Thursday, March 19, 2015

How can everyone be wrong and only you be correct

A few years back I criticised a video by Robert Sungenis on outside the Church there is no salvation in which he said that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma. Robert then wrote a clarification saying that what I said is not the teaching of the Church.The Church accepts this category of people as exceptions to this dogma. He asked me to post his view on my blog and I did so.
His message like many other good Catholics is : either the magisterium is correct or you are. The entire Church cannot be wrong.
'You should have a little humility,' said an SSPX priest to me in Rome. 'Every one cannot be wrong.' A sedevacantist also criticised me for going against the general teachings of the Catholic Church.
This is exactly the point I am trying to make. A mistake was made in 1949 and every one in the Church accepted it since the magisterium cannot be wrong.Here is the error.Here are the three points. This is the missing link missed out by so many .
1.Someone in the past is an exception to the dogma on March 19.
2.Someone living will be an exception to the dogma today since he will be saved without faith and baptism.As if we can know!
3.Someone in Heaven is an exception to the dogma on earth.As if we can see people in Heaven.
For the SSPX Pope Pius XII was a good pope and so he could not have made a mistake. For them it was Fr.Leonard Feeney who was wrong.
O.K then how can being saved in invincible ignorance and implicit desire be exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Feeney, when you consider the above three points? 
Often I am told that St.Emerentiana went to Heaven without the baptism of water ( as if we can know). Fine, say she did go to Heaven without the baptism of water, how can something which happened centuries back be an exception to the dogma today? So also with the Good Thief on the Cross.
In Vatican Council II there are so many references to non Catholics being saved, or there being salvation with implicit desire or in invincible ignorance. Then it is implied that these cases are examples of salvation without the baptism of water. Then it is implied that these cases are exceptions to the strict interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney!
How could they  been an exception when you consider the three points above.
Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicsm refers to a non Catholic being saved with the 'seeds of the Word'(AG 11). Apply the three points.
1.Someone in the past is an exception to the dogma on March 19 since he was saved with 'seeds of the Word'. A hypothetical case is a defacto exception to the dogma today!
2.Someone living today will be an exception to the dogma  since he will be saved without faith and baptism and with the 'seeds of the Word'.As if we can know!
3.Someone in Heaven saved with the 'seeds of the Word' is an exception to the dogma on earth today.As if we can see people in Heaven who can also be seen on earth. The dead man walking!
 
Bishop Fellay ,the SSPX Superior Generals and theologians say that UR 3,NA 2 are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma.Is this real?
So if the magisterium, the popes and cardinals say that there are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma they conflict with the three points mentioned above.
Even a non Catholic when he understands this would say that they have made a mistake.They made a mistake in the Boston Case.The non Catholic would know that someone in the past or in Heaven cannot be an exception today to all needing to formally convert into the Church. Also we cannot tell when someone today is going to be saved in future without faith and baptism.
This was the error made by Fr.Jonathan Morris when he said that every one need not enter the Catholic Church for salvation.The error was picked up by Michael Voris. Fr.Jonathan was implying that he knew of non Catholics who will be saved without being formal members of the Church. Who are they, Michael Voris asked him on Church Militant TV.No response from Fr.Jonathan.
Archbishop Augustine Di Noia in an interview with Edward Pentin for the National Catholic Register said with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus that not everyone needs to enter the Church since he knew of some good Protestants who would be exceptions.This is the magisterium!
This is the irrational reasoning also of Bishop Richard Williamson.
It is with this reasoning that Vatican Council II emerges ambiguous instead of traditional for Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Robert Sungenis and Michael Voris.It is also a break with the dogma for the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the communities of Fr.Leonard  Feeney in the USA recognised by the Church.
The liberals like Cardinal Kaspar are interpreting Vatican Council II with this irrational reasoning.So the Council is a break with the strict interpretation of the dogma and they are glad. The traditionalists are not aware of this irrational reasoning.They also use it. Since,'how can the magisterium make a mistake?'
-Lionel Andrades

Bishop Richard Williamson will consecrate a new bishop not knowing all this

Williamson (left) with FaureBishop Richard Williamson and the SSPX (Resistance) still do not know the following.
The Good Thief on the Cross or St.Emerentiana cannot be exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma. Since they existed centuries back. Exceptions must exist in the present times. Something or someone can only be an exception today. A possibility cannot be an exception to the dogma today.

