Thursday, July 27, 2017

Fr.Hesse's conclusion on Vatican Council II, EENS and the Nicene Creed is irrational, non traditional and heretical

from Gloria TV

Fr.Hesse's conclusion on Vatican Council II, EENS and the Nicene Creed is irrational, non traditional and heretical



The three errors of the Feeneyites
Fr. Francois Laisney
_____________________________________________________________________

JULY 27, 2017

Fr.Hesse's conclusion on Vatican Council II, EENS and the Nicene Creed is irrational, non traditional and heretical

About the so called "Second Vatican Council":

Sanctus Bonifatius the German traditionalist from Germany cites Fr. Hesse's videos on Gloria TV.However when I pointed out that Fr. Hesse was using an irrational premise and so Vatican Council II was a rupture with Tradition and in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), he removed the comments.
Like Fr.Francois Laisney and Fr.J.Pfieffer,Fr.Hesse assumes the baptism of desire(BOD), Baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance (I.I) refer not to hypothetical cases but known people saved outside the Church. There are no such people. So he concludes that Vatican Council II is rupture with Tradition. It is a false Council for him.This is his false inference. His conclusion on Vatican Council II, EENS and the Nicene Creed then emerge as heretical.
I interpret Vatican Council II without this false premise and my conclusion is different.
These traditionalist priests assume that people saved with BOD, BOB and I.I are not only known to God but also to man. So they can infer that BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to the dogma EENS.
This is the objective error on the SSPX website.
If they realise that the magisterium made an error during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII then Fr. Hesse would not be able to say that Vatican Council II is a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.
So the fault lies with Fr.Hesse.
He has overlooked an error made by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops.-Lionel Andrades

JULY 26, 2017

SSPX supporter in Germany pulls down comments :objective error on SSPX official website

Will Bishop Athanasius Schneider choose to not comment on Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) in future since it will be opposed by the Vatican ?

FR.BRIAN HARRISON STOPS WRITING ON EENS
Fr.Brian Harrison would write a lot on the subject of outside the Church there is no salvation and his position was vague like the Society of St.Pius X. He would affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and also the baptism of desire(BOD) and blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I), without the baptism of water. This was contradictory and not an issue for him.Then when he realised that BOD,BOB and I.I were not objective cases and so they could not be exceptions to the dogma EENS he had to re-check his old way of looking at EENS.Now he could not come out straight and say that there are no exceptions, since this would be Feeneyite. In one post he denied that he was a supporter of Fr. Leonard Feeney or held the exclusivist position on the dogma.So he assured his accuser that he was not an anti-Semitic priest.
Since then he has stopped writing on outside the Church there is no salvation and even when asked for a comment. He refuses.The subject is 'too hot'.

WILL VATICAN COUNCIL II BE TOO CONTROVERSIAL FOR BISHOP SCHNEIDER
Will it be the same for Bishop Athanasius Schneider in the future too.Will he no more comment on Vatican Council II ? Since once it is known to him clearly that there is Vatican Council II Feeneyite and Vatican Council II Cushingite and that his present irrational model is Cushingite, will be able to affirm Vatican Council II Feeneyite  in public ? Can he say clearly that all non Catholics need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7, Vatican Council II) and that all non Catholics, Jews and Muslims included, are on their way to the fires of Hell unless they convert as members into the Catholic Church(Cantate Domino,Council of Florence 1441)?

PRESENTLY ACCOMODATES THE NEW THEOLOGY OF POPE BENEDICT
Now instead he says all who are saved are saved a through Jesus and the Church(CCC 846).He means there are known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I So he accomodates this New Theology, the Anonymous Christian theory and does not affirm the Feeneyite position.He would say, like Pope Benedict, that EENS is no more like it was for the missionaries of the 16th century and all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church.So Vatican Council II 16(invincible ignorance) would refer to a known case saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance.
Known case saved outside the Church?
For him there are non Catholics in invincible ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of their own.Known cases, so they become exceptions to Feeneyite EENS for him.There are also Christians saved in other Christian communities, through Jesus and the Church, and these known cases would not have to enter the Church.Since, there is salvation outside the Church for him, there are people saved with BOD, I.I etc who are exceptions to EENS for him.

