Bishop Fellay made a mistake and Boniface on the blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam has nothing to say in his defense:agrees Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Augustine di Noia also made an objective error

Bishop Fellay made a mistake 1 and Boniface on the blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam has nothing to say in his defense.2.

I have said on blog posts that Bishop Fellay assumes hypothetical cases are explicit, so they are objective exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Boniface agrees with me.He has read the statement of Bishop Fellay along with my explanation.

Boniface,the founder of the blog,  does not say that Fellay does not assume hypothetical cases are explicit.He agrees with me.Fellay does assume hypothetical cases are explicit in the present times.So there is an objective mistake made by the Superior General of the SSPX and Boniface on his blog agrees.

Then I wrote that Cardinal Gerhard Muller  and Archbishop Augustine di Noia made the same public mistake.Boniface agrees with me here too.He has read their statements in the National Catholic Register and has no arguement in their favour.

He does not support them.The error is obvious.So Boniface cannot say, 'Lionel, there is a mistake in your theology or reasoning'.At the most he will criticize me for spamming.I have been placing comments on his blog calling attention to this issue which he has neglected for years.I have also been pointing out to this same error being taught at the Norcia theology program.

Boniface knows in his heart that I am correct and the three people mentioned in the blog posts are wrong.However his bishop holds the same wrong view. He also knows Dave Armstrong and the priests and professors at the Angelicum University,Rome,whom he admires,  also maintain the same irrational reasoning as Muller, Di Noia, Fellay and his bishop.

All the members of his choir for whom he has had religious programs are using the Muller-Di Noia-Fellay irrattional reasoning.He taught them while confusing invisible cases as visible.Since for him this was magisterial. It was the teaching of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

On traditional issues, like the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation, Boniface uses the irrational premise and conclusion of Muller, Di Noia and Fellay.

So this mistake of theirs,  is obvious for Boniface when he read my blog posts which state Muller-Di Noia and Fellay mistook hypothetical cases as being objective. They wrongly assumed that hypothetical cases were 'real people' in the present times.So there were real exceptions, for them, to the traditional understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

Boniface cannot refute me doctrinally.Since I affirm EENS and also  implicit- for- us- baptism of desire.I reject explicit -for- us- baptism of desire.I also accept Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and reject Vatican Council II ( Cushingite).Nor can he correct me theologically.Since I do not interpret magisterial documents with Cushingism as a theology.I choose traditional Feeneyism instead.

Basically what I am saying is that hypothetical cases cannot be objectively known in our present reality.They are invisible and not visible.So how can Boniface contradict this? But then, how can he also say in public, that I am correct? This is a problem facing other traditionalists too.

He cannot say anything doctrinally or theologically against me when I say that Bishop Fellay made a mistake,even Boniface in the past was pro-SSPX.-Lionel Andrades

1.

Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/muller-di-noia-and-fellay-made.html

Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective mistake : hypothetical cases are assumed to be explicit

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/muller-di-noia-and-fellay-made_8.html

2.

Hey, Lionel...

http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.it/2016/06/hey-lionel.html