On the websites of the St. Benedict Center, USA there is no citation from Fr. Leonard Feeney saying there are no known cases of Lumen Gentium 16( invincible ignorance),Lumen Gentium 14( baptism of desire), Unitatitis Redintigratio 3( imperfect communion with the Church),Ad Gentes 11 ( seeds of the Word) etc, in our reality. They do not exist as people, real people whom we can see or meet.Physically there are no such people.So that's it.There are no known exceptions to the centuries-old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
No need to go into the all the new theology. There simply are no practical exceptions to EENS.
So Vatican Council II does not contradict Tradition.It does not contradict the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church and the Syllabus of Errors.
I do not know of any quotation from Fr. Leonard Feeney or the dismissed professors at the Jesuit Boston College from the original St.Benedict Center, who made this simple observation about Vatican Council II.
Mons.Joseph Clifford Fenton assumed that there were known cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I).Then there is a reference to Fr.Francois Laisney of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) on a St.Benedict Center website who believes LG 16, LG 14, AG 7 etc refer to known people, visible exceptions to traditional EENS.He interprets the baptism of desire as referring to visible people saved outside the Church.
The St.Benedict Centers have simply to state the obvious. But then they will be in opposition to their liberal bishops who understand Vatican Council II like Mons.Joseph Clifford Fenton, Fr.William Most, Fr.John Hardon and Ludwig Ott.The two popes are also Cushingites.
The Superiors at the St. Benedict Centers, at Still River and Richmond, N.H have been recognized by the Church and they are not affirming Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. Instead they are allowing Vatican Council II to be seen as a rupture with Tradition and this is acceptable for the bishops in New England.
ARE YOU A TRADITIONALIST?
So today people mistake me as being a traditionalist who rejects Vatican Council II since I affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.But I make the visible-invisible distinction.So I do not have to reject Vatican Council II. I can affirm Vatican Council II ( without the premise) and EENS( without the premise).I only have to reject the common Vatican Council II, interpreted with the false premise and EENS, which is Cushingite and not Feneeyite since it is interpreted with the invisible-people-are-visible- false premise
For example the sedevacantists Peter and Michael Dimond reject Vatican Council II since they interpret it with the irrational premise and the conclusion has to be non traditional.There is only one interpretation of Vatican Council II that they know.They have no concept of Vatican Council II without the premise. In their videos this error can be noticed.
They affirm the dogma EENS( without the irrational premise) but their concept of BOD,BOB and I.I is with the premise.So everyone who affirms EENS with BOD,BOB and I.I being exceptions is a heretic for them.I do not make this error. But I am also affirming BOD, BOB and I.I as being theoretical cases. Hypothetical speculation.So BOD, BOB and I.I for all of us can only be an opinion.
I attend Mass in English and Italian.So I am not traditionalist here too. I do not share E.Michael Jones,Christopher Ferrara and the late Michael Davies understanding of Medugorje. The three of them interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with the false premise.So they could also be wrong on Medugorje.Neither am I a liberal who supports Medugorje, attends the Novus Ordo Mass and rejects the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.
I am not opposed to the Neo Cathecumenale Way,Charismatic Renewal and the Focolares.They are making the same doctrinal and theological error as the traditionalists by interpreting what is hypothetical as being physically visible.It is the same with the sedevacantists.I affirm Vatican Council II ( premise free) and EENS( premise free) and most of them do not understand what I mean.
The Superiors at the St. Benedict Centers, at Still River and Richmond, N.H have been recognized by the Church and they are not affirming Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. Instead they are allowing Vatican Council II to be seen as a rupture with Tradition and this is acceptable for the bishops in New England.
ARE YOU A TRADITIONALIST?
So today people mistake me as being a traditionalist who rejects Vatican Council II since I affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.But I make the visible-invisible distinction.So I do not have to reject Vatican Council II. I can affirm Vatican Council II ( without the premise) and EENS( without the premise).I only have to reject the common Vatican Council II, interpreted with the false premise and EENS, which is Cushingite and not Feneeyite since it is interpreted with the invisible-people-are-visible- false premise
For example the sedevacantists Peter and Michael Dimond reject Vatican Council II since they interpret it with the irrational premise and the conclusion has to be non traditional.There is only one interpretation of Vatican Council II that they know.They have no concept of Vatican Council II without the premise. In their videos this error can be noticed.
They affirm the dogma EENS( without the irrational premise) but their concept of BOD,BOB and I.I is with the premise.So everyone who affirms EENS with BOD,BOB and I.I being exceptions is a heretic for them.I do not make this error. But I am also affirming BOD, BOB and I.I as being theoretical cases. Hypothetical speculation.So BOD, BOB and I.I for all of us can only be an opinion.
I attend Mass in English and Italian.So I am not traditionalist here too. I do not share E.Michael Jones,Christopher Ferrara and the late Michael Davies understanding of Medugorje. The three of them interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with the false premise.So they could also be wrong on Medugorje.Neither am I a liberal who supports Medugorje, attends the Novus Ordo Mass and rejects the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.
I am not opposed to the Neo Cathecumenale Way,Charismatic Renewal and the Focolares.They are making the same doctrinal and theological error as the traditionalists by interpreting what is hypothetical as being physically visible.It is the same with the sedevacantists.I affirm Vatican Council II ( premise free) and EENS( premise free) and most of them do not understand what I mean.
I reject Vatican Council II(with the premise) and any other magisterial document interpreted with the false premise.
I do not condemn the traditionalists even though they use a false theology and an irrational philosophy. The error can be corrected.It is not something fixed and permanent error.However today this is also the false interpretation of the liberals and the Masons.-Lionel Andrades
I do not condemn the traditionalists even though they use a false theology and an irrational philosophy. The error can be corrected.It is not something fixed and permanent error.However today this is also the false interpretation of the liberals and the Masons.-Lionel Andrades
November 14, 2017
Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment