eucharistandmission: Sedevacantist and Roman bishops and clergy want to remain politically correct

Friday, October 9, 2015

Sedevacantist and Roman bishops and clergy want to remain politically correct

Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada sedevacantists have been informed that there is a choice in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. Yet they want to interpret LG 16, LG 8 etc in Vatican Council II as being explicit and not implicit, concrete instead of theoretical, visible instead of visible.

Why would they want to do this, it's just like the bishops and priests in Rome? Both groups the sedevancantists and the Vatican, know it it is irrational. They continue like this since it is politically correct. There are no threats to their property, their churches, their reputation etc.They are not really interested in Catholic doctrine.

If they say that LG 16 refers to an invisible case then it means their politically correct position with the Left has changed. It would mean they were wrong all these years, there was a fault in their reasoning.Since it would mean Vatican Council II now supports the old ecclesiology of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They would be affirming the Feeneyite traditional version of the dogma.

This would mean Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger were wrong in the past but worse still it would put the sedevacantists in the USA in direct conflict with the Jewish Left.

Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada would also be saying, if they made the change, that Vatican Council II says all Muslims need 'faith and baptism' (AG 7, LG 14) for salvation.Now if they admit that LG 16 was not an exception to AG 7, LG 14 it would be saying LG 16 is not explicit and it does not refer to concrete cases. So there are no exceptions then in Vatican Council II to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.
For Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Di Noia Vatican Council II is a break with the Syllabus of Errors since LG 16 is explicit. So they did not celebrate the anniversary of the Syllabus of Errors in Rome.It would also not be politically correct. So they pretend that LG 16, LG 8, UR3, NA 2 etc refer to visible and not invisible cases.

The sedevantists have kept quiet on this issue over the years, even after being informed. It is the same with the bishops and priests in Rome to whom I have spoken to or contacted via fax and the Internet e.g the Auxiliary bishops at the Rome Vicariate.

If they say LG 16 refers to a theoretical and invisible-for-us case and so is not a defacto exception to all needing to enter the Church formally, with faith and baptism there would be consequences. They would be saying the Prophet Mohammad and his companions were on the way to Hell at the time of death.They did not have 'faith and baptism' according to Vatican Council II and not just Catholic Tradition before 1960.

But they are not saying all this.They are part of the world. The prudent.

They dare not say LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc is implicit instead of explicit, invisible instead of visible.

Neither are the priests and bishops in Rome wanting to affirm Vatican Council II in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr. Leonard Feeney.

Life is comfortable in Florida or Rome when Feeneyism is condemned. There is no one to charge you with being Anti Semitic, or racist or an Islamophobe.

It's all peaceful at the sedevacantist Most Holy Family Monastery, in Florida, USA. They are Cushingites and not Feeneyites. All is well. Cushingites say there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Feeneyites say they do not know of any case on earth saved outside the Catholic Church.

To be a Cushingite is to be politically correct with the Masons, the Left and others who oppose the Church.

So the cardinals and bishops in Rome are Cushingites.There is no trouble.

Pope Francis wants the SSPX and the suppressed Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate priests to accept Vatican Council II with Cushingism. This is how he interprets the Council.

For him crypto Lefebvrism is rejecting Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8 etc are visible instead of invisible.They must accept Vatican Council II with LG 16 being explicit instead of implicit to get canonical status or to have their situation regularised.They are already interpreting Vatican Council II with LG 16 being explicit.Unlike the Magisterium they reject the Council and are unaware that LG 16 etc are invisible, implicit and known only to God.
Even conservatives like Fr. John Zuhlsdorf and Michael Voris have compromised. They recently announced that there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They confirmed their Cushingism and protected their worldly interests.

There is a choice there for all. They can intepret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism, i.e LG 16 etc refers to invisible cases.This would mean Vatican Council II is in agreement with the old ecclesiology, the traditional teaching on salvation.But they are not going to put their life style at risk.
The sedevacantist website there is so much talk of theology and the sedevacantism position etc yet Bishop Sanborn and his clergy will not answer the following three points. It would be the same with the clergy here in Rome. They want to maintain the status quo her. It is more important then proclaiming the truth of the Faith, especially in a hostile environment without and outside the Church.

The blog owner at Introibo Ad Altare Dei and the sedevantist bishops and priests are not touching these three points. They want to remain politically correct like their Roman counterparts.

1.1.Baptism of desire (BOD) is not relevant to EENS.So why does Fr. Anthony Cekada say the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary religious, at the St. Benedict Centers USA, are in mortal sin for not accepting BOD with reference to EENS.
2.The SBC say they accept BOD and it will be followed with the baptism of water.These are hypothetical cases. Why does Fr. Cekaga consider hypothetical cases as being exceptions or relevant to the dogma EENS?
3.So why do the professor at the sedevacantist seminary make this claim that they are in in mortal sin? Is he not wrong?
__

So LG 16 is also not an exception to EENS for you?

2
1. We can't see the dead. Period.
Lionel:
Yes that makes sense. So since we cannot see or know the dead- saved in BOD,BOB or I.I and allegedly without the baptism of water,these cases are not relevant or exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). Agreed? This is Feeneyism.You accept this? Are you breaking ranks with Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada?

IAAD does not comment on this too: Is LG 8 (subsist it ) an exception to the dogma? Why is it mentioned on the sedevacantist website?
For me LG 8 like LG 16 is not an exception to EENS. The sedevacantists hold the liberal position on this issue and they do not want to change.
Like priests in the main line churches in Rome, the sedevancantist priests do not want to comment upon this issue.

The subsist it confusion is based on B being an exception to A
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/subsist-it-confusion-based-on-b-is.html

'Subsistit it'(LG 8) is not a VISIBLE exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/subsistit-itlg-8-is-not-visible.htm

-Lionel Andrades

5 comments:

Introibo Ad Altare Dei said...: I just answered your points. You can't answer mine. You claim there are two ways to interpret Vatican II--that makes it heretical!
Pope Pius VI, condemning the Synod of Pistoia, Bull “Auctorem fidei," August 28, 1794:
“[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

"It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.; October 9, 2015 at 4:50 PM
Introibo Ad Altare Dei said...: "In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: WHENEVER IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO EXPOSE STATEMENTS WHICH DISGUISE SOME SUSPECTED ERROR OR DANGER UNDER THE VEIL OF AMBIGUITY, ONE MUST DENOUNCE THE PERVERSE MEANING UNDER WHICH THE ERROR OPPOSED TO CATHOLIC TRUTH IS CAMOUFLAGED.”

Pope Pius VI teaches us that if someone veils a heresy in ambiguity, a Catholic must hold him to the heretical meaning and denounce the heretical meaning which is camouflaged in ambiguity. He points out that heretics have always used such tactics to insinuate their doctrinal errors and heresies. There are countless examples from the Vatican II apostasy that could be given for which this teaching applies. There are plenty of bold and unambiguous heresies taught by the Vatican II sect and the Vatican II antipopes, but there are also countless heresies that are veiled in ambiguity or contradictory statements. The fact that these must be held to their heretical meaning is not just the teaching of the Church, but also common sense.

For instance, if a man says that he is against abortion but sometimes contradicts himself and votes in favor of it, he is a supporter of abortion. He rejects Catholic teaching. Likewise, if a man teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church but sometimes teaches that souls can be saved without the Catholic Faith, he rejects the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. If he didn’t believe in salvation outside the Church he wouldn’t teach it even one time. If he didn’t support abortion he wouldn’t vote in favor of it. The fact that he contradicts himself doesn’t show that he is not teaching heresy. Pope Pius VI teaches that heretics have always used such tactics because they are deceivers and dishonest at their core. Those who say that heretics cannot be held to their heretical meanings because they often state precisely the opposite – even sometimes within the same context – or because they veil it in ambiguity, aid and abet heretics, assist the destruction of the Faith and contradict the authoritative teaching of the Church. And this is precisely the method of the post-V2 popes. Welcome to sedevacantism!; October 9, 2015 at 4:50 PM
Catholic Mission said...: I just answered your points.
Lionel:
You have not answered a single one and it is sad that Bp. Sanborn and Fr. Cekada do not come to your rescue since they have been trained in philosophy and theology and would be able to answer my questions with rationality and logic.
____________________

You can't answer mine. You claim there are two ways to interpret Vatican II--that makes it heretical!
Lionel:
Yes I agree one way is heretical. One way is also irrational.As a lay man if you could trace the irrational one you may also discover the heretical one.
____________________

Pope Pius VI, condemning the Synod of Pistoia, Bull “Auctorem fidei," August 28, 1794:
“[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.
Lionel:
Yes the truth has been compromised here. This is why I keep writing about it.
_________________

"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done,... It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.
Lionel:
An innovation was made in the Baltimore Catechism it was accepted in the otherwise good Catechism of Pope Pius XII it was an innocent mistake. It became Magisterial in 1949 at Boston and was included in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The error was based on an innocent irrationality and so it can be reversed. I write all this, I refer to a Magisterial heresy not to condemn, but so that it can be corrected.
______________

"It is as if the innovators...a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