Every exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation has to happen today.Otherwise it will not be an exception today.
An exception to the dogma on salvation must happen in the present times, today,living memory, existing time, visible and concrete, March 19,2015, Feast of St.Joseph.
 Something in the past cannot be an exception to the dogma on March 19.Something that will happen in the future cannot be an exception to the dogma on outside the church there is no salvation.This is elementary. Something that happens in Heaven and is known only to God, cannot be an exception on earth to all needing to convert formally into the Church in March 2015. Elementary philosophy.
So if someone dies in invincible ignorance ( with or without the baptism of water) it would be known only to God. The same would be true of implicit desire for the baptism of water.
The message of the dogma is related to today.All need 'faith and baptism' for salvation today.All need to convert today into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.
Even if someone were to die without faith and baptism ( which is not de fide) we would not know of any exception today.he would be invisible and unknown to us. These persons would be dead and in Heaven.
If a pope, cardinal,bishop or magisterial document infers that there are exceptions today it is false.It has to be rejected.This is common sense.
Vatican Council II mentions being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.We must not infer that these cases are exceptions to the dogma.
The dead -past, present or future- cannot be exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church today.Cardinals Marchetti and Cushing in 1949 did not know of any exceptions.At Vatican Council II ( 1960-1965) no one there knew of anyone saved without faith and baptism.
When Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus were issued neither did Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger know of any exceptions to the dogma.
There is no known case of salvation outside the Church i.e without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.So why do the Catechism of Pope John Paul II, Dominus Iesus, Redemptoris Missio and other magisterial documents, imply that there is salvation outside the Church? Yet they do.So does Bishop Williamson.
We have found the missing link.Here are the errors.
1.Someone in the past is an exception to the dogma on March 19.
2.Someone living will be an exception to the dogma today. He will be saved without faith and baptism.
3.Someone in Heaven is an exception to the dogma on earth.
  The magisterium has made a factual error and Bishop Richard Williamson  has not noticed it.Since he makes the same mistake. He and the SSPX also assume that there are explicit exceptions to the dogma based on these three points above. 
When he was in the SSPX he made this mistake with reference to Feeneyism in an article published on the SSPX website. So today he cannot   say that Vatican Council II  affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma since for him there are exceptions in Vatican Council II.
 
Bishop Williamson will consecrate a new bishop not knowing all this.-Lionel Andrades
 



The two hermeneutics depend on the use or omission of the irrational premise from Marchetti's letter http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/the-two-hermenutics-depend-on-use-or.html 



SSPX show the Vatican the Marchetti error carried over into Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus and other magisterial documents

January 13, 2015
Cardinal Muller's doctrinal error placed on the Vatican website!

The SSPX must be prepared for the CDF's wrong arguments









 





 

The 'mainstream' Church has to begin the reconciliation process with doctrinal truth.They have to admit that there are no exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS, on March 19,2015

19 March 2015

SSPX and Unity

Posted by

As a beneficiary of blessed Benedict XVI's ecumenical goodwill, an Ordinariate Catholic naturally prays that the SSPX communities, to whom Benedict also reached out, might also receive the same joys and the same benefits as we received.
Lionel:
There is a problem here. The Ordinariates are interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This would be expected of the SSPX too. The premise used is irrational and there is no correction coming from the Holy See.There are many reports on this issue on the Internet. It is being ignored by the Vatican.They are not saying that there cannot be any exception mentioned in Vatican Council II to the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
_____________________
I hope that the SSPX will soon have a canonical status which will protect its distinctive charism as an authentic part of the Latin Church.
Lionel:
However like the FSSP they will be allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass and not affirm in public the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).So in silence they will have to accept the Church rejecting an ecumenism of return and the need for non Christians to formally convert into the Church for salvation.
The SSPX and the SSPX Resistance are presently not expected to accept this heresy. They are independent of the Vatican Curia.
_________________________
Williamson (left) with Faure
I write this on the Feast of S Joseph, Patron of the Universal Church, a day this year made that bit less joyful by Bishop Williamson's sad if characteristic decision to create a new schism and himself to become a non-Catholic by incurring excommunication latae sententiae and conferring that same excommunication, with his own two hands, upon his consecrand. But let us today consider the SSPX itself, which so wisely dissociated itself from this Wyccamical eccentric.
Lionel:
Due to the priority given to the political Left, Bishop Richard Williamson could not be accepted in the Catholic Church,all these years after the lifting of the excommunication. This was possible for Bishop Bernard Fellay.Until March 18, 2015 Bishop Williamson did not commit any moral error, or heresy of faith.Yet there was no mercy extended to him.Even the Jubilee Year of Mercy, it  is expected, will exclude him, for political reasons.
If the Holy See chooses to interpret Vatican Council without the false premise there can be a reconciliation with the traditionalists.The announcement has first to be made by the Holy See. There is no reconciliation, now only for political reasons.
Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Di Noia assured the liberal rabbis, via La Stampa, that any reconciliation with the SSPX will not hinder 'good relations' with the Jewish Left. The cardinals were referring to Catholic doctrine acceptable to the Left.
_____________________________

Nothing is gained by the present situation between the SSPX and the 'mainstream' Church. Absolutions are given and Marriages solemnised which are of doubtful (or if you prefer it, doubted) validity.
Lionel:
Since priests in the 'mainstream'Church do not accept the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS for political reasons, they permit interfaith marriages.They do not tell the couple that they will be living in adultery.Absolutions and dispensations are easily given.
Both spouses need to be Catholic in a sacramental Catholic marriage. Since outside the Church there is no salvation.
For the mainstream Church there is salvation outside the Church i.e being saved without faith and baptism which is considered an exception to the dogma on March 19. For the Vatican Curia there are known exceptions, for example, to  all needing to formally enter the Church on March 19,2015.Cases from past centries are considered exceptions on March 19.2015. Deceased and hypothetical cases are considered objective and defacto exceptions. This was the original error in 1949 which has been accepted by the magisterium today.
The SSPX will have to overlook these interfaith marriages. Couples will have to be allowed to live in adultery and the marriage will be solemnised with some ritual or process.
_______________________________
Who gains from maintaining that situation? If some piece of canonical ingenuity, without necessarilly granting full faculties to SSPX clergy, were at least to eliminate this particular pastoral anomaly, who would be the loser? Would a shepherd who achieved this end not smell of his sheep? Would this not be Merciful? Is the SSPX not a Periphery as deserving to be reached as any other?
Lionel:
Yes there should be a reconciliation but this is not possible since the 'mainstream' Church is following the political left. This is the doctrinal position of the Vatican Curia.It is also that of Fr.John.
________________________________

The SSPX can currently set up a Mission in an area where the local bishop may have well-founded reasons for prefering this not to happen. But because of the present situation, there is nothing he can do to prevent it. Paradoxically, the Society, because it is deemed to be canonically non-existent, actually has complete freedom of action! So how does the bishop gain from this situation? Similarly, I know a town, not within these Three Kingdoms, with a well-established SSPX presence where, after Summorum Pontificum, the local bishop started up an EF Mass at exactly the same time as the SSPX Mass, thereby denying traditionally inclined laity the pastoral flexibility of two different Mass-times. The SSPX has no redress against such obvious, and childish, 'spoiling' tactics clearly designed to hamper, wound, and divide its pastoral mission.

