Monday, August 15, 2016

SSPX has changed dogmas and doctrine

The young SSPX priest who offered the Latin Mass at the St. Catherine of Siena chapel in central Rome,today morning said in his homily that the Catholic Church has the full deposit of the Truth.I agree with him but there are such major differences in our understanding of Catholic Truth.
The SSPX Italy's position on Vatican Council II is vague and confusing.There are big gaps.Things they cannot explain.Their ecclesiology has the new theology of the Novus Ordo Mass.It is heretical but the Vatican will not admite it since it is approved by the Left.
Archbishop Lefebvre made the original mistake.He overlooked the error in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office.No one from the Magisterium helped him.
For the SSPX Italy the  baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to real and not imaginary cases.Since they are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.This is the official position of the SSPX.It is there on their English website.
They are unaware of Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and extra ecclesiam nulla salus( Feeneyite).
For them it is has always been Vatican Council II( Cushingite) and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Cushingite).
They proclaim a Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite) but really refer to a Nicene Creed ( Cushingite).
So in reality the SSPX has changed dogmas and doctrine.
-Lionel Andrades



TERMS DEFINED
Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reaoning which says there are no  known exceptions past or present, to the dogma EENS.There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.

Cushingism:  It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes  there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.

Baptism of  Desire. It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it is not relevant to the dogma EENS.

Invincible Ignorance. This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.

Council of Florence.One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.

Liberal theologians.They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.

Vatican Council II(Cushingite). It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Cushingism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.

Vatican Council II (Feeneyite).It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite-one baptism),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and  the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell)
.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.

Baltimore Catechism. It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.

Catechism of Pope X. It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.

Nicene Creed ( Cushingite) It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.
Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite). It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.
New Theology: It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Cushingite) .It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Feeneyite).It  refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to tormally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.
________________________

Lionel: He affirms Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) and the dogma EENS ( Feeneyite) and , is waiting for the rest of the Church to follow.

John Martignoni: The American Catholic apologist.He says the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to 'zero cases' in our reality. So they are not exceptions to EENS.

Fr.S.Visintin osb: He is the  Dean of Theology at the St.Anselm Pontifical University in Rome.He  agrees with Martignoni.
__________________________

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf's heresy


Related image I am reminded of the case of Fr. Leonard Feeney, SJ, who took a hard-line position about the truth of the Catholic doctrine, “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus … outside the Church there is no salvation”.-Fr.John Zuhlsdorf
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/08/a-major-step-forward-in-relations-with-the-sspx-i-hope-so/

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf calls Fr. Leonard Feeney's intepretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as hardline.He infers that there is another interpretation of the dogma defined by three Church Councils.
On other posts on his blog he saw  the Baptism of Desire as a non hypothetical case.So it was a visible exception to the 'hard line interpretation' of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( EENS) by Fr. Leonard Feeney.Similarly according to his previous posts, being saved in invincible ignorance also referred to explicit and non hypothetical cases, known in the present times. So invincible ignorance is an exception to the dogma EENS according to Fr. Z.
Like the liberal theologians in the USA he is  re-interpreting the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as referring to non imaginary cases and so they are defacto exceptions to the dogma EENS in 2016.
At the same time he would affirm the Council of Florence 1441 on EENS.Even though this Council did not mention the baptism of desire etc as an exception. The  text does not refer to any exception.
So for the Internet Padre Vatican Council II is Cushingite and a break with Tradition.While he is not aware of Vatican Council II (Feeneyite),which I affirm, or is afraid to talk about it.
16_08_14_Madonna_del_Soccorso_01
Vatican Council II Cushingite is heretical.Appropriately in another blog post Fr.Z refers to Our Lady the Destroyer of Heresies and ask her to pray for us.
He like the liberals interprets EENS with Cushingism, believes there is salvation outside the Church and there is the Anonymous Christian . So Fr. Z approves of inter-faith marriages.He does not believe the couple are in adultery.Liberal priests are permitting Catholics to marry Protestants and non Christians in church and he approves of it.
Fr.Zuhlsdorf's position on Vatican Council II is vague and ambivalent.Similarly the ecclesiology with which he offers the Traditional Latin Mass is based on the new theology.This is a rupture with the theology of the Latin Mass before the Council of Trent.His theology is heretical but it is magisterial.So he can get away with it.It is approved by the USSCB bishops and the Vatican Curia. It is fantasy theology, which is a necessity for incardinated.Even the SSPX is uses this heretical new theology, the prcedent being set by Archbishop Lefebvre.
Pope Pius XII did not correct the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston while Pope Piux X allowed the error from the Baltimore Catechism to remain snug in his catechism.

WHAT A SCORE
So in Fr. John Zuhlsdorf's 'soft line' interpretation of EENS the dogma is Cushingite.He is in line with the liberal theologians.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to real and not imaginary cases.So it contradicts the dogma EENS according to the Council of Florence.For him the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 did not make an objective mistake and there was no confusion in the Baltimore Catechism and those that followed.

WHAT A CONCLUSION
His conclusion is that Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.
He does not interpret Vatican Council II as a continuation with Tradition and the Feeneyite version of the dogma EENS.He uses the new theology while I reject it.

NEW THEOLOGY IS FLAWED
According to the new theology which is based on Cushingism, there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS and these known exceptions are there in Vatican Council II. So there are objective exceptions to EENS ( Feeneyite) in Vatican Council II.Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) is in sync with EENS( Cushingite).
-Lionel Andrades



TERMS DEFINED

Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reaoning which says there are no  known exceptions past or present, to the dogma EENS.There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Cushingism:  It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes  there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.
Baptism of  Desire. It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it is not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Invincible Ignorance. This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.
Council of Florence.One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.
Liberal theologians.They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.
Vatican Council II(Cushingite). It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Cushingism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II (Feeneyite).It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite-one baptism),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and  the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.
Baltimore Catechism. It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.
Catechism of Pope X. It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.
________________________

Lionel: He affirms Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) and the dogma EENS ( Feeneyite) and , is waiting for the rest of the Church to follow.
John Martignoni: The American Catholic apologist.He says the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to 'zero cases' in our reality. So they are not exceptions to EENS.
Fr.S.Visintin osb: He is the  Dean of Theology at the St.Anselm Pontifical University in Rome.He  agrees with Martignoni.
__________________________


JULY 27, 2016


Cardinal Burke and Fr.John Zuhlsdorf are not speaking with clarity.It needs to be said that all non Catholics are on the way to Hell unless they convert into the Church and Vatican Council II says this. I repeat Vatican Council II says so
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/07/cardinal-burke-and-frjohn-zuhlsdorf-are.html


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


http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/frz-approves-of-adultery-in-inter-faith.html

February 3, 2015 
Rorate Caeili and Fr.Zuhlsdorf's interpretations are politically correct
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/rorate-caeili-and-frzuhlsdorfs.html

If the SSPX is unilaterally accepted by the Vatican it still means that the SSPX is condoning a heretical and non traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II, as is being done by Fr. Z  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/if-sspx-is-unilaterally-accepted-by_13.html