Saturday, March 5, 2016

SSPX ask the Vatican to apologise for the excommunication of Abp.Lefebvre and for interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism

Related image
Related image

The SSPX must ask the Vatican for an apology over the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre since now it has been discovered that there is a factual error in the text of the Council and so there can be two interpretations, one rational and the other irrational.

The magisterium was using the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II and was expecting Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to approve it. They interpreted Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and inference and so the Council  emerged as a break with Tradition, in particular the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Archbishop Lefebvre was correct in rejecting Vatican Council II interpreted with the irrationality, which comes from the Letter of the Holy Office and the Baltimore Catechism. However, he like the magisterium, did not know that there was a choice.
Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism ( there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS). Instead they all used Cushingism ( there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS, they include the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, all without the baptism of water).
It was the responsibility of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), to point out the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II.However Cardinal Ratzinger did not do this. Instead he approved the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops who were rejecting Vatican Council II interpreted with Cushingism as a theology.
Cardinal Ratzinger then went on to promote this new theology, which is based on an irrational observation i.e there are people physically visible and known in the present times, who are in Heaven without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
This irrational premise is the basis for rejecting the dogma EENS which says all need to be formal members of the Church ( with faith and baptism) for salvation.
It is a fact of life that we cannot see people in Heaven in the present times, with or without the baptism of water. So there cannot be any exception to the dogma EENS.
An injustice was done to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center by the Archdiocese of Boston and the Holy Office. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake. 
Being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire had nothing to do with the Feeneyite version of the dogma EENS.There are no known cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire etc. These are hypothetical cases. So they cannot be physically seen or known to be relevant to EENS.
This was not known to Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops. They assumed hypothetical cases were objectively visible. So LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc referred not to invisible cases. Instead they were accepted as being visible cases, seen in the flesh. So they wrongly assumed that Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) contradicted the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS. They then rejected the Council.
Related image
The SSPX bishops must now ask the CDF to issue a clarification regarding the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre. The CDF needs to admit thay they were wrong and in magisterial heresy.They also need to admit that Archbishop Lefebvre was correct, as a good Catholic, in rejecting Vatican Council II interpreted with irrational Cushingism.
The CDF also needed at that time to announce that Vatican Council II could be interpreted with Feeneyism and that this was the rational and traditional choice, which they neglected.-Lionel Andrades

Excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre

SSPX must seek an agreement with the Vatican based on rationality

Archbishop Pozzo must not change the teachings of the Church to please his superiors

Abp. Guido Pozzo wants the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II with heresy

Image result for Photos of Editor of Ethika Politica

There is a mistake in Vatican Council II and the editor of Ethika Politika has nothing to say either way

Denzinger's 3870-3873 has a mistake

The Level 4 error is there in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 of Vatican Council II

Vatican Council II is no more an issue.We have found the factual error in the Council and it is linked to the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston: SSPX - Vatican talks

For over two years the falsehood is clear at Dallas but not proclaimed at the local level : from school to university Catholics are taught the false premise

CDF Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis S.j repeats the error of the 1949 Holy Office Letter : the mistake was placed in Vatican Council in so many passages

All Catholics can do the same : interpret magisterial documents with Feeneyism

Pope Paul VI offered the Novus Ordo Mass with Cushingism and the new ecclesiology

Feeneyism according to Wikipedia : with comments

A factual error in Vatican Council II

There is an objective mistake in Vatican Council

I am affirming the offical teaching of the Catholic Church interpreted without the common irrational premise and inference, to achieve a non traditional conclusion.I am not saying anything new.

See the difference!

The Vatican Curia and Newman Theological College,Canada have to use an irrationality to interpret magisterial documents as a break with EENS

Related image

Florida seminaries and universities unaware: Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the theology of Feeneyism or Cushingism