Tuesday, June 27, 2017

No contradiction or clarification from Fr.Gleize : SSPX in a crisis too


AbGleize

There is no comment from the SSPX on last Saturday's report  Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr. Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong. 1


There is no denial or official statement yet. This is like a bad dream for them. They do not want to talk about it. It is a crisis. They do not know how to handle it. How can they say that they were wrong all along about Vatican Council II (Cushingite) and there is a Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) without the false premise. So the popes from John XXIII to Paul VI were not heretics since Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) is not heretical.
They are facing the same crisis as the sedevacantists.
Bishop Donald Sanborn in a crisis


During the doctrinal talks with the Vatican Fr. Gleize made an objective error and so he could not see the doctrinal mistake of the Vatican side.
In the article he has written on the Remnant Newspaper website he has made  errors. He has been repeating these Cushingite errors since 2009 and refuses to address this issue.There is no denial or explaination from him. He is repeating a standard error of the traditionalists and sedevacantists who are line with the Masons and liberals on these points. I repeat the four points here.

1. The religious liberty of Dignitatis Humanae and the positive secularism of Gaudium et Spes are condemned by Quanta Cura of Pius IX.-Fr.Jean Marie Gleize

Lionel: False. DH is not a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).So it is not a break with the past ecclesiocentrism.Upon the old ecclesiology was based the non separation of Church and State and the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation.
Since there is known salvation outside the Church for Fr.Gleize, as there is for Pope Benedict,Dignitatis Humanae has to be a rupture with EENS (Feeneyite) and the past ecclesiology of the Church.He is a liberal on this issue, without knowing it.It is his irrational theology which creates new doctrine. It is approved by the magisterium.
With Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) Gaudium et Spess 22 are not exceptions to the dogma EENS and the old ecclesiology of the Church. He interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism. So there is a rupture with Tradition.

_____________________________________

2.The new ecumenical ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium is condemned by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis and Humani Generis because of the absolutely false principle which would like to establish a real distinction between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church.
Lionel: With Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) Lumen Gentium 16,14 and 8 does not contradict Mystici Corporis etc. So there is no change in the ecclesiology of the Church before and after Vatican Council II.
Since Fr.Gleize only knows of Vatican Council II( Cushingite)there is a rupture with Tradition.
He refers to a 'false principle' but he does not know what is the false principle specifically He knows that Vatican Council II( Cushingite) is rupture with the past, and one can agree with him.However he has to switch to Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) which supports the old doctrines of the Church.

___________________________________

3. The ecumenism of Unitatis Redintegratio is condemned by Pius XI inMortalium Animos.
Lionel: No.It is not condemned with Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).UR 3 is hypothetical and so it is not an explicit exception, or relevant, to the dogma EENS.
Fr.Gleize needs to explore Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and then his perspective will change.

__________________________________

4.The collegiality of Lumen Gentium, in that it denies the unicity of the subject of the Primacy, falls under the condemnation of Vatican I.
Lionel: This is his Cushingite interpretation. If there is unity of doctrine and theology with Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite), collegiality is not a problem.There will only be unity when Vatican Council II and EENS is interpreted without invisible cases confused as being visible. 1


Like the liberal Fr.Charles Morerod, Fr.Jean Marie Gleize was interpreting Vatican Council II in particular and all magisterial documents in general with irrational Cushingism philosophy and theology.Instead of using Feeneyite philosophy and theology and exposing the errors of Bishop Morerod, doctrinally, he remained 'on the other side'.He was a liberal.

Did Pope Benedict XVI permit Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead the SSPX side in doctrinal talks with the Vatican since he knew that he was a liberal who held there was known salvation outside the Church and so interpreted Vatican Council II with irrational Cushingism instead of the traditional Feeneyism, which the pope also rejected ? He had accepted the New Theology of Rahner and Ratzinger as did Archbishop Lefebvre.
The SSPX-Vatican doctrinal talks were a failure. Both sides were interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism. The Vatican would accept the non traditional conclusion and the SSPX would reject the rupture with Tradition, in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
So the talks became a simple formality. Neither of the two sides could say precisely what was the specific change in doctrine, other than it was visible that Vatican Council II( Cushngiite) was a rupture with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors etc.
Fr.Jean Marie Gleize who teaches Ecclesiology at Econe and was the leader of the SSPX group of theologians was 'Pope Benedict's man'.The talks were not going to get any where.
Since for Gleize too EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century since there was a 'development' with Vatican Council II ( Cushingite).Neither would Pope Benedict or Fr. Gleize would say in March 2016 that Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) however would not be a development with the dogma EENS as it was known to the magisterium in the 16th century.The pope through this interview in Avvenire publically announced the heresy and no one from the SSPX raised an objection.
No one is commenting even now.
Bishop Fellay knows there is something wrong.
The dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation has been changed surreptitiously by confused ideas ( Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 87).Bishop Fellay does not seem aware of the difference between Feeneyism and Cushingism in the interpretation of magisterial documents including Vatican Council II.May be Fr. Jean Marie Gleize too does not understand it.At the Remnant they are unable to do discuss this and no comments are allowed.
-Lionel Andrades





1
Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong
https://gloria.tv/article/W3KdZ2up7V7h4zpXBGgYxhUn2


JUNE 24, 2017


Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/06/frjean-marie-gleize-needs-to-change-his.html


Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong
http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t1301-official-statement-from-sspx-awaited-fr-gleize-and-other-theologians-have-got-it-wrong#9867

2.
https://gloria.tv/article/W3KdZ2up7V7h4zpXBGgYxhUn2




3.


https://gloria.tv/article/4yrerVnfxg7w3xma16RJ7vfAs




Pope Benedict permitted Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead in doctrinal talks since he was a liberal ?
https://gloria.tv/article/CM73JiCZQycP3AoZoi8NVakT6


4.
https://www.gloria.tv/article/pch2Vt2rBNPA3wTDnK3JrRW2u

Bishop Donald Sanborn in a crisis

Sermons
There is a crisis for Bishop Donald Sanborn.He is no more a sedevacantist who thinks the popes are in heresy because of Vatican Council II. Yet he cannot give up the sedevacantist seminary mid stream.He cannot abruptly tell the seminarians and faculty that there is no more a reason for sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II. They were all wrong all along like the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX).By changing a premise, we now know, the interpretation of Vatican Council II dramatically changes.So the popes from John XXIII to Paul VI cannot be blamed for a traditional Council.
So what does he do ? Does Bishop Sanborn in conscience ask the seminarians to leave or does he leave the seminary in Florida?
He knows Lumen Gentium 16( invincible ignorance) with Feeneyism(invisible cases are invisible) cannot any more be an exception to the dogma EENS  according to the 16th century missionaries. This is something rational.
But for the students at the Most Holy Trinity Seminary, Florida, Lumen Gentium 16 ( Cushingite-invisible cases are visible) is a rupture with the dogma EENS and so Vatican Council II is heretical.The popes from John XXIII to Paul VI were heretical. So they chose to be sedevacantists. A heretical pope cannot be a pope says Fr.Anthony Cekada who also teaches at this seminary.
For Bishop Donald Sanborn Unitatis Redintigratio 3 is not a rupture with the dogma EENS . So with the old ecclesiology there is the old ecumenism. Vatican Council II is not a problem.
For the students and faculty UR 3 is an example of salvation outside the Church. So there has been created a new ecclesiology with a new ecumenism.This is a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors and EENS ( Feeneyite).So Vatican Council II and the popes were heretics.They felt their sedevacantism was justified.The faculty teach that a heretical pope cannot be a pope.
So what does Bishop Donald Sanborn do now?
Courses
How can he contradict all his the religious formation he has given the seminarians all these years and which he received from Archbishop Lefebvre ?
Does he tell them all to change and that the seminary will not more be sedevacantist?
Or does he look for other reasons to be sedevacantist may be like the faith and moral teachings of Pope Francis?
 Vatican Council II any way  is no more an issue.
In the debate with Dr.Robert Fastiggi he was clear that it was the heresies of Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) which was the reason for his sedevacantism. Since a heretical pope for him could not be a valid pope and the Council( Cushingite) was teaching heresy.
But now how does he clarify the issue of Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).If he affirms it in public there will be a crisis for the seminary and their community.
He has refused to comment on these blog posts when I have contacted.He has no denial or contradiction. Otherwise he would have explained it for me.After all he can no more infer that invisible people are visible exceptions to Tradition. He now knows it is otherwise.
I am not holding the Feeneyite theology of the St.Benedict Centers, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I have have not been presenting the pros and cons, reasons for and against, for the baptism of desire. I have been saying that there is no baptism of desire case in our reality. It is a non issue with reference to the dogma EENS. So the passages which mention the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance in Vatican Council II( LG 14, AG 7 etc) are superfluous passages. They are references to hypothetical and theoretical cases which are not explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century. So the magisterium made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and carried over that mistake into Vatican Council II.
It can be corrected once we are aware of the error and do not mistake hypothetical cases as being objective in the present time. This changes the conclusion of Vatican Council II. The Council then is traditional and supports the old ecclesiology of the Church.This is my interpretation of Vatican Council II which I call Feeneyite and so for me the popes cannot be in heresy.The sedevacantists and the SSPX were confused with Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) which they should continue to reject, even if the magisterium does not do so.-Lionel Andrades

http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/bpsanbornbio.html

JUNE 27, 2017


Good News for sedevacantists: Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) is traditional.So the popes are not to be blamed

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/06/good-news-for-sedevacantists-vatican.html

JUNE 27, 2017

When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/06/when-sedes-and-trads-can-accept-that.html




Sedes and trads have chosen the interpretation of the Masons and liberals : they deny Jesus as He was known before Pius XII
https://gloria.tv/article/7Ag7fL9tbmttDQcqQn7d9VxrL

Good News for sedevacantists: Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) is traditional.So the popes are not to be blamed

Sedevacantists who have gone into sedevacantism because Vatican Council II was heretical and a break with the past centuries now have good news.We have found the missing link which will help them to come back into the Church.

For example the Most Holy Family Monastery, USA does not have to reject Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) since for them the Council(Cushingite)  is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They have to observe instead that if they accept that Pope Pius XII made an objective error and he over looked the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, they have a new way to interpret the Council(Feeneyite). With the Council(Feeneyite) traditional once again they would have no opposition to the popes since John XXIII.
Image result for Photo  Bishop Donald Sanborn
Similarly Bishop Donald Sanborn  does not have to reject Vatican Council II but observe that his concept of Feeneyism was based on a false premise. So Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the dogma EENS.Since the baptism of desire is invisible and not visible, as he  wrongly interpreted it.
photo of Bishop Mark Pivarunas
Bishop Mark A.Pivarunus ,Superior General of the CMRI must realize that his concept of the baptism of desire was wrong.There are no cases of the baptism of desire in 2017. Hypothetical cases cannot be explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS. So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict EENS. Pope Pius XII made a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office.
The liberal theologians were wrong to assume that Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura etc refer to visible cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.Vatican Council II (Cushingite) is no more a reason to go into sedevacantism since we now know of a Vatican Council II (Feeneyite).
Image result for Photos  Fr.Anthony Cekada
Fr.Anthony Cekada must realize that his long list of baptism of desire references are meaningless since none of them are objective cases. They cannot be relevant to EENS.Vatican Council II is in the clear.
They can continue to oppose Vatican Council II (Cushingite) but Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) is traditional.So the popes are not to be blamed.
-Lionel Andrades

Image result for Photos Christopher Ferrara


Image result for Photos Roberto de Mattei

When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/06/when-sedes-and-trads-can-accept-that.html

Attacks in three Pakistani cities leave at least 85 people dead, many injured

Atrocity of the Week

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-peshawar-pakistan-bomb-20170623-story.html

Ramadan bombings

      Ramadan Bombathon      


Once again, it was a Ramadan to Remember!
As religions go, Islam smoked the competition yet again.  Innocent 
people were beheaded for not knowing the Quran... children 
machine-gunned for being Christian... yet not a single attack (that 
we could find) in the name of another religion during the 'holy' month.  

Against the 174 attacks, 1595 bodies, and 1960 injured in 
29 countries across the globe, there was just two Muslims killed 
in anti-Muslim attacks - one by an intoxicated loner with mental 
health issues in London, and the other in India (suspected).
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Turkey says German mosque where men and women pray side by side “incompatible” with Islam

  BY 

This mosque received a great deal of international publicity recently as heralding the advent of a new, modern, moderate Islam. As is always the case with genuine attempts at Islamic reform, however, it is receiving pushback from Islamic authorities who say it is inauthentic Islam.
The Turkish authorities in this case are working from hadiths that have Muhammad saying that if a woman is in front of a man as he is praying, his prayer is invalidated:
“Abu Dharr reported: The Messenger of ‘Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When any one of you stands for prayer and there is a thing before him equal to the back of the saddle that covers him and in case there is not before him (a thing) equal to the back of the saddle, his prayer would be cut off by (passing of an) ass, woman, and black dog. I said: O Abu Dharr, what feature is there in a black dog which distinguish it from the red dog and the yellow dog? He said: O, son of my brother, I asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) as you are asking me, and he said: The black dog is a devil.” (Sahih Muslim 1032)
“Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: A woman, an ass and a dog disrupt the prayer, but something like the back of a saddle guards against that.” (Sahih Muslim 1034)
“‘Urwa b. Zubair reported: ‘A’isha asked: What disrupts the prayer? We said: The woman and the ass. Upon this she remarked: Is the woman an ugly animal? I lay in front of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) like the bier of a corpse and he said prayer.” (Sahih Muslim 1037)
“Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: Qatadah said: I heard Jabir ibn Zayd who reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas; and Shu’bah reported the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) as saying: A menstruating woman and a dog cut off the prayer. (Sunan Abu Dawud 703)
“Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: Ikrimah reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas, saying: I think the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: When one of you prays without a sutrah, a dog, an ass, a pig, a Jew, a Magian, and a woman cut off his prayer, but it will suffice if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stone’s throw.” (Sunan Abu Dawud 704)
“Turkey says liberal German mosque ‘incompatible’ with Islam,” AFP, June 21, 2017:
ISTANBUL (AFP) – Turkey’s religious affairs agency has expressed distaste over a new mosque in Berlin where men and women mingle freely, saying it was incompatible with the principes [sic] of Islam.
Diyanet, which oversees religious activity in Turkey, said that such ideas were in line with projects led by the group of Fethullah Gulen, who Turkey blames for the July 15 failed coup.
Men and women pray side by side at the mosque that opened earlier this month in Berlin, which has female imams and where Muslims of all sects of the faith are welcome to worship together.
Supporters of the Berlin mosque said it would allow liberal Muslims to worship freely but in a tough statement Diyanet took a different stance.
It said that the mosque “neglects” the basic principles of Islam and was “incompatible with the worship, knowledge and methodology” accumulated since the faith was founded by the Prophet Mohammed 14 centuries ago.
“It is clear that this has been a project carried out for many years by FETO and other ill-gotten structures for the engineering of religion,” it added.
“We are convinced that all fellow believers will keep their distance from such provocations and show wisdom in the face of this,” Diyanet said in the statement published late Tuesday.
Turkey says that the failed coup was carried out by the Fethullah Terror Group (FETO) led by the US-based Gulen. Gulen denies leading any terror organisation and rejects having any hand in the coup bid.
Diyanet has influence over Muslim worship among the Turkish diaspora through the Ditib organisation controlled by Ankara that manages some 900 mosques or religious communities in Germany. Diyanet sends clerics to work in its mosques….

 https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/06/turkey-says-german-mosque-were-men-and-women-pray-side-by-side-incompatible-with-islam

Germany raids homes of 36 people accusing of “hateful” social media postings

  BY 

Most of them were for “right-wing incitement.” The problem with this entire enterprise should be obvious, but probably isn’t: nowhere in this article does any German authority explain (and the New York Times of course does not ask) by what criteria they determine that someone is guilty of “hate speech” or “right-wing incitement.” Facebook and Twitter have placed tight clamps on referrals from this website, which went down 90% from both in mid-February 2017 and have never recovered. Clearly they view honest reporting about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat to be “hate speech.” But is it? Is it really “hate speech” to oppose jihad violence and the oppression of women, non-Muslims, gays and others that is mandated by Sharia?
These raids were an authoritarian undertaking that threatens the freedom of Germans and all free people, and makes the state a tyranny that cannot be questioned, for after all, such questioning would be “hate speech.”
“Germany Raids Homes of 36 People Accused of Hateful Postings Over Social Media,” by David Shimer, New York Times, June 20, 2017:
BERLIN — In a coordinated campaign across 14 states, the German police on Tuesday raided the homes of 36 people accused of hateful postings over social media, including threats, coercion and incitement to racism.
Most of the raids concerned politically motivated right-wing incitement, according to the Federal Criminal Police Office, whose officers conducted home searches and interrogations. But the raids also targeted two people accused of left-wing extremist content, as well as one person accused of making threats or harassment based on someone’s sexual orientation.
“The still high incidence of punishable hate posting shows a need for police action,” Holger Münch, president of the Federal Criminal Police Office, said in a statement. “Our free society must not allow a climate of fear, threat, criminal violence and violence either on the street or on the internet.”
The raids come as Germans are debating the draft of a new social media law aimed at cracking down on hate speech, a measure that an array of experts said was unconstitutional at a parliamentary hearing on Monday.
The measure, championed by Justice Minister Heiko Maas for passage this month, would fine Facebook, Twitter and other outlets up to $53 million (50 million euros) if they failed to remove hate speech and other forms of illegal content.
Under German law, social media users are subject to a range of punishments for posting illegal material, including a prison sentence of up to five years for inciting racial hatred.
Under the draft statute, networks must offer a readily available complaint process for posts that may amount to threats, hate speech, defamation, or incitement to commit a crime, among other offenses.
Social media outlets would have 24 hours to delete “obviously criminal content” and a week to decide on more ambiguous cases. The law, approved by Germany’s cabinet in April, would be enforced with fines of up to $53 million.
According to a recent government study, Facebook deleted just 39 percent of illegal hate speech within 24 hours in January and February, despite signing a code of conduct in 2015 pledging to meet this standard. Twitter deleted just 1 percent.
“We are disappointed by the results,” Klaus Gorny, a Facebook spokesman, said in a statement this year regarding the study. “We have clear rules against hate speech and work hard to keep it off our platform.”…

 https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/06/germany-raids-homes-of-36-people-accusing-of-hateful-social-media-postings