Saturday, January 28, 2017

Bishops Williamson,Schneider make the same mistake as in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case and Vatican Council II

St. Marcel Initiative

Benevolent Ally?

by Bishop Richard Williamson:
A V II bishop wishes Tradcats well? –
But can he see how V II leads to Hell?
His Excellency Richard Williamson
Your Excellency, thank you for much truth that you have had the courage openly to defend, but do understand that the full Truth is much stronger, and more demanding, than you think.
The full truth is not known to either Bishop Williamson or Bishop Schneider.They both are unaware that the interpretation of Vatican Council II depends on the premise used. They have used an irrational premise and don't have a clue.
For me Vatican Council II is traditional since I am aware of the false premise and I avoid it. So the conclusion of my interpretation of Vatican Council II, is traditional.
These two bishops are not aware that the Church made a mistake in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.The baptism of desire etc, refer to invisible and hypothetical cases but not for them.So with this irrational reasoning (visible-invisible confusion) the two bishops to interpret Vatican Council II and then condemn the Council.
 You gave recently an interview to Adelante la Fe. Please do not take it personally if I quote (in italics) a few of your answers and criticize them:—
I am convinced that in the present circumstances, Msgr. Lefebvre would accept Rome’s canonical proposal of a Personal Prelature without hesitation. Your Excellency, that is impossible. Archbishop Lefebvre believed, and proved by argument from Church theology and history, that Vatican II was an unprecedented betrayal, by the highest authorities in the Church, of 1900 years of unchangeable Church doctrine.
Lionel:Archbishop Lefebvre  accepted the new theology.It is based on a philosophical mistake. The same mistake is being made by bishops Williamson and Schneider.
The new theology comes from the Fr.Leonard Feeney case. The magisterium made a mistake.It was the magisterium which was in heresy and not Fr. Leonard Feeney.
The magisterium is still promoting heresy today(2017) in the interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II.
Similarly Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger made the same mistake.
 But official Rome is still following that objectively treacherous Council. Therefore to put the SSPX under this Rome will be to put the fox in charge of the hen-coop. The Archbishop always hoped Rome would come right. It has still not done so.
Lionel:The problem exists since the SSPX has not discovered the irrational premise which Rome uses to interpret Vatican Council II. The SSPX has not asked Rome to interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism.I interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise, there is no is visible for us baptism of desire for me there are no seen in the flesh cases of a non Catholic being saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, for me.For the two bishops there are! This is their inference whether they know it or not.
It is when the two popes interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism that Rome will have come back to the Faith.
Msgr. Lefebvre was a man with a deep”sensus ecclesiae,” or sense of the Church. 
Lionel: Even Pope Pius XII was a man with a sense of the Church..However Pope Pius XII  made an objective mistake in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.The mistake was carried over into Vatican Council II.
Now there are two possible interpretations of Vatican Council II and only one of them is rational and traditional.The rational interpretation is not the interpretation of Rome or the SSPX.
Image result for Bishop Athanasius Schneider
That is true, because above all he had a deep and clear grasp of Catholic doctrine, or teaching, which is at the heart of the Church.
Lionel:They used a new and irrational theology which changed traditional doctrine. It was subtle:So they did not notice it.
 “Going, TEACH all nations,” was Jesus’ last instruction to his Apostles (Mt.XXVIII, 20).
Lionel: Jesus did not say interpret the invisible as being visible.This is the fundamental the error of Bishop Williamson and Bishop Schneider.This was the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The same error is there in Vatican Council II.This cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
 Vatican II betrayed Catholic doctrine, so the Archbishop’s very sense of the Church made him repudiate that Council. Today’s Conciliarists in Rome can never rebuild the Church.
