See there is no clarification or denial from Bishop Donald Sanborn or Fr.Cekada. They are teaching the error since it is politically correct.Fr. Leonard Feeney is the scapegoat.
There position is the same as the liberals and it is useful not be charged with being Anti-Semitic or racist etc. So they maintain their seminary in Florida, while they compromise the Faith and deny it.
I have been writing about this for a long time on my blog.Now even when it appears on Gloria TV they cannot defend themself theologically and doctrinally.
They say that the magisterium of Pope Pius XII condemned Fr. Leonard Feeney and they support the magisterium. Yet they reject the magisterium of Pope Paul VI and Vatican Council II.They also reject the magisterium of Pope Francis and are sedevacantists.
1.I affirm the baptism of desire and for me it is always INVISIBLE.The baptism of desire can only be invisible for us human beings.Why does Bishop Sanborn not affirm this? It is something obvious. Even an uneducated person would tell him that the baptism of desire is always a hypothetical case for us, something speculated.
2.Since the baptism of desire is invisible for us it is NOT an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII made an objective mistake. Why does Bishop Sanborn not affirm this?
3.The same religious who made the mistake in 1949 were active at Vatican Council II. So it was a mistake for Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits to mention the case of the unknown catechumen (LG 14) and being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) in Vatican Council II.They were never relevant to the dogma EENS.
So Vatican Council II can be interpreted with LG 16 and LG 14 referring to hypothetical cases. Hypothetical cases cannot be explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS in 2016.So why does Bishop Sanborn not affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS, as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.?This is how I see Vatican Council II. It is the only rational option possible.
Instead on these three points above the position of Bishop Sanborn is the same as that of the liberals and Masons .So he is not persecuted but tolerated by them.
There position is the same as the liberals and it is useful not be charged with being Anti-Semitic or racist etc. So they maintain their seminary in Florida, while they compromise the Faith and deny it.
I have been writing about this for a long time on my blog.Now even when it appears on Gloria TV they cannot defend themself theologically and doctrinally.
They say that the magisterium of Pope Pius XII condemned Fr. Leonard Feeney and they support the magisterium. Yet they reject the magisterium of Pope Paul VI and Vatican Council II.They also reject the magisterium of Pope Francis and are sedevacantists.
1.I affirm the baptism of desire and for me it is always INVISIBLE.The baptism of desire can only be invisible for us human beings.Why does Bishop Sanborn not affirm this? It is something obvious. Even an uneducated person would tell him that the baptism of desire is always a hypothetical case for us, something speculated.
2.Since the baptism of desire is invisible for us it is NOT an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII made an objective mistake. Why does Bishop Sanborn not affirm this?
3.The same religious who made the mistake in 1949 were active at Vatican Council II. So it was a mistake for Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits to mention the case of the unknown catechumen (LG 14) and being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) in Vatican Council II.They were never relevant to the dogma EENS.
So Vatican Council II can be interpreted with LG 16 and LG 14 referring to hypothetical cases. Hypothetical cases cannot be explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS in 2016.So why does Bishop Sanborn not affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS, as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.?This is how I see Vatican Council II. It is the only rational option possible.
Instead on these three points above the position of Bishop Sanborn is the same as that of the liberals and Masons .So he is not persecuted but tolerated by them.
-Lionel Andrades
October 31, 2016
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/10/cardinal-ratzinger-and-archbishop.html
November 1, 2016
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/sedevacantists-bishop-donald-sanborn.html
November 1, 2016
Atila S. Guimarães and Robert de Mattei wrote books on Vatican Council II not knowing that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II affirms an Ecumenism of Return, Social Reign of Christ the King and no known salvation outside the Church http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/atila-s-guimaraes-and-robert-de-mattei.html
November 1, 2016
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/monsguido-pozzo-secretaryecclesia-dei.html
November 3, 2016
November 1, 2016
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/do-you-think-that-archbishop-marcel.html
November 1, 2016
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/with-feeneyism-no-physically-known.html
October 31, 2016
November 1, 2016
Sedevacantists Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr.Anthony Cekada have still to say : with Feeneyism Vatican Council II affirms an Ecumenism of Return, Social Reign of Christ the King and no known salvation outside the Church
November 1, 2016
Atila S. Guimarães and Robert de Mattei wrote books on Vatican Council II not knowing that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II affirms an Ecumenism of Return, Social Reign of Christ the King and no known salvation outside the Church http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/atila-s-guimaraes-and-robert-de-mattei.html
November 3, 2016
Irrational premises and conclusions: there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/irrational-premises-and-conclusions.html
November 3, 2016
Could you identify the irrational premise and conclusion for me ? / Do you agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion?
Could you identify the irrational premise and conclusion for me ? / Do you agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion?
November 2, 2016
To understand what I am saying you have to identify the false premise and conclusion http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/to-understand-what-i-am-saying-you-have.html
November 1, 2016
In the past the Catholic Church was always Christocentric with an exclusivist ecclesiology.With the innovation of the false premise and conclusion the Catholic Church only remains Christocentric and so no more supports an ecumenism of return.
November 1, 2016
There can only be a clarification if they agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion? This is the central thesis of what I am saying.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/there-can-only-be-clarification-if-they.html
November 1, 2016
So we have two conclusions and two interpretations.One has to be correct and the other wrong.Do you think Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops used the irrational premise and conclusion?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/so-we-have-two-conclusions-and-two.html
November 1, 2016
So we have two conclusions and two interpretations.One has to be correct and the other wrong.Do you think Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops used the irrational premise and conclusion?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/so-we-have-two-conclusions-and-two.html
November 1, 2016
Bishop Bernard Tisseur de Mallerais repeats the error of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: he assumes Nostra Aetate contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Bishop Bernard Tisseur de Mallerais repeats the error of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: he assumes Nostra Aetate contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Do you think that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre also made a mistake in theology and lost the truth?
November 1, 2016
With Feeneyism ( no physically known execeptions to EENS) Vatican Council II changes
Sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn unaware of many philosophical errors in Vatican Council
DECEMBER 15, 2016 Sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn unaware of many philosophical errors in Vatican Council Sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn is unaware of the many philosophical errors in Vatican Council II since he and Fr. Anthony Cekada make …
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment