Friday, March 31, 2017

SSPX was excommunicated because Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops were not aware of the Richard Cushing error



EXCOMMUNICATION OF ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE A MISTAKE
Updated since October 9, 2012 
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/the-sspx-was-excommunicated-because.html

_____________________________

Image result for Chris ferrara Photos

According to Chris Ferrara there are no practical exceptions to the dogma EENS.
Image result for John Martignoni Photos
According to John Martignoni zero cases of something cannot be exceptions to the dogma EENS.
According to Fr. Stefano Visintinosb,Vice Rector of the PontificalUniversity of St.Anselm, Rome,BOD and I.I are not exceptions to EENS.
Image result for Mons. Ignacio Barreiro Photos
So who was in heresy, Fr. Leonard Feeney or the Archbishop and Jesuits in Boston?
Mons. Ignacio Barreiro has said that there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS in the present times.This is common knowledge. 

The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) was excommunicated because Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger did not mention an error in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case which spread throughout the Church. It resulted in the interpretation of the Council which was heretical. It denied the dogma on salvation. He did not know that as Chris Ferrar says that there are no practical exceptions to the dogma EENS.
Pope John Paul II, Archbishop Lefebvre and the four SSPX bishops did not as John Martignoni says, that zero cases of something cannot be exceptions to the dogma EENS.
Even Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI did not know like Fr. Stefano Visintin osb says that the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance are not exceptions to EENS since there are no known cases for them to be exceptions.

The whole process can now be rectified since the problem is in the interpretation and not in the actual texts of Vatican Council II. From the text one can make wrong or correct inferences depending on one of two premises. The premises are 1. The dead for us now saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church  are visible to us 2. the dead for us now saved allegedly without the baptism of water are not visible to us. 

If Cardinal Ratzinger had realized that the problem originated with Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston in the 1940’s, he could have prevented the formation of the SSPX. It was Cardinal Richard Cushing who broke with tradition and created the new doctrine of the explicitly known (formerly implicit) baptism of desire and invincible ignorance. What rationally and traditionally was always considered implicit and known only to God, he posited it as being known to us and so an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma.1

The popes and cardinals at the Vatican supported Cardinal Richard Cushing–from the 1940’s until today. Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith also accepted that the baptism of desire is an explicit exception to the traditional understanding of the dogma, worse still, that we can see the dead alive.

May be he did not realize it, since superficially the baptism of desire seems like an exception to the dogma. Many Catholics make this innocent mistake. I also did so at one time.
POPE GREETS CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGERIf the error was identified at the time of the SSPX split, Vatican Council II could be projected as a traditional Council with no known cases of the visible dead who are saved and who are exceptions to the dogma according to St. Francis Xavier, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Robert Bellarmine, St.Maximillian Kolbe, St. Anthony Mary Claret…

When the ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is ecclesiolcentric, as in the past centuries, then its values on other religions, ecumenism an religious liberty is traditional and according to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

At the time of the SSPX excommunication they could not identify the visible-dead virus which was the cause of liberalism and dissent.

With the visible-dead theory accepted, there remained only one interpretation of Vatican Council II which was a break from tradition. It was rejected by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvere.
Fr.Aldo Rossi, Prior, of the SSPX, Albano, Italy has said has said that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So who was in heresy, Fr. Leonard Feeney or the Archbishop and Jesuits in Boston and the Holy Office in 1949 ?
So  when Archbishop Guido Pozzo Vatican Council II will not be interpreted as a break with Tradition. This is false. In principle the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith can only accept Vatican Council II with Cushingism.So there is no continuity with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), Syllabus of Errors etc. So with this deception he is really justifying the unjust excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre by Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II.Archbishop Lefebvre was correct. Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) does not have a continuity with the past, notwithstanding what Archbishop Pozzo says today.
Archbishop Pozzo could clarify that the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre, since he did not accept Vatican Council II and ordained four new bishops in opposition to the Cushingite Council, was a mistake.
-Lionel Andrades

1.

The SSPX was excommunicated because Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops were not aware of the Richard Cushing error http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/the-sspx-was-excommunicated-because.html

Will Pozzo and Fellay end their fake news and issue a clarification?

Image result for Chris ferrara Photos
I asked in a previous blog post who is irrational and in heresy-the Holy Office or Fr. Leonard Feeney?
According to Chris Ferrara there are no practical exceptions to the dogma EENS.
Image result for John Martignoni Photos
According to John Martignoni zero cases of something cannot be exceptions to the dogma EENS.
According to Fr. Stefano Visintin osb,Vice Rector of the Pontifical University of St.Anselm, Rome, BOD and I.I are not exceptions to EENS.
Image result for Mons. Ignacio Barreiro Photos
So who was in heresy, Fr. Leonard Feeney or the Archbishop and Jesuits in Boston?
Mons. Ignacio Barreiro has said that there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS in the present times.This is common knowledge. We do not have to accept it because the traditionalists says so. This is known to all of us.We do not even have to be a Catholic to confirm this.
Yet this error is ignored by the two popes, the CDF and Ecclesia Die.This is their basic error when they interpret Vatican Council II.
Image result for Photo Guido Pozzo BishopImage result for Photo bishop fellay
So Archbishop Guido Pozzo was false, and he and Bishop Fellay must know it by now, when he says Vatican Council II will not be interpreted as a break with Tradition. In principle it will be accepted as having a continuity with the past.Vatican Council II is always only Cushingite for them.
Image result for Photo of fAKE NEWS
So his recent statement is fake news.It is a political slogan.
1.If needs to first identify Feeneyism and Cushingism as a philosophy and theology and then clarify that there is a Vatican Council II interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism.
2.Then he must admit that he Bishop Fellay and the two popes interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism.
3.Then he could clarify that Cushingism is irrational.It it is based on a false premise and violates the Principle of Non Contradiction.
4.He could then admit that with Feeneyism used as an interpretation Vatican Council II has a continuity with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( Feeneyite), the Syllabus of Errors, the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite), the baptism of desire and blood ( Feeneyite) and being saved in invincible ignorance( Feeneyite).The Council of Trent is interpreted with Feeneyism and not Cushinjgism and so are the popes and saints on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.
So the ecclesiology of the Church before and after Vatican Council II would be the same.It would not be a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
There would be no change in ecumenism and it will continue to be an ecumenism of return.The present new ecumenism is based on Cushingism.So it is assumed there is salvation outside the Church. With Feeneyism ecumenism would still say there is no known salvation outside the Church. So there cannot be an Anonymous Christian theology or a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism.Outside the Church there is no known salvation.
There would  be no change in inter-religious dialogue and all non Christians would need to convert into the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7,Vatican Council II) to avoid the fires of Hell.
Upon the old ecclesiology is based the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State.
So Archbishop Guido Pozzo and Bishop Bernard Fellay could clarify like Chris Ferrara, Ignacio Barreiro, Fr.Stefano Visintin osb, John Martignoni and Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson that there are no practical exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and there are none mentioned in Vatican Council II.
Will Pozzo and Fellay end their fake news and issue a clarification? -Lionel Andrades



MARCH 31, 2017

March

Marching on in March

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/03/marching-on-in-march.html

MARCH 31, 2017


Marching on in March -2

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/03/marching-on-in-march-2.html


 MARCH 31, 2017


Marching on in March -3

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/03/marching-on-in-march-2.html
__________________________


TERMS EXPLAINED
Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reaoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(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.There are exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle, according to Cushingism, hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.
Baptism of Desire (Feeneyite): 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.
Baptism of Desire (Cushingite): It refers to theknown case (not hypothetical) of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is 'a visible case', for Cushingites, it is relevant to the dogma EENS. If it was invisible and unknown it would not be relevant or an exception to the dogma EENS(Feeneyite)
Invincible Ignorance Feeneyite): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.
Invincible Ignorance (Cushingite): This refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS since  it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational and was the Cushingite philosophy and new theology in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The erroe was also placed in Vatican Council II (LG 14 etc).
Council of Florence: One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was Feeneyite.
Liberal theologians: They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They use Cushingism. St.Thomas Aquinas' man in the foreset in invincible ignorance would be a personally known case for them. Similarly the Council of Trent mentioning the case of the catechuman who desired the baptism of water and is saved, would also be an objective and personally known case for them.
Vatican Council II (Feeneyite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II withFeeneyism.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).
Vatican Council II (Cushingite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II withCushingism.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.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston(overall): 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.It was Cushingite.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 Feeneyite). It means accepting the Letter as Feeneyite based on the first part, only.It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.
Letter of the Holy Office Cushingite). It means accepting the Letter as Cushingite  based on the second part of the Letter.It rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( Cushingite-explicit) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( Cushingite-explicit cases) as being exceptions to EENS ( Feeneyite).It worngly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter. The second part of the Letter contradicts the first part.
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.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with this confusion.It can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism.
Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted withCushingism or Feeneyism. For instance, it affirms the Feeneyite understanding of the dogma on all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church as members.However when it refers to invincible ignorance, this can be interpreted with Feeneyism ( not an exception to EENS) or Cushingism ( an exception to all needing to be members of the Church for salvation).
Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism.It is  the baptism of water.It is Feeneyite.
Nicene Creed Cushingite) ; It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and is interpreted as saying 'I believe in three or more known baptisms. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc'.This is a Cushingiteinterpretation. This is the common understanding during the Oath and Vows for religious  with the Nicene Creed and the Renwal of Baptismal vows by the laity during Holy Mass.
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 the past ecclesiocentrism of  Tradition.The  basis of the New Theology  isCushingism. 
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 formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell. This was the interpretation known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
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. 
Catechism of the Catholic Church (Feeneyite): CCC 1257(The Necessity of Baptism) does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction. There are no known cases in the present times of ' God is not limited to the Sacraments'(CCC 1257).So when CCC 1257 says the Church knows of no means to eternal beatutude other than the baptism of water, there are no exceptions in the present times.So if any one does not need the Sacraments and is saved without it because theoretically God is not limites to the Sacraments, this would be a hypothetical and  unknown case.
Also when CCC 846 says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church it  here accomodates Cushingite baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorace.We know that these are invisible cases. So CCC 846 does not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).
Also when CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the  Ad Gentes 7 which states allneed faith and baptism for salvation. This is the Feeneyite way to interpret the 
Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite):CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction when it indicates all need the baptism of water but some do not.Also CCC 846 (Outside the Church there is no salvation) is based on the new theology, it is Cushingite and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS ( Feeneyite).It would be saying all need to defacto enter the Church for salvation but some do not need to. Also CCC 846(Outside the Chirch No Salvation) is based on the new theology.It  is a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite). It would suggest that all do not need to formally enter the Church.Or, all need to enter the Church except for those 'who know' and who are not in invincible ignorance.Or all need to enter the Church as members for salvation except for those who are saved with the baptism of desire and blood without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.These are some of the liberal interpretations when hypothetical and invisible cases are assumed to be non-hypothetical and visible in the interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Council of Trent : A Feeneyite does not separate the baptism of water from the baptism of desire.The baptism of desire will be followed by the baptism of water.
Council of Trent : A Cushingite separates the baptism of water from the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water. -L.A
________________________

March 2, 2017
Who am I (Lionel) and what do I believe in ?