Lionel:Vatican Council II(Cushingite) was a betrayal. Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) is traditional.However this was not discovered and corrected by the Prefect of the CDF or the SSPX bishops.In a sense this too is a betrayal.
He consecrated four bishops in 1988 because he was convinced that there was a real state of necessity. It was the objective crisis that gave rise to the subjective conviction, and not the other way round. Our modern world is mentally sick with subjectivism. The Archbishop was an objectivist.
Lionel:There was a crisis, true. Since the whole Church was interpreting Vatican Council II with philosophical  subjectivism.They were assuming hypothetical and unknown cases of the baptism of desire etc were known and explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was an innovation in the Church.
How can some one in the past, allegedly saved with the baptism of desire (and without the baptism of water) be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 1949? How can someone who lived in the past and was allegedly saved without the baptism of water be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,for the cardinals, who issued the Letter of the Holy Office from Rome ? How can a non-existing person in 1949 be an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church and all needing to be members? 
Secondly who in the past could physically see someone saved in Heaven who was there without the baptism of water? No one! This was all a set up.
If the SSPX remains canonically independent for too long, its members and followers will lose their sense of the need to be subject to the Pope, and they will end up ceasing to be Catholic. The Pope is Pope in order to “confirm his brethren” in the Faith.
Lionel:Pope Francis uses the irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.When he refers to Vatican Council II he is referring to human error and not the teaching of the Holy Spirit. He interprets Vatican Council II assuming there are known cases of the baptism of desire in the past (without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church) who are objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2017. People in the past who do not exist today are visible exceptions to the dogma for him! In this way he supports a new theology which says invisible cases are visible and so there is known salvation outside the Church.So every one does not need to be  a member of the Church for salvation.
This is a new doctrine. The theology is also irrational and new in the Church.
 See Luke XXII, 32. If he is a Conciliar Pope with his faith corrupted by Vatican II, he can no longer give what he has not got. It is by being subject to Conciliar Popes that countless Catholics since the Council have lost the true Faith.
Lionel: Vatican Council II (Cushingite) is a break with Tradition and it has been supported by the magisterium and the traditionalists.Even now after being informed they do not want to choose Vatican Council II(Feeneyite).Since it is a threat to their careers,reputations  or other worldly interests.Who among them is willing to say that all Jews and Muslims in 2017 are on the way to Hell and there are no exceptions according to Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14 etc), the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1257,846)? Cardinal Burke ? Joseph Shaw, John Lamont and Thomas Pink? Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Chris Ferrara? None of them!
No Catholic can pick and choose which Popes he will or will not be subject to. God guides His Church. The present crisis in the Church is unprecedented because never before in Church history has there been a series of Popes out of line with the true Faith as we have seen since Vatican II.
Even the traditionalists like the Popes are out of line with the true Faith.
 This means that Catholics must – exceptionally – judge their Popes, bishops and priests. By this crisis God is purifying His Church, and when the purification is complete, He will grant to His Church a great and truly Catholic Pope.
Lionel:Still the two bishops could make a beginning.They could interpret Vatican Council II without assuming people in the past are exceptions to the dogma today.Or they can clarify that people in Heaven are not visible on earth and so are not exceptions to the dogma in the present times(2017).They could clarify that the present error is not Catholic philosophy or theology.It is not part of the Deposit of the Faith.
I have told Bishop Fellay, we in Rome need the SSPX in today’s great battle for the purity of the Faith. Your Excellency, do believe that Conciliar Rome will do its best to complete the SSPX’s corruption of the Faith. Already the official SSPX has slidden far from the Archbishop’s objective Faith.
Kyrie eleison.
-Lionel Andrades

