There is still no denial from Chris Ferrara. He wrote his book The Great Facade unaware that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism while about every body else was interpreting the Council with an irrational premise.It was Cushingite.
Like Bishop Bernard Fellay and the SSPX priests Lumen Gentium 16 would be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and it would contradict the Syllabus of Errors for Chris Ferrara.So Vatican Council II is rejected as a rupture with Tradition. This was the only understanding Chris had of Vatican Council II.It was all interpreted with the premise.
Now he knows that LG 16 etc would not be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition since it refers to an invisible case in our reality,it is not a practical exception to EENS and the rest of Tradition.That invisible people are visible was the false premise. Invisible people are visible and saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church was the false premise.
Now I assume he knows.
So what does he do ?
He says nothing.
He keeps quiet.
The Council Fathers at Vatican Council II were also Cushingites like him. The liberals and Pope Francis are also Cushingites. Cushingism is a heretical theology.He was not aware of it when he wrote The Great Facade.He accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and assumed that Fr. Leonard Feeney was in heresy and not the magisterium at that time.So he often says doctrine has not changed and that the SSPX is not saying anything new.
Yes the SSPX is saying something new with the use of the new theology to interpret doctrine.
Vatican Council II (Cushingism) is a facade. It is a false Council.It is based on the irrational new theology.
However there could also have been a Vatican Council II Feeneyite in 1965 if Fr. Nicholas Gruner and Chris Ferrara knew about it.They did not. Archbishop Lefebvre also did not know about it and the magisterium did not inform him.
Since then all the traditionalists have been following the wrong lead.
No one told Cardinal Ratzinger that there was a mistake in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case and so Vatican Council II can be re-interpreted in line with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the missionaries of the 16th century.
No traditionalist corrected Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre. This was not mentioned by Bishop Fellay even during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II when he called a Press Conference and criticised the new ecumenism.
No one knew.
The new ecumenism is only there with Vatican Council II Cushingite.
With Vatican Council II Feeneyite there are no exceptions mentioned in the Council II to the dogma EENS( Feeneyite). So there can be no change in ecumenism.We still have an ecumenism of return since the dogma says outside the Church there is no salvation.
However with Vatican Council II Cushingite the dogma EENS is over ruled. Since there is alleged known salvation outside the Church, hypothetical cases are assumed to be known cases of salvation outside the Church.So there is the Anonymous Christian and UR 3 suggests Protestants can be saved in imperfect communion with the Church( as if we can know of such cases) and LG 8 suggests there are elements of sanctification and truth in other religions ( again which are assumed to be non hypothetical and known in personal cases for the traditionalists).
With Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) LG 16, LG 8 and UR 3 are not an issue since they are invisible cases.Nostra Aetate does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the Syllabus of Errors.
But this was not known at that time.
A few years back in a Letter to Friends and Benefactors Bishop Fellay made this very mistake. It can be checked on the Intenet.I have also reported on it a few times on my blog and there was no comment from the SSPX.
Similarly Fr. Pier Paolo Petrucci the Superior of the SSPX in Albano, Italy has also made the same error. He did not know.It was an innocent mistake.
So when are they going to admit that they finally know that there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II one is rational and the other is irrational, one is Cushingite and the other is Feeneyite? There is a choice.We now know about it.
-Lionel Andrades
June 7, 2017
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment