Wednesday, July 5, 2017

SSPX must ask Bishops Conferences in the USA, UK, Italy, etc to affirm Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) or not make the Council an issue for reconciliation

The Vatican-SSPX talks are dead if the SSPX does not use Feeeneyism to interpret Vatican Council II.The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Vatican wants to hide the truth.The SSPX cannot accept Vatican Council II ( Cushingite).It is a dead-end.And they are correct in not accepting a heretical version of the Council which is a rupture with Tradition.

The SSPX needs to explore Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and expose the objective error of Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) approved by the present magisterium.

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J must be told in public that there are no practical exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in 2017 and there are no physically known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of one's own (I.I), the baptism of desire(BOD) or the baptism of blood (BOB), with or without the baptism of water.So in Vatican Council II there are no exceptions mentioned to the old ecclesiology.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which Cardinal Ladaria supports made an objective error.So without this mistake, Feeneyism is the interpretative theology for Vatican Council II today.All magisterial documents must be seen through the Feeneyite lens. It is the only rational option.


They should ask Cardinal Ladaria to respond to the blog post,Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.j made factual errors in two ITC theological papers which were politically correct 1. He made an objective mistake in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission where he was the President and Secretary.


Also when he assumed office as the Secretary of the CDF he recited the Profession of Faith( Nicene Creed/ Professio Fideo) based on irrational Cushingism.So it was not 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' but 'I believe in three or more known baptisms, desire, blood and invincible ignorance, and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church'.This is fantasy and heresy.


The same fantasy and heresy was there when Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Di Noia was asked about EENS by Edward Pentin in an interview for the National Catholic Register.They interpreted Vatican Council II with invisible-people-are-visible-Cushingite theology.The CDF should issue a correction.

A correction is also required for Pope Benedict's statement in March 2016.In the Avvenire interview he said that EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries of the 16th century. There was ' a development' with Vatican Council II ( he meant Cushingite).

Similar to Pope Benedict, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, head of the Doctrinal Committe of the USCCB assumed invisible baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance in the present times,were exceptions to the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.In other words they are explicit for him.Otherwise they could not be exceptions.This was the mistake the USCCB made in the Fr.Peter C. Phan case.

Since invisible cases in Vatican Council II; hypothetical cases for us, are visible exceptions to EENS for Pope Benedict and Pope Francis, there is salvation outside the Church for them.So understandably Cardinal Malcolm Ranjit told me that the Syllabus of Errors was no more relevant in the present times for him.There would be a new ecumenism with known salvation outside the Church.

So the SSPX spokesman must announce that in the past the SSPX interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingism and it was a mistake.With Cushingite theology ( invisible people are visible exceptions to EENS), Vatican Council II becomes a break with EENS and the rest of Tradition.

With Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) we are back to the old ecclesiology of the Tridentine Rite Mass. So the Novus Ordo Mass can also be offered with the ecclesiology of the missionaries of the 16th century.There is no development with Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).

The SSPX spokesman should appeal to all Catholic religious communities and ecclesiastics at the CDF, to affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) as they have done( will do).


They should appeal to liberal bishops to ask the FSSP priests to interpret the Nicene Creed only with Feeneyism.Similarly catechesis and religious instruction by Chancery offices must only be based on rational Feeneyism( invisible cases are just invisible).

It is good that the SSPX offers many bouquets of rosaries for a reconciliation in the Church; for unity on doctrine.But if every year I write about the same thing and they do nothing about it they cannot blame Our Lady .Without her help I would not be on this blog for so long and on the same subject.

Doctrinally and traditionally the SSPX are in a secure position. They simply have to present the Feeneyite theology and doctrine in public and every one will understand.If the bishops conferences in the USA, U.K, Germany, Australia, Italy etc will not affirm Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) then the SSPX should ask Pope Francis and Cardinal Ladaria to not make Vatican Council II an issue for the reconciliation of the SSPX.They should be granted a personal prelature and canonical recognition with no conditions and the dialogue can continue.-Lionel Andrades


 MARCH 27, 2017

Council of Trent can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism


I interpret the following terms with Feeneyism and the two popes and the cardinals do so with Cushingism (so does the SSPX).
Image result for Photos of Cardinal Muller and Bishop Sanborn
I use Feeneyism and Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Muller, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Bishop Mark Pirvanus, Bishop Donald Sanborn and the sedevacantists Michael and Peter Dimond   use Cushingism.
Image result for Photos of Bishop Mark PivarunasImage result for Photos of Bishop Sanborn
For me the Baptism of Desire is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.For me Invincible Ignorance is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.For me Vatican Council II is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.
For me Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.For the Dimond Brothers extra ecclesiam nulla salus is Feeneyite but they reject the baptism of desire which isCushingite for them.
For me the Nicene Creed is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.
For me the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Bostonis Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.
I avoid the New Theology, while they uses it.
For me the Catechism of the Catholic Church is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.

The present magisterium separates the baptism of water from the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water.I do not.
-Lionel Andrades

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 (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 the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is a visible case or the SSPX it is relevant to the dogma EENS.
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 it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.
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.
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.
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).
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.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 is 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.
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 the 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.
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.This is a Cushingite interpretation.
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.It is Feeneyite.
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.It's basis is Cushingism.
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 formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite): CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite): CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known exceptions, since God is not limited to the Sacraments.
When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needin to formally enter the Church. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvatioon.
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 Cushingite separates the baptism of water from the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water.

No comments: