Sunday, August 7, 2016

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.


Vatican II is a bad tree bearing bad fruit. It is as simple as that.
Lionel: False.It is not a bad tree bearing bad fruit. When Chris Ferrara and the SSPX interpret LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc as being explicit instead of impliicit, they are using an irrational and false premise. So the conclusion is non traditional and the 'fruits are bad'.The fault is not there with Vatican Council II but with the SSPX.

 And false authority keeps the people oppressed in a lukewarm state.
Lionel: There is also the false authority of the SSPX. Comments on this issue are pulled down by the Remnant Newspaper.They will not discuss it. How can they all make a U-turn on Vatican Council II after over 50 years of error?

 The modernist heretics have done Satan's work well.
Lionel: Archbishop Lefebvre, the SSPX bishops and Chris Ferrara are also modernists. This can be seen clearly for those who want to see.

 The result of the disobedience of our Lady's requests at Fatima is now upon us.
Of course the Church will live on- but for a time, in the catacombs.
Lionel: Hopefully before this time comes  the SSPX and other traditionalists will humbly correct their error on Vatican Council II.


Mr Ferrara makes a point which could perhaps bring into focus better the whole problem. He says: "let me say a few words in defense of Francis...nothing Francis says or does is, in substance, as unprecedented as it might appear".
Rather than go back just two pontificates, he could have gone further, to when things started getting really bad from the beginning of modernism in the 1860's onwards under Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X. These popes were trying to combat the theories inspired by naturalism that were pervading the Church and distorting her teaching.
Lionel: Yes.The result is that the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) has been eliminated with a nonsensical theory.The theory is that there is a known case of a wing a catechumen saved without the baptism of water. This is a hypothetical case but ecclesiastics made it another 'baptism'.They assumed it referred to an  objective and then considered it a known exception to EENS.
In historical terms, I think he would agree Pope Francis' problems started then. Metaphysics had always been a thorn in the modernist's side. The Church's fundamental teachings of Original Sin, Baptism, Holy Mass, Confession, the Immaculate Conception, and the Real Presence depend upon a correct understanding of the Lateran IV dogma of "ex nihilo" Creation. The only way the Church's enemies could undermine the Catholic Faith was to convince the Faithful the origin of mankind was by the natural laws of physics and biology. Darwin came to their rescue in 1859. Amazingly the bishops after Pope St. Pius X gradually capitulated to evolution theory to the point of DROPPING THE TRADITIONAL TEACHING OF CREATION AND ITS METAPHYSICS FROM THE SEMINARY THEOLOGICAL MANUALS! The modernists won, won, won! In consequence, the succeeding generations of clergy have been denied the basic magisterial teachings necessary to defend Revelation.
Lionel: Also it was a denial of the basic traditional magisterial teaching on salvation. It was a rejectioin of the foundational dogma EENS.Other teachings of the Church depend upon EENS  e.g Social Reign of Christ the King, an ecumenism of return, Jews and Muslims needing to  formally convert into the Church to avoid Hell.Then there is the Nicene Creed which refers to one known baptism and not three and Vatican Council II which does not really say that there is known salvation salvation outside the Church, if you don't infer it.
Future priests were taught in their seminaries that they developed over millions of years from anthropoid apes! When the Magisterium is distorted to such an extent, a new ball game gets undeway which has nothing to do with the Catholic Church instituted by Our Lord.
Are not the errors inherent in those twisted dogmas, however heinous, inherited by subsequent Sovereign Pontiffs, the natural products of poisonous modernist roots?
Lionel: The SSPX has accepted the error on there being  physically visible in the present times baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) cases.This was the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mistake. Archbishop Lefebvre did not know there was a choice.BOD and I.I could be interpreted as being implicit for us and known only to God. He never issued a correction.He did not support Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center. So the error was placed in Vatican Council II (LG 14, LG 16) and he still did not recognise it. Until today the SSPX bishops and priests don't seem aware of this error in Vatican Council II and how it can be eliminated to create a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.


It was indeed, Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII and St. Pius X who exposed Judeo-Masonic Modernism and identified it as the primary enemy of Catholicism and did all they could to prevent the spread of the evil philosophy. However, the craft of the enemy infiltrated the Church with hateful Judas-Priests who are now Bishops, Cardinals and possibly even the Pope. We don't know how many thousands of the Judas-Clergy there are but, we can surely tell by their fruits who the most likely candidates are.
Lionel: The  supposedly known case of a catechumen who is an exception to the dogma EENS comes from the enemies of the Church. However this new theology, this irrational theology was supported by Archbishop Lefebvre who was not a Mason.Even Chris Ferrara, Fr. Gruner and John Vennari have accepted the error.Even after pointing it out to them they do not want to discuss it.Unkowingly they are pro-Masonic on this issue.

  It is time we stop theorizing about this or that known heretic whose opinions conflict with our Holy Catholic Church and focus on the real Judeo-Masonic Modernist enemy and the Judas-Clergy they have cleverly sponsored and still do, who we mistakenly call: "Father" "Your Excellency", Your Eminence" and most obtusely "Holy Father". It is also high time that we join together and not allow ourselves to go off on quixotic tangents. I trust that Messrs. Christopher Ferrara and Michael Matt have taken the lead in this Counterrevolution and I think it best that we follow.
Lionel: Chris Ferrara and Michael Matt will not discus this issue. They are not willing to say that the SSPX made a mistake on Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) and that their intepretation of the Council is the same as that of the liberals and the Masons, even though a traditional choice is available.

As Mr. Ferrara appropriately points out, Pope Francis has up to the time of the blasphemous "Amoris Laetitia", been behaving no worse than John Paul II and in fact not anywhere near as proliferate a heretic as the ( saintly ?) John Paul II. Then came "Amoris Laetitia" and with it a profound and counter-dogmatic breach in the two thousand year history of Catholic doctrine and traditional magisterium. This is not just another ambiguous and confusing Freudian Slip, this is theological violence, an attack on Christ, on the soul of the Catholic Church and it must not be treated as if it falls into the same category as ecumenism or religious liberty, as bad as those heresies are. This is much more egregious, an outright deleterious proselytization of an evil counter-Catholic religion that only Satan and Hell can prosper from. Pope Francis is obviously the Pope from Hell. Pray and hope and never give up the Faith no matter what.
Lionel: Before the first Synod meeting Cardinal Kasper in an interview said that if ecclesiology can be changed then why cannot the Eucharist be given to the divorces and remarried.He meant that with known cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, traditional salvation theology on exclusive salvation in  the Church was changed then why cannot there be a change in Catholic moral theology.


I still say Pope John Paul II's "Ut Unum Sint" was way more of a blasphemous and counter-dogmatic breach of 2000 year Church teaching than "Amoris Laetitia"will ever be. Almost everything in "Ut Unum Sint" including using the title itself to promote false unity was already condemned by Pope Pius XI in "Mortalium Animos." This sentence of Pius XI from "M.A." condemning "ecumenism" sums up how devastating the "enticing words and blandishments " of PJPII in "Ut Unum Sint" and his 27 years of ecumenical practice has been to the Catholic Church. "But in reality beneath the ENTICING WORDS AND BLANDISHMENTS lies hid a most grave error, by which the FOUNDATION OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH ARE COMPLETELY DESTROYED." So based on what Pope Pius XI wrote, which I agree with, THE CATHOLIC FAITH has already COMPLETELY DESTROYED years ago by Pope John Paul II's ecumenism. The key word here is COMPLETELY. When something has already been COMPLETE theres not much more anyone, even a Pope can do except maybe to add some more deadly icing to the already poisonous cake PJPII left us.
Lionel: The new ecumenism is based on Vatican Council II's suggesting there is salvation outside the Church.Since LG 16, LG 8 etc are inferred to be known cases in the present times.This is the intepretation of the traditionalists and the Vatican magisterium.
Ut Unum Sint says the pope is necessary for unity and that the Catholic Church is needed for salvation.
It is the implicit rejection  of the dogma EENS by an irrational reading of Vatican Council II which has promoted the new ecumenism.

When we see or know someone commit a mortal sin aren't or at least weren't we taught their souls are in a state of mortal sin?
Lionel: It is a mortal sin to change and proclaim  a new version of the Nicene Creed yet this is being done by the SSPX. It can be seen on line on their website.This is heresy.
Then they are interpreting Vatican Council II ( Cushingite ) with a irrationality. This is heresy.Ferrara will not write or talk about this. He and the SSPX are not interpreting Vatican Council II with the theology of Feeneyism which is Traditonal. etc.etc.


While nobody but Our Lord can judge the disposition of any soul, we do have His revealed Doctrine that rather than following the hard and narrow path which leads to salvation, the great majority will follow the broad and easy path which leads to damnation. AL and this pontificate of false mercy are prime examples of the broad and easy path so of course the great majority will love them.
Lionel: However Chris Ferrara , the SSPX and you Deacon Augustine assume there is the known case of the catechumen saved without the baptism of water who is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. I suppose God will forgive you for this heresy,this mortal sin of faith.Since it is so widespread in the Church?


If nobody but Our Lord can judge the disposition of a soul than there should be no complaints when pro-abort/sodomy politicians like Biden, Pelosi, Kerry, etc. are allowed to receive Holy Communion and also the Pope would be right about permitting adulterers to receive.
Lionel: The Bible tells us that some sins lead to Hell. So we can judge based on the Bible and the Traditional teachings of the Magisterium.
When a  couple who are not married live together it is a scandal and a mortal sin.They are on the way to Hell if they die immediately. We say this not because we can judge peronally with our ability  but this is the teaching of the Catholic Church, according to Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium( in agreement with Tradition and Scripture).We can also judge Pope Francis to be in heresy since he rejects the faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church, which were supported by previous popes.

What's really funny is that if you and I happened to meet up somewhere, and began to start discussing what was going on in the Catholic Church today, we'd likely be in agreement on just about everything.
Lionel: Yes I understand. The liberals and traditionalists agree that LG 16, LG 14 etc refer to known exceptions to the dogma EENS. This makes both groups liberal on the new theology, the new salvation theology and the basis for the new ecclesiology.
If a traditionalist said Vatican Council II is in agreement with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS then there would be a split between the liberals and the conservatives.
Now the conservatives are path of the problem.

Drawing upon multiple perspectives is essential in discerning a course through matters of great complexity. The speculative soft sciences such as sociology, psychology have their place, but to dilute and distort our essential perspective – Jesus Christ – known to us through faith and reason framed in Holy Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Magisterium – is senseless. And that is what is coming across through this pontificate. Simple stupidity.
The problem is compounded.
The contemporary magisterium has made an error and are interpreting Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and conclusion when a rational option is there. This is  supported by Chris Ferrara and the traditionalists.
Many who read the Remant are not aware of this.
Ferrara and the EWTN are on the same wavelength here even though the former may criticize the latter.

Too harsh, without proper understanding. The episodes and texts used, alone, do not give a correct picture of JPII's and BXVI's teaching.
Lionel: He does not say that the SSPX is part of the problem.

Lionel: It's not ahout their teaching!! Don't miss that.Since there teachings are as false as that of Chris Ferrara. They are all making the same doctrinal error and so are unaware of it.The pastoral novelties reflect the 'doctrinal novelties' with the new premise ( visible for us BOD instead of implicit for us BOD) and false conclusion( visible BOD is an explicit exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS, so Vatican Council II is a break with EENS as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.).


Precisely. Sound doctrine can and will be undone by praxis that is not sound.
Lionel: Presently we have new doctrine on the Nicene Creed, the Athanasius Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II. The issue is there is false doctrine accepted by Chris Ferrara and the traditionalists and of course the contemporary magisterium too.

 If, for example, a priest writes and preaches the unadulterated truth about Christ and Church but, because he hopes not to offend non-Catholics and thereby ease them toward the Church, also co-celebrates worship services with Protestants and talks up Rabbinic Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism as great religions that tell truth, then his pastoral actions undercut his sound teaching.
Lionel: However if a priest says there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS then his doctrine and praxis will be non traditional. This is what is happening with the interpretation of Vatican Council II.

 In fact, those pastoral approaches ruin his sound teaching, rendering them wasted breath and ink.
Lionel: At issue is 'the sound teaching'. How can LG 16 refer to a visible exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
How can we pray, 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin'(Nicene Creed) and mean there are three or more known baptisms without the baptism of water? The issue is doctrine here!
Why cannot I interpret Vatican Council II with LG 16 being implicit for us and so LG 16, LG 8, NA 2 etc are not exceptions to the old ecclesiology based on extra ecclesiam nulla salus? Why is the old ecclesiology in harmony with Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) not sound doctrine for the SSPX and the Vatican Curia?
The Vatican II documents, with all those ambiguous statements, made such contradictions in the life of the Church inevitable.
The ambigous statements come from Chris Ferrara and the SSPX mixing up hypothetical references as being explicit in the present times. Then they conclude that Vatican Council II is a break with the Feneeyite interpretation of EENS.
There is no amiguity for me when I read Vatican Council II which is in harmony with the old exclusivist ecclesiology. I am not obligated to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with the Catholic dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, only because Archbishop Lefebvre did so.
 And just as any small part of a sentence making the whole sentence false, in this game, the pastoral novelties make the truthful assertions false, not to God but to the people of this world.
The LG 16 being-visible-for-us makes the reasoning,of the new  philosophy and theology false.
It is for many best grasped by thinking of the father who rightly declares that drinking by children is wrong, but who when faced with drunken children allows his tenderness for them to absolve them so that not only does he not discipline them; he also takes a nip with them, you know, to prove he is not a self-righteous prig. That father by his actions makes his original words at best a waste of time. His children know them to be worthless, a joke.
That is what Vatican II has produced across the Church.
Lionel: I would not use this analogy.
I just think 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 made a doctrinal mistake.
-Lionel Andrades

No comments: