Saturday, June 24, 2017

Brother Andre Marie MICM too is teaching error : Bishop Sanborn cannot report at the Chancery office

Image result for Photo of Brother Andre Marie MICM
Tancred on The Eponymous Flower agrees that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), we cannot physically see or personally know someone saved with the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) or invincible ignorance(I.I).So theoretical and hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I would not be exceptiojs to the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).
Yet when Pope Benedict XVI announced that EENS was no more like it was in the 16th century for the missionaries since there was a development with Vatican Council II there was no criticism from Tancred.

Neither was there any criticism or comment on the website of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, St.Benedict in the diocese of Manchester where Brother Andre Marie,MICM is the Prior.
Pope Benedict was defending his new theology based on invisible people being visible exceptions to the dogma EENS. He could have affirmed EENS ( Feeneyite) in March 2016 by simply saying that there are no exceptions to the dogma EENS( Feeneyite)mentioned  in Vatican Council II.He could have clarified that there is a Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and Vatican Council II(Cushingite).The pope remained as deceptive as ever.
He could also have clarified that when he said that there was a development with Vatican Council II, he was specifically referring to Vatican Council II ( Cushingite).
He did not explain this and neither did Tancred or Brother Andre Marie MICM, at the St. Benedict Center. 
Brother Andre Marie MICM would be teaching error to his students at the St.Benedict Center,Still River when he interprets Vatican Council II as a rupture with the dogma EENS(Feeneyite).

All these years he has been saying that theologically there was no exception to EENS and the BOD is not an exception.
He does not use the other approach.Physically we cannot see or meet any BOD case.We cannot know someone in the present times saved outside the Church.Even in the past no one could say that a particular person was in Heaven without the baptism of water.No one in the past could have seen someone saved with BOD, BOB and I.I instead of the baptism of water.So there are no physical exceptions to the dogma EENS for us humans.This has to be said in public.

Brother Andre Marie would not tell the SSPX priests and lay supporters that there were no objective cases of the BOD.So if there are no objective cases of the BOD, BOB and I.I mentioned in Vatican Council II then there are no exceptions mentioned in the Council to all needing to be members of the Church for salvation.There could be no practical exceptions to EENS mentioned in the Council.So the Council is not heretical.There is a choice.

Now Brother Andre Marie can continue to interpret Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases being non hypothetical, invisible and theoretical cases being mistaken for being concrete and physically known in the present time, or, he can choose the rational version. He can interpret Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical (invisible  baptism of desire is invisible) and so there are no concrete exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Catholic Church, for salvation in 2017.

He must teach his students:
1.Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) is not a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).While Vatican Council II( Cushingite) is a rupture with the dogma EENS.
2.Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, the  Catechism of the Council of  Trent, Catechism of Pope Pius X and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) with Feeneyism as a theology( invisible cases are not visible exceptions to EENS) nowhere contradict EENS ( Feeneyite).
However with Cushingite theology( invisible baptism of desire etc are visible exceptions to EENS) these Church documents would be a rupture with Tradition and especially the dogma EENS.
3.There are no exceptions to EENS mentioned in GS 22, NA 2, LG 8, LG 16, UR 3 etc since they are hypothetical cases. The magisterium, traditionalists, sedevacantists and liberals interpret GS 22, UR 3, NA 2, LG 8, LG 16 etc as referring to concrete and visible cases and so they become a rupture with Tradition. There is a new ecclesiology, with a new ecumenism and understanding of non Christian religions, since there is alleged salvation outside the Church with the false premise of invisible people being visible.LG 16 etc are mistaken to be examples of known salvation outside the Church.
4.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake. It assumed that invisible for us baptism of desire etc was a visible exception to  EENS.
Presently at the St.Benedict Centers in Manchester and Worcester, USA  Brothers Andre Marie and Thomas Augustine respectively criticize Vatican Council II as a  rupture with EENS and they do not differentiate between Vatican Council Feeneyite and Cushingite.
 Vatican Council II Feeneyite is traditional and not a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by Fr. Leonard Feeney or the magisterium in the 16th century.This should be good news for them. But they do not announce it.

They still interpret Vatican Council II like the sedevacantists.
'Is there a continuity between pre and post Vatican Council II?,' sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn ask when  answering a question(1:43:31 ).If there was a continuity, he says, then he would go tomorrow to the Chancery office and submit to the local bishop.
If the Priors  at the St.Benedict Centers could differentiate between Vatican Council II Feeneyite and Cushingite and that there is  a continuity between pre and post Vatican Council they would be helpful for Bishop Sanborn.

Bishop Sanborn has said that  they do not want to be in schism. They would have  no problem in submitting to the pontiff.So there is hope here.Show him the difference between Vatican Council II Feeneyite and Cushingite.

Similarly Dr.Robert Fastiggi, professor of theology at the Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit believes Vatican Council II does not contradict any solemnly defined teaching of the Catholic Church.Again he has to be shown that Vatican Council II (Cushingite) has contradicted the dogma EENS but Vatican Council II Feeneyite has a continuity with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.The  Archdiocese of Detroit only knows Vatican Council II Cushingite.
Dr.Fastiggi says Vatican Council II is protected by the Holy Spirit. We know that the Holy Spirit cannot teach irrationality and error.Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
We have now found the missing link after over 50 years. There can be a big breakthrough back to Tradition - without rejecting Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).
-Lionel Andrades

Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay

 JANUARY 4, 2017

Bishop Donald Sanborn and the sedevacantist seminary in Florida, USA need to remove obsolete information on Vatican Council II and Feeneyism from their website

April 26, 2016

Bishop Donald Sanborn hiding the truth

APRIL 11, 2015

No text in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore or the Council of Trent says there are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

JULY 14, 2015

Vatican Council II (UR ,DH) would contradict Mortalium Animos, Quanta Cura, Syllabus of Errors only if B is an exception to A

MARCH 2, 2015

The Council of Trent, Mystici Corporis no where says that these cases are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Rome made a mistake in 1949

JANUARY 4, 2017
Professors of Philosophy at the pontifical universities in Rome are still refusing to answer simple philosophical questions

No comments: