism of desire is explicit for us that it becomes an exception for him.
-Lionel Andrades
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Lest-Anyone-Think-I-am-Exaggerating-About-These-Heretics

I reject an explicit baptism of desire and affirm the traditional and centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.If it is not explicit it is not an exception

Matthew the responsible on the traditionalit forum CathInfo states:
4. I ask all "combatants" to remember that you're not going to convince your opponent to switch over to believe in BoD or Feeneyism. You can argue until you're blue in the face, sling around all the mud you want, and get all bent out of shape, but in the end you're still COMPLETELY WASTING YOUR TIME.
Lionel:
I believe in the baptism of desire but I do not consider it a visible to us baptism of desire. The Society of St.pius X and Matthew hold this irrationality.Reason tells us that the baptism of desire can only be invisible for us, a possibility but not a known reality.
I affirm the literal and traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I also affirm an invisible for us baptism of desire.This does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.
I reject an explicit baptism of desire and affirm the traditional and centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.If it is not explicit it is not an exception.
So here I am affirming extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also the baptism of desire.
Since for me all salvation in Heaven is visible only to God there is nothing mentioned in Vatican Council II which contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So the 'combatants', Matthew included, are stuck with an irrationality.
The problem arose with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The  Holy Office and the Archbishop of Boston inferred that the baptism of desire was visible for us and so was an exception to the dogma as interpreted over the centuries. This error has been repeated by bishops and priests .Now it is there on Cathinfo.
-Lionel Andrades
http://sspx.org/en/news-events

Another futile discussion on baptism of desire

There is another baptism of desire discussion on CathInfo and this time again no one wants to discuss the following two points. Again they avoid it.
1 We do not know any one in 2014 who has been saved with the baptism of desire.
2.We do not know of any text in Vatican Council II which says that the baptism of desire and being saved in invinible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=33248&min=0&num=3