Vatican chooses interpretation of Nostra Aetate which violates Principle of Non Contradiction but is not anti-Semitic for the Jewish Left.

TapestryRaymond Apple writing in the Jerusalem Post says after Nostra Aetate 'Christianity would never be the same again'.1 He means the Catholic Church has changed with Nostra Aetate since the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been eliminated.Nostra Aetate suggests there is known salvation outside the Church.All do not need to be incorporated into the Church was the message of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which was approved by Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits at Boston College, who also happened, coincidently, to draft Nostra Aetate.
The Letter was kept hidden by the Archdiocese and made public after three years, without the official stamp of Rome.The Letter suggests the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, refer to personally known cases, of non- Catholics saved outside the Church, without the baptism of water.
orthodox rabbis
This was really the landmark document Raymond Apply would be referring to.Since it changed Catholic doctrine.Nostra Aetate reflects this change made with an irrational premise.It creates a new and non traditional conclusion.
If Raymond Apple chose to assume the baptism of desire(BOD) and beign saved in invincible ignorance(I.I), without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church,  as referring to invisible cases, as they are in the present times( instead of visible and known persons) then Nostra Aetate is orthodox.It's very Catholic.
Image result for photos rabbis on nostra aetate
However he uses the false premise ( visible- for- us- baptism of desire) and so the conclusion is non traditional and heretical (there is known salvation outside the Church, so the thrice defined dogma has to be put aside.Cardinal Ratzinger calls the dogma an 'aphorism' in the Catechism).
So without his irrationality and fantasy theology, suggesting we can see people in Heaven who are exceptions to the dogma on earth in the present times, there is no change in Christianity; in the teachings of the Catholic Church.
But this is not how the media chooses to interpret Nostra Aetate.
Image result for photos rabbis on nostra aetate
Tim Valkenberg  makes an interesting observation in his pro-Jewish Left take on Nostra Aetate.2
Yet there were bishops who found the document unacceptable because it said something really new in its positive approach to other religions, and therefore they judged it was not in continuity with the venerated tradition of the Church (just like the document Dignitatis Humanae on human dignity and religious freedom). These are still the Vatican documents least liked by ultra-conservatives.
 The document was obviously unacceptable since deception was used to eliminate a dogma of the Church.The doctrine was changed  on ecumenism and also inter-religious dialogue.It was with a  falsehood of there being known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus that an injustice was done by Cardinal Cushing to Fr. Leonard Feeney.The priest  was not proclaiming any thing new.After the Boston success Cushing placed the deception in Vatican Council II.
So Nostra Aetate suggests that a non Catholic can be saved in his religion, since there were allegedly known cases of non Catholics who were saved outside the Church.
We know this is false. Since physically none of us can know of someone saved outside the Church.If it did happen it would only be known to God.
Image result for photos rabbis on nostra aetate
Secondly if someone was saved in the past as such, it could not be an exception to the dogma EENS. Since that person, to be an exception would have to exist. He would have to live in the present times. For example if there is a St.Emerentiana who was saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water in the past, she could not be an exception to the dogma EENS. Firstly no one could have seen her in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water secondly, assuming she was saved as such ( for arguements sake) how could she in the past be an exception to the dogma EENS, for example, in 2016-2017?. How can someone in the past or future be an exception to the dogma EENS in the present times.They would have to exist in our reality!.They would have to exist  in the present times to be a practical exception.
It is based on such specious reasoning that Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits first misused their power in Boston and then inserted the deception in Nostra Aetate and other documents of Vatican Council II.
Michael Barnes SJ writes  Nostra Aetate 'encapsulates the extraordinary outpouring of the Spirit that characterised the Council’ 3. This is false. Nostra Aetate in particular and Vatican Council II in general reflects a major philosophical mistake in the Catholic Church and this cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. It is human error, an objective mistake.
The liberal Jesuit writes :
In 2008 an initiative of the Anglican Communion, Generous Love, structuring mission in a pluralist world around a Trinitarian vision, acknowledged its debt to Nostra Aetate. In 2000 over 150 Jewish scholars and rabbis published Dabru Emet, a series of statements about what Jews and Christians hold together.
These Jewish Rabbis like the Left in general have made an objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.If they did not use the irrational premise and allowed  hypothetical references to just be hypothetical then Vatican Council II would affirm the centuries old interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is a rational,alternative and traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
This is how I interpret the Council. It is in harmony with the ecclesiocentrism of the past.It is in harmony with the dogma on salvation , for example,as it was interpreted  by the missionaries in the 16th century.So this would be an interpretation of Vatican Council II in harmony with the teachings of the Holy Spirit over the centuries.
However for the Jewish Left rabbis, who in public tell Catholics what they must believe, and indirectly say that the Catholic religion is inadequate and incomplete,  this interpretation of Nostra Aetate would violate their anti-Semitic laws.Nostra Aetate would be racist etc.  
Image result for photos rabbis on nostra aetate
So the present magisterium of the Catholic Church has chosen an interpretation of Vatican Council II which is not anti-Semitic for the Jewish Left but for discerning Catholics, violates the Principle of Non Contradiction.
-Lionel Andrades
Nostra Aetate – 50 years later
28 October 2015 20:59
Has ‘Nostra Aetate’ stood the test of time?
Nostra Aetate – the moral heart of the Second Vatican Council


January 24, 2017

Catechism of the Catholic Church says Orthodox Christians and Protestants oriented to Hell

January 26, 2017

There is a mistake in Nostra Aetate,Vatican Council II and it still is not on the radar of Catholics. No one has reported it yet.

January 25, 2017

Cardinal Richard Cushing and Nostra Aetate picked up the objective error from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949

January 28, 2013


August 1, 2013

Fr.Chad Ripperger and FSSP priests not permitted by the Vatican to affirm the traditional teaching on salvation

 January 14, 2017

Two popes irrational and in heresy : Archbishop Gullickson, Fr.Visintin osb correct