Nobody apart from the Evil One gains from the present stand-off. If I'm wrong, tell me who
does.
Lionel:
Fr.John Hunwicke also gains when he does not affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. This is accepted by the Left within and without the Church.
Fr.John  will also interpret Vatican Council II with an irrationality since he is not a Feeneyite!!? To interpret Vatican Council II in line with the centuries old interpretation of the dogma would be Feeneyism, a political term of the Jewish Left.It is a pejorative term  used  to reject the traditional teaching on salvation and the need for non Catholics to convert into the Church. Even traditionalists reject Feeneyism like the liberals.
________________________

The Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus has a number of provisions to the effect that an Ordinary of an Ordinariate can do X or Y or Z "after consulting with the territorial bishop";
Lionel:
The priest  in the Ordinariate  is obligated to interpret Vatican Council II with an irrationality. Otherwise he will lose his canonical status. The same would apply to Fr. John.
________________________
or "after hearing the views of the Episcopal Conference". This gives an Ordinary the right to do these things without consent, but gives him a powerful incentive to act collaboratively.
Lionel:
How can the Episcopal Conference accept Vatican Council II interpreted in line with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS ? This is unthinkable in leftist England.
_______________________
Likewise, the bishop or the conference may be the more likely to act reasonably because they know that their failure to do so could lead to unilateral action by the Ordinary.

Isn't this exactly the sort of arrangement which would enable the SSPX and the 'mainstream' Church to grow in trust?

Lionel:
The 'mainstream' Church has to begin the reconciliation process with doctrinal truth.They have to admit that there are no exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS, on March 19,2015. Fr.John could help them by making an announcement on his blog saying ' We Catholics do not know of any exception to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So there cannot be an exception,  in Vatican Council II to EENS'. From here there can be a process of reconciliation.
Can Fr.John make this rational statement on his blog?!
_____________________________
To move gently, perhaps through some intermediate stages, to full integration? Wouldn't this make it easier for the SSPX to move gradually and consensually without abrupt moments which might precipitate schism among those of its members who, because of past wounds, find trust the more difficult?

Who would lose?

In the present situation, the SSPX has no input into Episcopal Conferences, or the Synods in Rome ... so who, except 'liberals', gains from this muting of the witness of the SSPX? Certainly not the 'traditionalist cause' in the Church.
Lionel:
Episcopal Conferences, or the Synods in Rome use an irrational premise and conclusion in the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II. The liberals gain especially since the traditionalists, like Fr.John, are ignorant of the premise and conclusion which creates the hermenutic of rupture.
Other traditionalists who are aware of the irrationality do not want to come out into the open and rock their careers.
_______________________________

If it ceased to be irregular for a would-be seminarian to choose a SSPX seminary, might not 'mainstream' seminaries be incentivised to bring the Formation they offer more into line with what Canon Law and Veterum Sapientia require?
Lionel:
The issue is doctrine.Why would an SSPX seminarian want to go to a pontifical seminary which interprets magisterial documents with an irrational premise to reach a non traditional conclusion ?
________________________________
Market forces! Might the more bullying of the staff in 'liberal' seminaries be less inclined to 'sack' a seminarian with traditional instincts if they knew he could knock on another door, and be welcomed?
Lionel:
Would the SSPX seminary after three years have to accept the present interpretation of Vatican Council II, which is a break with the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma, using an irational premise and conclusion? The FSSP have to do just that.Any priest FSSP who does not obey will get a warning from the Rome Vicariate.
__________________________________

Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican seminaries have traditionally done 'exchanges'.
Lionel:
Since they all reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus so it was possible.
___________________________
Who loses if SSPX seminaries join in? Which part of Unitatis redintegratio encourages the warmest sentiments between Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox but demands that Western Catholic groups which have slipped into a canonically anomalous state have got to be kept at arm's length and treated like naughty schoolboys who deserve only relentless discipline until they abase themselves sufficiently low?
Lionel:
According to Ad Gentes 7 Vatican Council II, Protestants, Anglicans and  Orthodox Christians need 'faith and baptism' for salvation. They formally need to convert into the Church according to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441) to avoid the 'fires of Hell'.The mainstream Church rejects both Ad Gentes 7 and Cantate Dominio. So the doctrinal problem originates with the Holy See and not the SSPX. They need to make the correction, if they are allowed, politically.
_____________________________

In France and England, there are hundreds of little used churches and empty presbyteries. Who would lose if the SSPX had a free hand to hoover the cobwebs out of some of them?
Lionel:
They would be permitted to use the churches if they gave up the SSPX General Chapter Statement saying that they affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions.
-Lionel Andrades
 
 



If the Holy See chooses to interpret Vatican Council without the false premise there can be a reconciliation.The announcement has first to be made by the Holy See

 
 

CONFERMA. Priore Monastero - Santa Cruz: Mons. Williamson consacra

CONFERMA. Priore Monastero - Santa Cruz: Mons. Williamson consacra domani
faure-lefebvre
Padre Faure con Mons. Lefebvre e Padre Alfonso de Galarreta (dal 1988: “Mons. Alfonso de Galarreta”). Domani anche Padre Faure dovrebbe diventare “Mons. Faure”.
Dom Tomás de Aquino (OSB), priore del Monastero di Santa Cruz presso Nova Friburgo, ha confermato con un discorso la consacrazione di domani.
Padre Faure diverrà vescovo per l’imposizione delle mani di Mons. Richard Williamson, invocando lo “stato di necessità”. Chi volesse diffondere questo testo di Radio Spada è pregato di citare la fonte.
Ecco il video con le dichiarazioni:




http://radiospada.org/2015/03/conferma-priore-del-monastero-di-santa-cruz-mons-williamson-consacrera/

Cheating and Unfaithful - Michael Voris


St Patrick's Day parade

Cheating and Unfaithful -Michael Voris
https://youtu.be/AL7OfU88H50
https://youtu.be/uOqd-Q39Snc



Cardinal Dolan's Press Handlers Rough Up Catholic Journalist at the NYC St Patrick's Day Parade
https://youtu.be/Y0r88DhCt2A



http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/mar/17/revelers-celebrate-new-york-st-patricks-day-parade

If the Holy See chooses to interpret Vatican Council without the false premise there can be a reconciliation.The announcement has first to be made by the Holy See.


Holocaust-denying bishop makes waves again with consecration
By NICOLE WINFIELD


VATICAN CITY (AP) — A Holocaust-denying Catholic bishop who made headlines in 2009 when Pope Benedict XVI rehabilitated him and members of his breakaway traditionalist society is heading for new trouble with the Vatican.
Lionel: He has not denied that the Holocaust happened.He has questioned the figure on the number of people actually killed in the Holocaust. He denies that they were killed in gas chambers.He acknowledges that there were hundreds of thousands killed in the Holocaust.
________________________________

