Where is the honest priest, where is the honest traditionalist ? After discussing this issue with a traditionalist from Germany on Youtube he will still not answer if Lumen Gentium 16 on invincible ignorance, refers to a physically invisible case or a physically visible case.
Of course we both know the answer and the conclusion.
But he wants to protect the error of the Society of St. Pius X on their website titled The Three Errors of the Feeneyites. He also does not want to admit that there was a general error on Vatican Council II. Fathers Laisney, Pfeiffer,Hesse, Pierpaolo Petrucci and the SSPX bishops, LG 16 as referring to physically visible cases.So Vatican Council II(LG 16 etc) is a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).Then they blame the Council.
Of course we both know the answer and the conclusion.
But he wants to protect the error of the Society of St. Pius X on their website titled The Three Errors of the Feeneyites. He also does not want to admit that there was a general error on Vatican Council II. Fathers Laisney, Pfeiffer,Hesse, Pierpaolo Petrucci and the SSPX bishops, LG 16 as referring to physically visible cases.So Vatican Council II(LG 16 etc) is a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).Then they blame the Council.
"Can we see people in Heaven ?" I once asked John Salza. He would not answer. He knew the answer but we both knew what would be the inference which would follow and he did not want to displease the SSPX and other traditionalists.He refused to answer if LG 16 was visible or invisible for him.It was the same with Robert Siscoe.
Similarly the sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn would not answer if LG 16 is visible or invisible.After some six months of answering their questions we could not conclude with an answer to this question.They did not want to be quoted.The Dimond brothers at the MHFM act as if they still do not know what I am talking about. Their whole concept of Vatican Council II is based on invisible people being visible.So they do not know from where I am coming from.
It was the same with the German traditionalist and supporter of the SSPX who cited the official website of the SSPX.He really was admitting that physically visible cases of LG 16 etc were physically visible exceptions to the dogma EENS.This was always his interpretation of Vatican Council II. Now he does not want to disappoint his friends or admit that he and they were wrong all these years.He does not want to speak the truth in public though many times he admitted the answer honestly during a long discussion.He will not answer if LG 16 refers to invisible or visible people and for the SSPX and Fr. Hesse was LG 16 visible or invisible. These are two different premises and the conclusions would also be different.-Lionel Andrades
OCTOBER 31, 2015
Sedevacantists after months of discussions cannot answer if Lumen Gentium 16 is explicit or implicit and if it is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salushttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/message-incomplete-four-months-have.html
MAY 11, 2012
JUST ONE SSPX PRIESThttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/05/just-one-sspx-priest.html
JULY 5, 2015
Fr.Pier Paolo Petrucci, the SSPX District Superior acts as if all is normal
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/frpier-paolo-petrucci-sspx-district.html
JUNE 29, 2015
Fr. Pier Paolo Petrucci, SSPX District Superior,Italy keeps silent over this issue for over a year : no clarification
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/fr-pier-paolo-petrucci-sspx-district.html
FEBRUARY 5, 2014
If Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct or wrong, still imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) and the baptism of desire are not explicit for us : no clarification still from SSPX Italy http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/if-frleonard-feeney-was-correct-or.html
MARCH 21, 2016
You can interpret Vatican Council II without the new theology. Try it and see.http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/you-can-interpret-vatican-council-ii.html
AUGUST 10, 2015
Try this experiment. Change your concept and watch Church teachings, doctrines and practice change
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/08/try-this-experiment-change-your-concept.html
November 1, 2016
There can only be a clarification if they agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion? This is the central thesis of what I am saying.
JULY 27, 2015
If Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS where is the doctrinal basis for Bishop Sanborn and Fr.Anthony Cekada's sedevacantism?http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/if-vatican-council-ii-does-not.html
The Council Fathers erred http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/the-council-fathers-erred.html
This is un-precedented. We are faced with magisterial heresy.We have a Council which has approved heresy
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/10640-this-is-unprecedented-situation.html
The Ratzinger Error is there in most of the magisterial documents issued during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II
January 6, 2017
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment