Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Archbishop Corrado Lorefice supports anathema and heresy contradicts Jesus' teaching and the Council of Trent


The Bible, Council of Trent and pre 1949 Catholic Tradition says the baptism of water is necessary for salvation.The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus defined by three Church Councils confirms this.
The Council of Trent says 'let him be anathema' who does not believe in this .
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued by Cardinal Francesco Selvaggiani and approved by the Holy Office in Rome and the Archbishop of Boston, says the baptism of water is not always necessary. For this Letter there are exceptions to Jesus' teaching in John 3:5 even though no one knows of any practical exception.This Letter has been placed in the Denzinger by Fr. Karl Rahner s.j and was approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member- Letter of the Holy Office 1949

' it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member'. This is heresy.1
Image result for Photo Archbishop Corrado Lorefice
Archbishop Corrado Lorefice, the Archbishop of Palermo in his suspension of Fr.Alessandro M.Minutella has cited 'the role and the teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him.' He has also cited canon law for the suspension of Don Alessandro M.Minutella yet in so many doctrinal ways he and other bishops violate canon law.They affirm heresy, magisterial heresy.
1.The archbishop accepts the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued by Cardinal Francesco Selvaggiani.It was approved by the Holy Office in Rome and the Archbishop of Boston.It says the baptism of water is not always necessary for salvation.So for Archbishop Lorefice there are exceptions to Jesus' teaching in John 3:5.
Lay people must ask him where are the practical exceptions to Jesus' teaching? How can any one in Palermo know of someone saved in 2017 without the baptism of water in the Church? 
To assume invisible cases are visible I call Cushingism.To assume invisible baptism of desire is really visible baptism of desire is Cushingism.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was Cushingite.
This same Cushingite reasoning is used by Archbishop Lorefice to interpret Vatican Council II.

2. Archbishop Corrado Lorefice interprets the Second Vatican Council and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with irrational Cushingism theology. He does not interpret the Second Vatican Council and extra ecclesiam nulla salus with rational and traditional Feeneyite theology. There is a break for example, with the teachings of 16 th century.The present magisterium, of the two popes and cardinals and bishops in union with them, is a rupture with the magisterium of the 16th century. Pope Benedict XVI confirmed this  in March 2016 when he said the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries.
The Magisterium is inspired by the Holy Spirit and can not teach error, so how can  the Second Vatican Council (Cushingite) be magisterial for the present magisterium?
3.There is no change in the ecclesiology of the Church since there is no new revelation and the Holy Spirit is the same. The past ecclesiology is valid today and supports the teaching on the Social Kingship of Christ the King over all political  legislation.Now there is a separation of Church and Stato for the Archbishop of Palermo. He rejects the old ecclesiology.Since his reasoning is Cushingite. He accepts the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
4.Since Archbishop Corrado Lorefice  does not interpret the Second Vatican Council and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with Feeneyism, there is no continuity for him with the old ecumenism of  return.Instead his new ecumenism is a break with Tradition and is heretical.Since there is  known salvation outside the church for him with Cushingism,Protestants do not need to convert into the Church.

Image result for Photo Archbishop Alessandro Minutella
This is 'the false church' which suspended Fr.Alessandro M.Minutella refers to.This is the false church supported by Pope Francis, Enzo Bianchi etc. These are just some examples of heresy with a new theology (Cushingism) that create new doctrines in the Catholic Church. There is much more.
So the Archbishop must be informed that he is heretical in his acceptance of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
He is heretical in his interpretation of Vatican Council II with Cushingism.
He is heretical in his rejection of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite).
He is heretical in his interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism.
He is heretical in his interpretation of the Nicene Creed with irrational Cushingism instead of Feeneyism.
According to Canon Law, a legal person (Archbishop) can not hold office if he does not believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church.We  have Archbishop Lorefice and other bishops in a false church within the Catholic Church who affirm heresy in public and they are supported by the two popes so Canon Law is not applied.

A.They rifute traditional Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Feeneyite), which does  not mention any exceptions.

B.They reject Vatican II (Feeneyite) which does not mention any exception to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Feeneyite) .
LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, GS 22, NA 2, LG 14 etc. refer to  invisible cases (with Feeneyism) and so they are not explicit exceptions to the teaching on all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church for salvation.There are also no practical exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, for example,in 2017. 
C.They reject  the old ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue, which was part of mission and was based on the past ecclesiology of the Church that was Feeneyite.
D.They  rejectwith  their Cushingite theology, the Social Kingship of Christ the King over all poltical legislation and there being no separation of Church and State.
According to the past magisterium, 16th century for example,  Archbishop Corrado Lorefice  would have no right to their office in the Catholic Church because of heresy and irrationally interpreting magisterial documents.he contradicts the  Bible, Council of Trent and pre 1949 Catholic Tradition.
-Lionel Andrades

1.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/04/according-to-past-magisterium.html



APRIL 12, 2017


Letter of the Holy Office 1949 teaches anathema contradicts Jesus' teaching in John 3:5 and the Council of Trent

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/04/letter-of-holy-office-1949-teaches.html

Letter of the Holy Office 1949 teaches anathema contradicts Jesus' teaching in John 3:5 and the Council of Trent

[5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
[5] Unless a man be born again: By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19.-Douay-Rheims Bible

Council of Trent
ON BAPTISM 
CANON I.-If any one saith, that the baptism of John had the same force as the baptism of Christ; let him be anathema.
CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.
CANON III.-If any one saith, that in the Roman church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism; let him be anathema.
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema.
CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.
CANON VI.-If any one saith, that one who has been baptized cannot, even if he would, lose grace, let him sin ever so much, unless he will not believe; let him be anathema.
CANON VII.-If any one saith, that the baptized are, by baptism itself, made debtors but to faith alone, and not to the observance of the whole law of Christ; let him be anathema.
CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that the baptized are freed from all the precepts, whether written or transmitted, of holy Church, in such wise that they are not bound to observe them, unless they have chosen of their own accord to submit themselves thereunto; let him be anathema.
[Page 57] CANON IX.-If any one saith, that the resemblance of the baptism which they have received is so to be recalled unto men, as that they are to understand, that all vows made after baptism are void, in virtue of the promise already made in that baptism; as if, by those vows, they both derogated from that faith which they have professed, and from that baptism itself; let him be anathema.
CANON X.-If any one saith, that by the sole remembrance and the faith of the baptism which has been received, all sins committed after baptism are either remitted, or made venial; let him be anathema.
CANON XI.-If any one saith, that baptism, which was true and rightly conferred, is to be repeated, for him who has denied the faith of Christ amongst Infidels, when he is converted unto penitence; let him be anathema.
CANON XII.-If any one saith, that no one is to be baptized save at that age at which Christ was baptized, or in the very article of death; let him be anathema.
CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that little children, for that they have not actual faith, are not, after having received baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful; and that, for this cause, they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion; or, that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted, than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be bapized in the faith alone of the Church; let him be anathema.
CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that those who have been thus baptized when children, are, when they have grown up, to be asked whether they will ratify what their sponsors promised in their names when they were baptized; and that, in case they answer that they will not, they are to be left to their own will; and are not to be compelled meanwhile to a Christian life by any other penalty, save that they be excluded from the participation of the Eucharist, and of the other sacraments, until they repent; let him be anathema.

Canon 2. If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and thus twists into some metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, let him be anathema.-Council of Trent

The Bible, Council of Trent and pre 1949 Catholic Tradition says the baptism of water is necessary for salvation.The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus defined by three Church Councils confirms that the baptism of water in the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.
The Council of Trent says 'let him be anathema' who does not believe in this .

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued by Cardinal Francesco Selvaggiani and approved by the Holy Office in Rome and the Archbishop of Boston,says the baptism of water is not always necessary.There are exceptions to Jesus' teaching in John 3:5.This Letter has been placed in the Denzinger by Fr. Karl Rahner and has been approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member- Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel : ' it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member'. This is heresy.

Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel: This is heresy based on an irrationality.There are no practical exceptions to all needing the baptism of water in the Church for salvation. There are no known cases for example in 2017 of someone saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
A theoretical or hypothetical case cannot be an exception to all needing the baptism of water in the Catholic Church in 2017.
If someone was allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the past centuries he or she could not be an exception to all needing the baptism of water in 2017.
Yet the Letter of the Holy Office says that it is not always required to be incorporated into the Church actually as a member.
This is magisterial heresy. This is the false church within the Catholic Church.

With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire-Letter  of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel: The Letter reproves Fr. Leonard Feeney for saying that all need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation and that the baptism of desire etc are not exceptions.
The Magisterium is affirming a heretical position and is reproving the priest for affirming the traditional and orthodox teaching on baptism.
___________________________

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel: So a hypothetical and theoretical case here  is considered relavent and an exception to Jesus' teaching on all needing the baptism of water.
According to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 there is known salvation outside the Church. This is heresy and a new doctrine. It is the basis of the new theology and was incorporated into Vatican Council II.
It is supported by the two popes and all the cardinals and bishops and it is the stuff of anathema.
-Lionel Andrades


APRIL 12, 2017


Let Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston be anathema?They were teaching heresy. There are no known cases of the baptism of desire and they postulated exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/04/let-holy-office-1949-and-archbishop-of.html


Let Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston be anathema?They were teaching heresy. There are no known cases of the baptism of desire and they postulated exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.




THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM SOLVES THE PROBLEM OF THE UNBAPTIZED WHO THOURGH NO FAULT OF THIER OWN ARE NOT BAPTIZED

Comments from the blog Southern Orders
Regular Reader said...
I am afraid that, based on Our Lord's words (see Jn 3:5), the Sacred and Holy Ecumenical and General Council of Trent defines the opposite to your conclusion: Baptism is absolutely essential to salvation, even for children who have not committed personal sins (Session 5, nº 4):


If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,—whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, —let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.



Therefore, the Baltimore Catechism does not solve this question, because it was already solved by this definitive Teaching of the Church.

April 6, 2017 at 4:51 PM
____________________







Blogger Catholic Mission said...
Regular Reader said... 
I am afraid that, based on Our Lord's words (see Jn 3:5), the Sacred and Holy Ecumenical and General Council of Trent defines the opposite to your conclusion: Baptism is absolutely essential to salvation, even for children who have not committed personal sins (Session 5, nº 4):

If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,—whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, —let him be anathema.
Lionel: Let Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston be anathema?They were teaching heresy. There are no known cases of the baptism of desire and they postulated exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
__________________________________________



https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7846189835239594160&postID=309114302311606021





The laity of Palermo must point out to the two popes and the Archbsihop that there is no visible case of the baptism of desire

Sit-in dei fedeli di Minutella davanti alla Curia: “Arcivescovo, lasci don Alessandro in parrocchia”

There has been no denial to these blog posts.None by the Archbishop of Palermo or any priest there.Neither from the Vatican.I have listed the heresies and irrationality taught today by the Catholic hierarchy, the Magisterium, which can not be the work of the Holy Spirit .1
  CUSHINGITE AND FALSE THEOLOGY IN PALERMO
 Cushingism is only part of the faith of the Church since the days of the Holy Office Letter 1949.From that time the new theology was enforced.It says hypothetical cases are known.Then it is inferred that they are concrete and exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the present times.Invisible baptism of desire is visible.This is irrazionale but this is being taught by the Archdicoese   in Palermo.

There were no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church.This was a 'magisterial' error in 1949.It was a mistake in Church.It was overlooked by the popes.The error is repeated by Bishop Lorefice and  layman-priore Enzo Bianchi in Bose,Italy.
Image result for Photos di don Alessandro Minutella
This is the false theology and false church accepted by the Archbishop of Palermo and that the laity of the diocese must follow. There is no denial from Archbishop Lorefice.Also Fr.Alessandro M. Minutella had to affirm this false theology to remain a priest with a good reputation in Church.2
 
NEW ECCLESIOLOGY BASED ON IRRATIONALITY

 The Magisterium today rejects the exclusivist ecclesiology of the past and created a new ecclesiology based on irrationality (invisible cases are visible) .The Magisterium then suspends Fr.Alessandro Minutella when he criticizes the new ecumenism and interreligious dialogue based on this false theology of Cushingism.
I AFFIRM CATHOLIC DOCTRINE INTERPRETED WITH  FEENEYITE  THEOLOGY 
 I Lionel, affirm Catholic teaching with Feeneyism, this is the traditional theology of the Church, which assumes invisible cases are invisible in the present times.I avoid the false premise while the Archdiocese of Palermo uses it.





 

I AFFIRM VATICAN COUNCIL II(FEENEYITE)
So I affirm the 'strict' interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).I affirm the Second Vatican Council (Feeneyite), which says  'all' Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims need 'faith and baptism 'for ' 'salvation '
 and there are no known exceptions in Lumen Gentium 16, Lumen Gentium 8, Unitatis Redintigrati 3, Nostra Aetate 2 etc.This is not the Second Vatican Council and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) of  Archbishop Corrado Lorefice and layman-priore Enzo Bianchi of the new world religion community in Bose. It is affirmed by the Vatican and the rest of the false church within the Catholic Church. Nor it is proclaimed by traditionalist priests who offer the Latin Mass but with irrational Cushingism. They will not support Feeneyism.Many of them do not know what it is and the false Church will not tell them about it.Also many who do know want to protect their 'career' and the opportunity to offer the Latin Mass after Summorum Pontificum.They support ignorance and falsehood - to stay comfortable and to remain a priest. 

PRIESTS IN PALERMO NEED TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE

 Cosi preti di Palermo bisogno di affermare il Concilio Vaticano II e extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) senza Cushingismo e con Feeneyismo e dare un esempio di coerenza.

FALSA CATECHESI.FALSA RELIGIONE
Vuol dire che tutta la Chiesa, tradizionalisti inclusi, hanno accettato l'errore di Cardinale Francesco S.Marchetti ,nella Lettera di Sant Ufficio 1949.Ha creato una nuova teologia.E fa parte dei documenti magisteriali e menzionato nel Concilio Vaticano II.Quest falsa teologia e dottrina e  insegnato nelle classi di catechismo in Palermo.E anche insegnato nelle classi di religione nelle scuole della diocesi.E una nuova religione Cattolica.
 
Even if they knew the truth, they would choose to assume unseen cases are visible.Then EENS, the Second Vatican Council, the baptism of desire, to be saved in ignorance invincible etc are all Cushingite for them. With this irrationality of hypothetical cases not being hypothetical they interpret Catholic doctrine and so  cause a break with the old ecclesiologia.This is politically acceptable to the Left and so these priests maintain their incardination in Rome.
PRIESTS IN  PALERMO NEED TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE 
So priests of Palermo need to affirm the Second Vatican Council and Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (eens) without Cushingismo and Feeneyismo and give an example of coerenza.
FALSE RELIGION.FALSE CATECHESI
The whole Church ,traditionalists included, have accepted the Cardinal Francesco S.Marchetti error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It created a new theology.It is part of magisterial documents and mentioned in Vatican Council II.the Council false II.This Vatican theology and doctrine is taught in catechism classes in Palermo.It is also taught in religion classes in the schools of the diocesi.The students are not told that they can also interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.With Cushingism there is a new Catholic religion.



TUTTE LE SUORE A PALERMO

Feeneyism which was magisterial in the pre-1949 Church is substituted with Cushingism (ci sono noti exceptions to the dogma EENS).This is liberal theology, which is irrational, non traditional and accepted by the contemporary
Magisterium. It is accepted by the two popes, cardinals Burke and Cafaffa and e tutte le Suore a Palermo.RUPTURE IN THEOLOGY AND DOCTRINE WITH THE SAINTS OF PALERMO
Oggi tutti interpretano il Concilio Vaticano II con Cushingism instead of using  Feeneyism.With an irrational premise they have created a non traditional conclusion.So with their conclusion Vatican Council II is a rupture with the old ecclesiology of the Church. It is a rupture with Tradition and the saints of 
Palermo.


 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ACTION PLAN: ASK THE ARCHBISHOP OF PALERMO
1.
The laity of Palermo must point out to the two popes and the Archbishop of Palermo that there is no visible case of the baptism of desire. So there cannot be any exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus .So the Letter of the Holy Office in 1949 and the Archdiocese of Boston, USA made an objective error.They assumed there were visible and known exceptions to the dogma EENS and so there was salvation outside the Church for them. Now there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II.In Palermo they choose an interpretation of Vatican Council II which has the hermeneutics of rupture and ignore the interpretation which is consistent with past Tradition.
2.
There are no known exceptions in the Second Vatican Council to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So there is no change in the old ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council II


There is no change in the theology of salvation in the Catholic Church before and after Vatican II unless you use an irrational premise.Ask the Archbishop of Palermo to confirm this or deny it.This would be the first step to removing the false church.



3.Concilio Vatican II (Feeneyismo), is not part of the false church, and does not contradict the Catechism of Pius X or the Syllabus of Pius IX

.Ask the priests of the Archdiocese to affirm it. 
-Lionel Andrades
 
 
-



 

1
April 6, 2017
Present pontificate has put aside Canon Law. Otherwise two popes and Abp.Corrado Lorefice could be accused of heresy
 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/04/the-present-pontificate-has-put-aside.html 
 


April 9, 2017
Present Magisterium is misusing the word 'Magisterium': Fr.Alessandro Minutella was suspended for not accepting heresy and false theology and doctrines
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/04/present-magisterium-is-misusing-word.html
 
2.
Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. -Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
______________________________________
 
 
Militia Christi and Human Life International members and spiritual directors need to set an example in coherence : they are against euthanasia but for Cushingism
 
  
 
DECEMBER 20, 2016

Instead the four cardinals should point out to the two popes that there is no visible case of the baptism of desire.So there is no change in salvation theology : no precedent for Amoris Laetitia
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/instead-four-ca…
 
 
__________________________________________________



APRIL 11, 2017

Laici nella diocesi di Palermo chiedere ai arcivescovo dove sono le persone sulla terra nel 2017 salvati con il battesimo di desiderio e senza il battesimo di acqua? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/04/laici-nella-diocesi-di-palerm-chiedere.html

 
April 6, 2017

Pontificato ha respinto diritto canonico o due papi e Arcivescovo Corrado Lorefice potrebbe accusato di eresia http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/04/pontificato-ha-respinto-diritto.html

_______________________
 












 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 





I AFFIRM THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL II (FEENEYITE) In this way I affirm the 'strict' interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).I affirm the Second Vatican Council (Feeneyite), which says 'all' Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims need 'faith and baptism ' for the 'salvation' 2 and there are no known exceptions in Lumen Gentium 16, Lumen Gentium 8, Unitatis Redintigrati 3, Nostra Aetate 2 etc.
LOREFICE AND BIANCHI AFFIRM VATICAN COUNCIL II (CUSHINGITE)This is not the Second Vatican Council and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) stated by Archbishop Corrado Lorefice and layman-prior Enzo Bianchi of the one world religion community in Bose. Neither is this proclaimed by the Vatican and the rest of the false church within the Catholic Church. Nor it is proclaimed by traditionalist priests who offer the Latin Mass with irrational Cushingism.They would not Feeneyism.Many of them do not know what it is and the false church does not tell them about it.Also many of them who know, want to protect their 'career' and the opportunity to offer the Latin Mass after Summorum Pontificum.They support ignorance and falsehood - to stay comfortable, and to remain a priest.
Even if they knew the truth, they would choose to assume unseen cases are seen.. Then EENS, the Second Vatican Council, the baptism of desire, to be saved in ignorance invincible etc are all Cushingite for them. With this irrationality of hypothetical cases not being hypothetical they interpret Catholic doctrine and so cause a break with the old ecclesiology.Thyis is politically acceptable for the Left and in this way these priests are incardinated in Rome. PRIESTS OF PALERMO NEED TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE 
Priests in Palermo need to affirm the Second Vatican Council and extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) without  Cushingism and with Feeneyism and so give an example of coherence,between what they believe and what they affirm in public,what they teach and what they live.3
 
FALSE RELIGION-FALSE CATECHESI Now the whole Church, traditionalists included, have accepted the Cardinal Francesco S.Marchetti error in Letter of the Holy Office 1949.He created a new theology.It is part of magisterial documents and mentioned in the Council false II.This false theology and doctrine is taught at  catechism classes in Palermo.It is also taught in religion classes in the schools of the diocesi.It is a new 'Catholic' religion.


ALL THE  RELIGIOUS SISTERS IN PALERMO
Feeneyism which was magisterial  according to the pre-1949 church was replaced with Cushingism (there are known exceptions to the dogma) .This is liberal theology, which is irrational, non-traditional and accepted by the contemporary Magisterium, including the two popes, cardinals Burke and Cafarra and all the religious sisters in Palermo.
BREAK WITH THE SAINTS OF PALERMO
Today all interpret the Second Vatican Council Cushingismo Feeneyismo.Loro instead of using an irrational premise to create a non-traditional conclusion. So their conclusion is that the Second Vatican Council is a break with the old ecclesiology. And a break with Tradition and the saints of  Palermo.4
.


PIANO DI AZIONE : Chiedi l'Arcivescovo di Palermo
1. I laici di Palermo bisogna precisare ai due papi e l'archvescoco di Palemo che non c'è nessun caso visibile del battesimo di desiderio. Quindi non ci può essere alcuna eccezione per l'interpretazione Feeneyite del dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). Così il Sant'Uffizio 1949 e l'Arcidiocesi di Boston,USA fatto un errore oggettivo.
2. Non ci sono eccezioni note nel Concilio Vaticano II per l'interpretazione Feeneyite del dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Quindi non è alcun cambiamento nella vecchia ecclesiologia con il Concilio Vaticano II.
Non è alcun cambiamento nella teologia della salvezza nella Chiesa cattolica, prima e dopo il Concilio Vaticano II a meno che non si sta usando una premessa irrazionale.Chiedi l'Arcivescovo di Palermo per confermare questo o negarlo.

3.Concilio Vaticano II (Feeneyismo),non e parte di false chiesa, non contraddice il Catechismo di Pio X o la Sillabo di Pio IX.


April 11, 2017



I laici di Palermo bisogna precisare ai due papi e l'archvescoco di Palemo che non c'è nessun caso visibile del battesimo di desiderio

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/04/i-laici-di-palermo-bisogna-precisare-ai.html