Bishop Richard Williamson is planning to consecrate a new bishop Thursday in Brazil without Pope Francis' consent — a church crime punishable by excommunication.
The Rev. Rene Miguel Trincado Cvjetkovic confirmed the planned consecration of the Rev. Christian Jean-Michel Faure in an email to The Associated Press. The consecration was first reported by the traditionalist blog Rorate Caeli.
Williamson, Trincado and Faure have all been, or are in the process of being, kicked out of the Society of St. Pius X, which was formed in 1969 by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in opposition to the modernizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council.
Lionel:'Modernizing reforms of Vatican Council II' is also a term of the Jewish Left  media, as is 'Holocaust denying', for revisionist theories.
They mean Vatican Council II interpreted with an irrational premise and conclusion which comes from the Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani Letter of the Holy Office in 1949.It was supported by the Archbishop of Boston Richard Cushing and the Jewish Left media in Boston.
We cannot know any exceptions in the present times, today, this year, to the dogma. So Vatican Council II cannot  contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma. There canot be any exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma. Ad Gentes 7 indicates all Jews and other non Catholics need to convert into the Church with 'faith and baptism' to avoid Hell. Vatican Council II is traditional on other religions and an ecumenism of return. APP always ignores this point. Protestants and Orthodox Christians do not have Catholic Faith which includes the Sacraments and the faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church, through which Jesus saves. Non Christians do not have 'faith and baptism'.
The strict interpretation of  outside the Church there is no salvation supports the necessity of all political and social systems having as their basis the Social Reign of Christ the King. This would be opposed by APP.
____________________________
They have opposed the society's recent efforts at reconciliation with the Holy See.
Lionel:The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX)  have really opposed the Holy See's position on Vatican Council II interpreted with the irrational premise and conclusion.Since this  makes the Council a break with the strict interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.
If the Holy See chooses to interpret Vatican Council without the false premise there can be a reconciliation.The  announcement has first to be made by the Holy See.
_____________________________
In 1988, the Vatican excommunicated Lefebvre, Williamson and three other bishops after Lefebvre consecrated them without papal consent.
In 2009, Benedict removed the excommunications in a bid to bring the group back into full communion with Rome and prevent further schism. But an uproar ensued after Williamson said in a television interview aired just before the decree was made public that he did not believe Jews were killed in gas chambers during World War II.
Lionel: The uproar was created by the Jewish Left. They were supported by the Catholic bishops conferences.So Pope Benedict who orginally defended Bishop Williamson, saying that he was free to have a personal opionion, backtracked.His Jesuit spokesman was criticized for the initial comment.
Under further politcal pressure Pope Benedict  announced that he did not know of Bishop Williamson's mistake before.In other words if one denies the exact Holocaust figure acceptable to the Jewish Left , he deserves to remain excommunicated.
__________________________________
Trincado said neither Williamson nor Faure fear a new excommunication "because what we intend with this consecration is to preserve the true Catholic faith from the greatest crisis that the church has suffered in her history."
Lionel:They will be excommunicated by a pope who has denied in public Catholic teachings on faith and morals. His pastoral approach permits the Traditional Latin Mass to be offered by only those who do not affirm in public, the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, supported by Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7).The popes also expect Catholics, like APP, to interpret Vatican Council II with Marchetti's irrational theory.
All this would warrant automatic excommunication under other popes.
____________________________________
The Rev. Robert Gahl, a moral theologian at the Pontifical Holy Cross University in Rome, said the planned consecration incurs automatic excommunication for both Williamson and Faure.
He said the church is concerned because "such an act of disobedience" can deepen the schism across generations because of the attempt to make a new bishop who is capable also of ordaining priests.
Lionel: Professors of theology at the Holy Cross University in Rome, the Opus Dei university, are interpreting Vatican Council II in a heretical way but since it it politically correct with the Left no one is being excommunicated there.
They do not admit  that exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma,  must exist in the present times. Something or someone can only be an exception today. Every exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation has to happen today.Otherwise it will not be an exception.
Something that happened in the past cannot be an exception to the dogma on March 19, the feast of St.Joseph.
Something that will happen in the future cannot be an exception to the dogma on outside the church there is no salvation.
Something that happens in Heaven and is known only to God, cannot be an exception on earth to the dogma today;someone in Heaven cannot be an exception to all needing to convert formally into the Church on March 2015.He cannot be seen or known personally.
The message of the dogma is related to today,present times, this year. All need 'faith and baptism' for salvation today.All need to convert today into the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.
Even if someone were to die without faith and baptism ( which is not de fide) we would not know of it today. He would not be an exception to the dogma today.So when Vatican Council II (LG 14,AG 7) mentions being saved in invincible ignorance or with implicit desire for the baptism of water it is superflous.It has no bearing on the defide teaching of the dogma on salvation.
So if a pope, cardinal , Opus Dei professor or magisterial document infers that there are exceptions today it is false.It has to be rejected.This is common sense.The dead -past, present or future- cannot be exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church today.So there cannot be exceptions in Vatican Council II to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma.There never were. Since the pope promotes this heresy no one is excommunicated at the pontifical universities.
-Lionel Andrades