Monday, August 8, 2016

Catholics confused with the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre and supporters

Catholics are confused with the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre, Chris Ferrara, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari and others.
Their version of Vatican Council II is now obsolete.Since it was done with a false premise.
Vox Cantoris, Louie Verrecchio, John Salza and others cannot think for themself or they emotionally need Christopher Ferrara to think for them.Then Ferrara will only follow the line of Lefebvre even though a false premise is the basis of his theology

-Lionel Andrades



For all of them (FSSP,SSPX,liberal rabbis, Vatican Curia etc) there are exceptions to the traditional salvation theology associated with the 16th century missionaries

SSPX, FSSP Latin Mass in Rome today a rupture with Tradition but not for me

Traditionalists like Chris Ferrara and Bishop Fellay have been in ignorance all this time. The error was there before them but they did not notice it. Now it must be quote a job, for those who discern, to say that they had made a doctrinal mistake

Remnant Newspaper removes comment : Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Fellay holy cows

FULL CIRCLE: it is important to reject the SSPX doctrinal interpretation of Vatican Council II based on ' a known catechumen'.The SSPX misleads Catholics

Archbishop Lefebvre's modernism has had a big influence in the Catholic Church : Church Militant TV also promotes it

Archbishop Lefebvre was a modernist too Christopher Ferrara must concede this

Did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre realize that the baptism of desire(BOD) issue was a mistake and there really was no BOD?

The 'wrong definition of church' the new ecclesiology has come from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 error which was approved by Archbishop Lefebvre, the traditionalists of his time and the SSPX bishops and priests

SSPX theologians have to decide if Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism, can there be two interpretations of the Council ? : one has the hermeneutic of continuity the other of rupture

You conclude BOD is an exception to the dogma EENS. This is heresy.It is liberalism. It is what the SSPX would call modernism.Due to this irrationality you and the SSPX are interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition

Nearly a year and sedevacantists will not answer if LG 16 refers to an invisible case : SSPX lay supporter suggests it is an invisible case but does not want to be quoted

The SSPX is interpreting LG 16 as being physically visible for us. If they assume it is invisible for us, Vatican Council II changes.The reconciliation process with the Vatican changes

Now it is being asked who was this catechumen who was originally saved without the baptism of water which he desired before death ? How could there be a known case? How could any one know of any one who is saved without the baptism of water ?

Prominent lay supporter of the SSPX still does not want to be quoted : Can you see people in Heaven?

You tell me. Can you physically see people in Heaven? Can you see or meet someone in 2016 who is also Heaven?


Too many people are agreeing with me.They understand Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a doctrinal and objective mistake. He contradicted common sense and the Principle of Non Contradiction

Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops have made a mistake.It is a magisterial error approved by Cardinal Ratzinger as CDF Prefect and now as Pope Benedict XVI

Archbishop Lefebvre was correct. Vatican Council II ( with known BOD and I.I) is a rupture with Tradition : He used the premise which was an innovation in salvation theology, in the Fr. Leonard Feeney Boston Case

There is no denial from traditionalists and pro SSPX bloggers.Archbishop Lefebvre made a doctrinal mistake.It was an objective mistake.He contradicted common sense and the Principle of Non Contradiction

Double speak from Signatories: Appeal to Cardinals

Archbishop Lefebvre's Letter to Confused Catholics indicates he did not know of an alternative interpretation of Vatican Council II which had the hermeneutic of continuity and no ambiguity

This was how Archbishop Lefebvre, Michael Davis and the Hildebrands interpreted Vatican Council II, it still is the interpretation of the Remnant and Wanderer news media

Sell out by Archbishop Guido Pozzo and the Vatican : they refuse to interpret Vatican Council II without an irrational premise and conclusion

No response from David Domet, Louie Verrecchio and Boniface when I say that they can interpret Vatican Council II with invisible for us LG 16, LG 14 etc being just invisible.That's all

Theological bankruptcy

No comments: