Friday, August 26, 2016

Canon Law could apply to Fr.John Zuhlsdorf in Norcia : promotes a falsehood

Canon Law should apply to those who interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism and so are theologically and doctrinally a break with Tradition,Scripture and the past Magisterium I mentioned in a previous blog post.1
In another blog post I wrote that presently there is a doctrinal ambiguity with the use of  a falsehood to interpret Vatican Council II, which makes the Council a break with the past.
Why must Catholics accept Vatican Council II with this irrationality ? 
Catholics are being forced to proclaim a lie and are persecuted if they do not conform.This is coercion. It is illegal.2

I had mentioned that Canon Law should apply to Msgr. Stuart Swetland since he interprets Vatican Council II irrationally. He assumes hypothetical references are actual, known persons in the present times.

I wrote in response to the debate on Islam mentioned on the blog of Fr.John Zuhlsdorf.What I wrote about Msgr. Swetland could equally be applied to Fr.John Zuhlsdorf.
For both of them Lumen Gentium 16 would refer to a person saved in invincible ignorance in 2016, or in the past,without the baptism of water.Msgr. Stuart Swetland would then conclude that this person is a known exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). Fr.Zuhlsdorf does the same.

They both have  changed and so rejected Feeneyite EENS and they have have changed and rejected the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite).The Nicene Creed's 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' is changed to 'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins they are the baptism of water, desire, blood, invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word etc.' Most of them are without the baptism of water.This is a new doctrine based on a falsehood. The false hood is that there are known cases of the baptism of desire etc.The falsehood is that hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but objectively visible in the present times.

They have  rejected Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) and offer Holy Mass with this first class heresy.

Canon Law should apply to Msgr. Stuart Swetland and popes and ecclesiastics in first class heresy according to the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II.

When Msgr. Stuart Swetland changes the Nicene Creed and the defined dogma EENS,it is automatic excommunication.On many blog posts I have mentioned that Fr.Zuhlsdorf is teaching heresy.

They both are unable to proclaim the Catholic Faith. They are  not faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church. They cannot say that that all Jews,Muslims and other non Catholics in 2016 are oriented to the fires of Hell with no known exceptions ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441, Vatican Council II AG 7, LG 14, Dominus Iesus 20 etc, Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846,1257 etc).Non Catholics do not have 'faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14) and did not convert into the Catholic Church.

According to Canon Law Fr.John Zuhlsdorf needs to affirm all the teachings of the Catholic Church.

1. Explicit for us baptism of desire is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.It's a false inference.There is no explicit for us baptism of desire.This is a lie. For Fr.Z to consider the baptism of desire an exception to EENS ( Feeneyite) would infer that it is explicit and seen in the flesh to be an exception to the exclusivist ecclesiology.
affirm implicit for us baptism of desire.I accept Vatican Council II but without the inference.
2. It is not allowed to deny an ex cathedra dogma, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible teaching' (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).With explicit for us baptism of desire Fr.Zuhlsdorf rejects the dogma EENS(Feeneyite), like the rest of the Vatican Curia.He calls it the hardline position of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
I affirm EENS (Feeneyite) since the baptism of desire etc are implicit and invisible for me. They are not exceptions to EENS( Feeneyite).

To change an present Church teaching with a false inference  is unethical. It is dishonest. 

I am not saying that Fr.Zuhlsdorf is not following the contemporary magisterium.I am saying that he is proclaiming a falsehood.This is a canonical issue.

That the contemporary magisterium is also teaching a falsehood he could confirm and I would agree with him.

As a priest he does not write about the theological  and doctrinal aspect of Islam from a Catholic perspective.Instead he restricts himself to the social and political dimension.

So Canon Law could apply to him in Norcia, Italy where he is reportedly incardinated.

Fr.Zuhlsdorf's new ecclesiology is based on a lie.
His New Theology is based on a lie.
His interpretation of Vatican Council II is based on a falsehood.
He interprets the Nicene Creed with an irrationality and the conclusion is false and irrational and this is not known to Catholics.The falsehood is not known.
So his doctrinal and theological position on Islam would be based on a politically correct lie.
-Lionel Andrades


Canon Law should apply to Msgr. Stuart Swetland since he interprets Vatican Council II irrationally, with Cushingism and has changed the Nicene Creed and the defined dogma EENS


Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate are being forced to lie


Fr.John Zuhlsdorf's understanding of the Church is Christocentric. It is the same as the liberals.He has no concept of a Church with an exclusivist ecclesiology. He has been religiously formed with the New Theology of Rahner and Ratzinger

I am avoiding the New Theology which assumes hypothetical cases are personally known in the present or past times, in particular, the hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf's heresy

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf repeats Marchetti's error on the baptism of blood

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf interprets Vatican Council II with Marchetti's theory so the Council for him is ambigous and a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus 

Fr.Z approves of adultery in inter faith marriages

February 3, 2015 
Rorate Caeili and Fr.Zuhlsdorf's interpretations are politically correct

No comments: