Monday, February 13, 2017

The SSPX is now condoning Vatican- heresy in exchange for a prelature.

Should the Personal Prelature presented by Rome to the Society of Saint Pius X be accepted?
Lionel:
It should be accepted only if Rome(the Vatican) is willing to accept Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) and reject Vatican Council II (Cushingite).With Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) there will be the old ecclesiology. It was the past foundation for the Church's teaching on ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue and the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legisalation.
This should have been the condition for accepting the Personal Prelature.This would bring Rome back to the Faith as Archbishop Lefebvre sought.
The SSPX is now condoning Vatican- heresy in exchange for a prelature.
_________________________
 Some present their negative opinion, based on the circumstances, but that is a badly formulated quetion. What should be asked instead is this: Can a canonical recognition be rejected when no unacceptable condition is attached to this concession?
Lionel:
To not ask questions when the Vatican affirms Vatican Council II (Cushingism)is an unacceptable condition. False doctrine and theology is being approved by the SSPX.
_______________________
 Abp. Lefebvre never refused a canonical structure by itself, when he was alive.
Lionel:
He did not know that Vatican Council II could be Feeneyite and so also traditional.Neither did the magisterium tell him this.It was amidst this ignorance that he had to leave the Church canonically.
__________________________

 He refused solely the demands conditioning the structure that he had originally sought and obtained, and that was unjustly removed from him. He never wanted to break, our of his own will, the canonical liaison that linked him officially with Rome, and even to this Rome infested with Modernists.
Lionel : They were modernists who were supporting Vatican Council II (Cushingism) and this was the only modernist interpretation of Vatican Council II which was known to Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops at that time.
Now the SSPX bishops have a choice. They can choose Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) which is not a break with Tradition and they can ask the pope to do the same.
__________________________

 Quite the contrary, he refused it: he challenged the publication of the break of this link, and appealed the decisions of the ecclesiastical authorities. Consequently, Abp. Lefebvre never faced the situation in which we find ourselves: the Society is offered a canonical structure unconditionally.
Lionel:
It is not unconditional, I repeat. They have to condone Vatican Council II(Cushingism) which is approved by the Left.
They have not to affirm Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) since for Pope Francis this would be  rigid, triumphalistic, fundamentalist and restorationist.
So there is big condition .
____________________________
 Incidentally, on what basis can it be refused if no condition is imposed (and even if the conditions were neutral), and if one considers that the Pope, due to the divine mandate granted by Our Lord to Peter and his successors, continues to possess the supernatural power of binding and unbinding, despite all his woes?
Lionel:
The SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre opposed the popes on doctrine, principally Vatican Council II (Cushingite).
They are not doing this any more.
They also did not object to the theology of the Vatican Document on the Jews. So they are compromising doctrinally and pastorally to get a prelature.
_____________________________
 Would the current crisis make the primacy of Peter and the power of the keys Catholic truths which are embarrassing, optional, and superfluous?
Lionel:Now the message is that Vatican Council II (Cushingism) is irrelevant.Also Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) is superflous and would be embarassing.
_______________________________
Some could object that the present context does not allow this regularization, and that never has a worse Progressive reigned on the throne of Peter. But a canonical structure is not supposed to last for the time of a single pontificate -- it outlives the Popes who flow by, and its acceptance does not mean a placet for the pontiff of the current moment.
Lionel: 
It means among other things that the SSPX will approve of the Traditional Latin Mass being offered with the new ecclesiology based on Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Cushingism.
They will allow the Traditional Latin Mass to be offered by the FSSP and their priests without the old ecclesiocentrism based on Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) and EENS(Feeneyite).
The Traditional Latin Mass will be offered as a rupture with the past ecclesiocentrism affirmed by the Syllabus of Errors. 
Doctrinally the SSPX has caved.The result will also be seen pastorally.
__________________________

 One could not imagine a regularization under Benedict XVI without foreseeing that it would remain in effect under his successor. 
Lionel:
Pope Benedict XVI was also a Cushingite like Pope Francis. Summorum Pontificum was a sop for the SSPX to accept the new ecclesiology with Vatican Council II (Cushingism) and EENS(Cushingism).
It didn't work. The SSPX did not fall for it.Perhaps because of the confrontation at that time with Bishop Richard Williamson and his supporters.
_______________________________
What is the attitude that should be adopted tomorrow? Should we become Sedevacantists when the pontificates are calamitous and "renege on the contract" according to our whim with the passage of time?
Lionel: Even the sedevacantists are interpreting Vatican Council II and EENS with Cushingism.So the Council is a rupture with Tradition for them.So sedevacantism is not the way out doctrinally.They are in the same ignorance as the SSPX.
________________________________

 This is not at all coherent.
Lionel: The SSPX is not coherent. All these years they made doctrine an issue.Now it is not.
There is an alternative in Vatican Council II and EENS, Feeneyite.May be they do not want to affirm it since doctrinally they would be opposed by the Left.They have removed Bishop Williamson and Fr.Floriano Abrahamowicz for denying the Holocaust figure. So there was no anti-Semitic charge legally against the SSPX.Now if they affirm Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) and EENS( Feeneyite) would they be doctrinally correct but under threat from the Jewish Left ?
Bishop Fellay was never coherent.They were as confused on doctrine as the Vatican Curia.
_______________________________________

 Even if one waits for a very traditional pontiff, there is no assurance that he will not be followed by a disastrous successor. Complete security does not exist on this Earth, and the canonical statute of the SSPX should be able to linger on, whoever may be the reigning pope. It is for this reason that its Superior-General assures himself in advance of its watertightness and of the perennity of its administration in all kinds of pontificates, despite the attacks of all kinds.
Lionel:
Even before he has recived the prelature he has compromised on doctrine and praxis.
_____________________________________

When the Society founded by Abp. Lefebvre is regularized, we can well imagine that the current pope will not touch throughout his pontificate this balance which was sought by all means for forty years. The Curia tried to subjugate the Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) in 1999, and never returned to it, after its failure.
Lionel:
They are subjugated, believe me.There are enough posts on this blog to confirm it. Check it out for yourself.
________________________________________
 By granting, last year, a definitive confirmation of the statutes of the Institute of Christ the King (ICRSS), we can even affirm that the Holy See has internalized the fact that the traditional world was not to be dismantled anymore, and this following the liberation of the Traditional Missal and the recognition of the confessions of the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X. Such is the current situation, even though everything can change as well.
Lionel: The Holy See has brought the traditionalists under control.They offer Mass with heretical theology and new doctrine.They have accepted the new ecclesiology and rejected in public the old ecclesiology.They have with them the liturgy of the Traditional Latin Mass with its rituals and vestments but the theology and old doctrine is not there.Technically they offer the Latin Mass but not the Traditional Latin Mass.
_____________________________________________

The goal of Bp. Fellay, the SSPX's Superior-General, is rather realistic. It is evident that he is not blinded by the current "Kasperism", and that he prefers Summorum Pontificum to Amoris Laetitia... Nevertheless, he considers that it is a matter of justice for recognition to be restored to the Society, a recognition that was unduly removed and that no one in the Church denies to it presently.
Lionel: The recognition comes with conditions however. I have mentioned them above.
______________________________________________
 This is to be done undoubtedly with the Pontiff of the present, who will pass and will be followed by one who is better, or worse. As it turns out, the conditions for accomplishing the regularization have never been as compelling as they are today. It is not an agreement with what Francis does, but a regularization by the Holy See, the Chair of Peter founded, whether we want it or not, by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Lionel: It was with this Chair of Peter that Archbishop Lefebvre broke. Since the Chair was obviously teaching heresy and irrationality in Vatican Council II(Cushingite). It was a rupture with the Chair guided by the Holy Spirit over the centuries.Nothing has changed doctrinally.
The SSPX today however are in a position to demand that the Chair of St. Peter interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with Feeneyism and they too would do the same inspite of the opposition from the political Left.They are not making this demand and have chosen silence and compromise on doctrine.-Lionel Andrades
 http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/02/op-ed-sspx-personal-prelature-will.html#sthash.aTiQIJJQ.dpuf

For Bishop Bernard Fellay and the SSPX priests subsist it is a break with Tradition. The fault lies with their interpretation .It is Vatican Council II (Cushingite).

Image result for photo Vatican Council II bookWhy is subsist it an issue? It is an issue only in Vatican Council II, Cushingite. In Vatican Council II, Feeneyite it is meaningless. It is not a rupture with Tradition and the old ecclesiology.
 
.............."subsists in", utilized in the Vatican II Document, Lumen Gentium. Was there another, more clear cut word that could have been used to express the authors intent? Maybe....what do you think? What word would you have suggested the author(s) use instead, to express more clearly what they wish to accurately convey?
Lionel:
Please note that Vatican Council II has been influenced by the error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. The phrase subsist it refers to a hypothetical case and not a concrete case..So it is not a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite) or the Syllabus of Errors. It does not contradict the old ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
___________________
If I may add a personal note .... I used to think the verbiage used in the Vatican II documents were vague, until, that is, until this present Pontificate began "teaching us".
Lionel:
This pontificate does not acknowledge the factual error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. For the present magisterium hypothetical  cases of the baptism of desire for example, refer to objective persons, known in the present time saved without 'faith and baptism' in the Catholic Church.So the baptism of desire is considered an exception to the dogma EENS(Feeneyite).It would have to be objective to be an exception or relevant to EENS (Feeneyite).Invisible cases cannot be exceptions to all needing to incorporated into the Church as members in the present times. So subsist it would be meaningful for the magisterium.It would refer to visible in the flesh cases.This is Cushingism. Vatican Council II is Cushingite for the magisterium.There are known exceptions to the dogma EENS and LG 8 is an exception. This  was the reasoning in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case, the hypothetical is considered to be concrete.So one has to avoid this reasoning when interpreting Vatican Council II.Be aware of the visible-invisible distinction.
_____________________
Today, what we have, in my opinion, is a resurgence of the Tower of Babel... on weed.
Really cool, ma-a-an. Can ya dig it? I mean, like.....far out.
Lionel:
There are mistakes in Vatican Council II from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.1) LG 14 assumes there are known cases of people saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance. So it states those who know about  Jesus and the Church and do not enter are on the way to Hell.It infers not every one in general.Why? Since being saved in invincible ignorance was an exception to the dogma EENS in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.This was approved by Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits who were active at Vatican Council II. The same people who approved the error in the Letter 1949 also inserted the same error in Vatican Council II.So only they need to enter the Church who know about it according to LG 14.
However instead of rejecting Vatican Council II simply avoid the mistakes.Then we are back to the old ecclesiology.LG 14 refers to a hypothetical case for me.So it does not contradict Feeneyite EENS.Who knows and does not know cannot only be known to God.
_____________________

Quote: "This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society,subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_commento-responsa_en.html

Lionel:
"although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity."
This is a description of a hypothetical case and is in no way  a concrete exception to the dogma EENS.
So LG 8 with 'subsists it' and 'elements of sanctification and of truth found outside of its visible structure' is not a rupture with Tradition.
In Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) in which LG 8 is hypothetical it is not a rupture with Tradition.
In Vatican Council II (Cushingite) in which LG 8 refers to non -hypothetical, personally known and objective cases it is a rupture with Tradition.
In Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) LG 8 refers to invisible cases and so it does not have the hermeneutic of rupture.
In Vatican Council II (Cushingite) LG 8 refers to visible cases and so it has the hermeneutic of rupture.
look-at-things-differently-copy
I mentioned in the previous blog post:-
If you consider the baptism of desire as being invisible or visible decides how you interpret Vatican Council II.
If you infer that the baptism of desire is visible you have a Vatican Council II which I call Cushingite.
If you infer that the baptism of desire is physically invisible for us human beings, then you have a Vatican Council II which I call Feeneyite.
If the baptism of desire is visible then Fr. Leonard Feeney was in heresy and the magisterium in 1949 was correct.Since there would be exceptions to Tradition which he refused to acknowledge.
If the baptism of desire is invisible then it is the magisterium which was in heresy and Fr. Leonard Feeney was repeating orthodoxy.
It's as simple as this!
Bishop Bernard Fellay.jpg
For Bishop Bernard Fellay and the SSPX priests subsist it is a break with Tradition. The fault lies with their interpretation.It is Vatican Council II (Cushingite).The Same mistake is made by the SSPX Superior in Italy.-Lionel Andrades

February 13, 2017
Image may contain: one or more people

Why must the Franciscans Sisters of the Immaculate and all Catholic religious communities have to accept BOD and I.I as being visible,objective,explicit and seen in the flesh in personal cases, for them to be accepted by Pope Francis and Cardinal Braz de Avez?.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/02/why-must-franciscans-sisters-of.html

Why must the Franciscans Sisters of the Immaculate and all Catholic religious communities have to accept BOD and I.I as being visible,objective,explicit and seen in the flesh in personal cases, for them to be accepted by Pope Francis and Cardinal Braz de Avez?.

Image result for photo Vatican Council II book
If you consider the baptism of desire as being invisible or visible decides how you interpret Vatican Council II.
If you infer that the baptism of desire is visible you have a Vatican Council II which I call Cushingite.
If you infer that the baptism of desire is physically invisible for us human beings, then you have a Vatican Council II which I call Feeneyite.
If the baptism of desire is visible then Fr. Leonard Feeney was in heresy and the magisterium in 1949 was correct.Since there would be exceptions to Tradition which he refused to acknowledge.
If the baptism of desire is invisible then it is the magisterium which was in heresy and Fr. Leonard Feeney was repeating orthodoxy.
It's as simple as this!
Cardinals Bugnini, Bea, Ottaviani etc were not responsible for the interpretation of Vatican Council II. Simply inverse the visible-invisible distinction and the interpretaton changes.
It is true that Fr.Karl Rahner S.j,Fr.Hans Kung and others decided the narrative of Vatican Council II,approved by the magisterium of Cardinal Ratzinger, but the Council can still be interpreted today independent of them.Change your perspective and the Council changes.Change the premise and you change the Church.
We've found the missing link. 
Image result for photo missing link
The secret is out.We are back to the old ecclesiology of the Church.
Most Catholics today,magisterium-included, whether they know it or not, infer that the BOD is visible for us human beings in 2017. So Vatican Council II (Cushingite) becomes a rupture with Tradition, it is a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) as it was known over the centuries.
IRRATIONALITY APPLIED TO AQUINAS
So we have an innovation with EENS.This is important to note.The liberals have re-interpreted the historical references to EENS.They re-interpret St. Thomas Aquinas(visible for us man in the forest in ignorance) etc.
We have visible for us baptism of desire(BOD) which is an explicit, seen in the flesh exception to the dogma EENS(Feeneyite).
So there is now an EENS with exceptions. I call it EENS(Cushingite).
EENS with no exceptions is the traditional Feeneyite EENS, as it was known  to the 16th century missionaries.
So today we have a Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) and an EENS(Cushingite). 
CUSHINGISM IS ILLOGICAL
Cushingism is based on hypothetical cases being not hypothetical. In other words BOD and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) refer to known cases of people saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.This is irrational.They are in Heaven so how can they be known on earth. How can I also say that a saint in Heaven is a saint known to be there with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water. Or without the baptism of desire but with invincible ignorance.How could someone in the past too make this claim.Physically no one in the past too could see people in Heaven there with the baptism of desire and the Church does not claim that any one had this special gift. This is also non traditional and heretical.
Vatican Council II and EENS , Cushingite,is defeatist, free-thinking,Lodge-theology, approved by the Masons.It is not Catholic.
VATICAN COUNCIL II FEENEYITE RIGID FOR POPE FRANCIS
Vatican Council II and EENS, Feeneyite is rational, traditional and non heretical. For Pope Francis it would be rigid, fundamentalist and triumphalistic.It would be restorationist.
Image may contain: one or more people
Image may contain: 1 person, standing
He does not want the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the Society of St. Pius X  to affirm Vatican Council II and EENS, Feeneyite.
The Society of St.Pius X has chosen to look the other way at Cushingism in Vatican Council II and EENS, to receive a personal prelature, with no questions asked by them(SSPX).
The Franciscans of the Immaculate and all religious communities will have to accept the defeatist, free thinking and fantasy theology, to remain in good standing in the Catholic Church with a magisterium which is in heresy and in opposition to the teachings of the Holy Spirit expressed in the magisterium of the centuries.
Image result for photo Fr.John Zuhlsdorf playing the guitar
Blogger-priest Fr.John Zuhlsdorf has to affirm Vatican Council II and EENS Cushingite and so he does not mention Vatican Council II and EENS, Feeneyite.He cannot say that the baptism of desire is obviously invisible and so it cannot be an exception to the dogma EENS.
APPROVES INTER-FAITH ADULTERY
Since there is known salvation outside the Church for Fr. Zuhlsdorf, like the liberals, he approves inter-faith marriages with a dispensation.
The exception makes the rule for him.If there could be one known person saved outside the Church i.e  without  Catholic faith and the baptism of water,then there can be many.So the non Catholic in an inter faith marriage with a dispensation, could not be in adultery but could be one of the many people saved outside the Church.For Fr. Zuhlsdorf outside the Church there is salvation and Vatican Council II (Cushingite) contradicts the dogma EENS(Feeneyite).For him and Pope Benedict XVI, there is ' a development' with Vatican Council II(Avvenire, March 2016, extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II).
Image result for photo Sandro Magister
So we have the magisterium today teaching heresy and Mason-approved theology and it is being supported by Fr.John Zuhlsdorf,Rorate Caeili,LMS Chairman, Vox Cantoris, Remnant TV,Fatima Center(Chris Ferrara),Michael Voris, Raymond Arroyo,Sandro Magister,Roberto de Mattei,Edard Pentin,St. Benedict Centers USA,FSSP...The Lefbvrists, i.e those who interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with Cushingism,like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, are in line with the liberals.
So I repeat: if you consider the BOD and I.I as being visible or invisible decides how you will interpret Vatican Council II.
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson, Fr.Stefano Visintin osb and John Martignoni among many others say that the BOD and I.I are physically invisible for us.They are saying the obvious.Obviously also for me these cases are invisible.
So why cannot this also be said by Fr.John Zuhlsdorf, Rorate Caeli...?
No automatic alt text available.
Why must the Franciscans Sisters of the Immaculate and all Catholic religious communities have to accept BOD and I.I as being visible,objective,explicit and seen in the flesh in personal cases, for them to be accepted by Pope Francis and Cardinal Braz de Avez?.
-Lionel Andrades

https://www.facebook.com/franciscansoftheimmaculate/



__________________________________________
Update:
My Catholic Source.com
http://www.mycatholicsource.com/mcs/cg/latin_mass_and_catholic_tradition/summary_of_changes_since_vatican_ii.htm
I have received a link to a website which lists the changes in the Church after Vatican Council II (Cushingite).This confirms my point. That with an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II this was the result. The shepherds in the Church were a sleep. They did not announce a Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).Even today the cardinals and bishops at the CDF/Ecclesia Dei for political reasons want to maintain the narrative on Vatican Council II.So they ignore what I write on this blog. For them hypothetical cases must be interpreted as being non hypothetical and so the conclusion is non traditional and heretical. It is the only narrative known by the traditionalists also.It can be seen on this website MyCatholicSource.com