Lionel:
The error has been insinuated in the Catholic Church and the traditionalists have also accepted it. This was the mistake made by Archbishop Lefebvre in the interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II.He promoted liberalism and no one in the SSPX until today can refute what I say. They know I am correct.
________________________; October 10, 2015 at 8:45 AM
Catholic Mission said...: "In order to expose such snares,... ONE MUST DENOUNCE THE PERVERSE MEANING UNDER WHICH THE ERROR OPPOSED TO CATHOLIC TRUTH IS CAMOUFLAGED.”
Lionel:
Agreed.
So when the Baltimore Catechism suggests the Baptism of desire(BD) and Baptism of blood (BOB)are baptisms like the Baptism of water(BOW) there is ambiguity here.
Since the BOD and BOB cannot be known like the BOW.
They cannot be administered like the BOW.
They depend only on God while the BOW is under our control.
No one in the past has known or see a BOW or BOB case, since that person would only be known to God in Heaven.
So how can zero cases in our reality be relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the necessity for all to receive the baptism of water for salvation.
There is confusion here.
The link was made between BOD and BOW with EENS. In other words BOD and BOB were explicit and known, to be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
How can people in Heaven be exceptions to EENS on earth in 2015 for example? This is irrational.
So there is ambiguity here.
________________________

Pope Pius VI teaches us that if someone veils a heresy in ambiguity, a Catholic must hold him to the heretical meaning and denounce the heretical meaning which is camouflaged in ambiguity.
Lionel:
So you could acknowledge the ambiguity at leaset, as a first step.I have already denounced it.
_______________________

He points out that heretics...this teaching applies.
Lionel:
When you refer to the Vatican Council II apostasy I assume this is based on the online writings of Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada, critical of VC2.
Apostasy is a vague word. I have been precise in my writings.
Bp. Sanborn refers to LG 18 ( Subsistit it). For him LG 8 refers to an explicit case which contradicts the old ecclesiology. There is salvation outside the Church for him.
So he concludes that this is apostasy.
For me LG 8 is not explicit. I have cited two links.
So you could be precise and not ambigous and comment on this.

There is a misunderstanding with Lumen Gentium also in their writings.
How many times have I asked you and them if LG 16 is explicit or implicit?
You probably know the answer by now and may have guessed that the sede position is heretical,ambigous and irrational and so no one wants to answer.
_______________________

There are plenty of bold and unambiguous ... Likewise, if a man teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church but sometimes teaches that souls can be saved without the Catholic Faith, he rejects the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
Lionel:
Agreed.
'if a man teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church but sometimes teaches that souls can be saved without the Catholic Faith, he rejects the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.'
And are you saying this is not the position of the Most Holy Family Trinity seminary in Florida, USA under Bishop Sanborn ?
___________________

If he didn’t believe in salvation outside the Church he wouldn’t teach it even one time.
Lionel:
So you believe in salvation outside the Church as do Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada since LG 8(explicit) refers to salvation outside the Church so you reject Vatican Council II this is apostasy for you.
The faculty at the seminary imply that LG 16 is an exception to EENS. So LG 16 is explicit for them. They use this reasoning to reject VC2.
I do not use this reasoning and none of you will comment on this.
______________________

CONTINUED; October 10, 2015 at 9:13 AM
Catholic Mission said...: CONTINUED
If he didn’t support abortion ... contradict the authoritative teaching of the Church.
Lionel:
Agreed! And tell me how is this not your position?
LG 16, LG 8 refer to explicit cases for you so you reject VC2. This is heresy.
LG 16, LG 8 refer to implicit cases, not visible in the flesh for me , so it does not reject VC2. I accept the Council.This is not heresy.

The BOD and BOB cases for you all are explicit and so this is a rejection of the dogma EENS. This is heresy.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to invisible cases for me and so they are not exceptions to the dogma EENS. I accept EENS and so this is not heresy.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the dogma EENS. The second part of the Letter contradicted the first part.
The second part of the Letter was heresy.It was Magisterial heresy. I accept the first part of the Letter which affirms the dogma and I reject the second part.

You accept the second part of the Letter ( which is heresy) and claim that you also accept the first part. This is ambiguity.
________________

And this is precisely the method of the post-V2 popes. Welcome to sedevacantism!
Lionel:
And this is precisely the method of the trads and sedes.It is heresy and liberalism.
__________________; October 10, 2015 at 9:13 AM

eucharistandmission

Friday, October 9, 2015

Sedevacantist and Roman bishops and clergy want to remain politically correct

5 comments:

Labels

Followers

Blog Archive

eucharistandmission

Friday, October 9, 2015

Sedevacantist and Roman bishops and clergy want to remain politically correct

5 comments:

Labels

Followers

Subscribe To

Blog Archive