REJECTS PAST ECCLESIOLOGY WITH INVISIBLE CASES ARE VISIBLE PREMISE
So it is clear that he presently is not a Feeneyite and does not uphold the past ecclesiology of the Catholic Church with his invisible cases are visible premise.
So with Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) how can he mantain that there must be no separation of Church and State and all political legislation must be centred on the Social Reign of Christ the King? This would be the teaching of Vatican Council II(Feeneyite).Vatican Council II proper. This would be the only rational interpretation of the Council in future once it is known to many Catholics.It could be too controversial for him.

WHAT IF AN ALTAR SERVER AFFIRMS VATICAN COUNCIL II FEENEYITE.WILL HE OBJECT?
What if an altar server in his diocese affirms Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) in conscience ? How can he be refuted. Since the altar server would be rational( invisible csaes are invisible) and traditional( there are no exceptions to EENS).

WILL HE STILL COMMENT ON VATICAN COUNCIL II?
Will he really be able to proclaim all this in public or will he just put away Vatican Council II from his life as Fr. Harrison did with EENS?
Presently like Fr. Harrison he does not affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.He calls for a return to Tradition but he himself will not affirm Tradition.

WILL HE BE ABLE TO CONTRADICT TRADITIONALISTS?
So will he able to displease his traditionalist supporters and the SSPX by saying that Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) is rational when hypothetical cases are simply hypothetical.There is no mix up. They are not confused as being objective people.So Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) is in harmony with the dogma EENS, as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century?

CAN HE SAY THAT POPE BENEDICT MADE A MISTAKE ON EENS AND VATICAN COUNCIL II?
Will he be able to speak the truth ? Will he be able to contradict Pope Benedict XVI(Avvenire March 2016)? Or will he simply disappear into silence?
Image result for Bishop Athanasius Schneider photo
Now he says that Vatican Council II can be interpreted as a rupture or in harmony with Tradition, there are some parts which are positive and others negative. This is Vatican Council II Cushingite. This is Cushingite reasoning.

CAN HE SAY THAT THERE ARE NO AMBIGOUS PASSAGES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH REFERENCE TO EENS
With Vatican Council II Feeneyite there are no ambigous and vague passages with reference to the old ecclesiology. There are no passages which contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. None.Since the passages which are contradictory are interpreted as being references to hypothetical cases. Today they are not hypothetical cases for him.
So in future it will not be possible for him to issue statements which are politie, vague, confused or saying-nothing and pleasing for all,as in the present times. His last Special Report on Rorate Caeili was only about Vatican Council II Cushingite and it was full of confusion.
Cushingism is his protection now since it is also the theology of the Left.He can continue his present line on Vatican Council II it is heretical but magisteial.There will be no objections from the Vatican.

CAN HE SAY THAT POPE FRANCIS HAS MADE AN OBJECTIVE MISTAKE ?
Presently he will still not say that Pope Francis has made an objective mistake(mixed up invisible people as being visible) and violates the Principle of No Contradiction(people in Heaven cannot be known exceptions to the dogma EENS on earth) in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents.

PRUDENT
I have e-mailed him and there are many reports on this subject on the Internet.He is protecting himself. 
Soon he will issue another report on the Internet  or do an interview on the subject of Vatican Council II and he will  interpret the Council with the same irrational premise. He will choose Vatican Council II Cushingite instead of Feeneyite, since this is expected him of him by the Vatican.
He calls upon Catholics to proclaim the truth but he will not do it since it could be an expensive sacrifice to make.
His statements otherwise on Vatican Council II are vague and politically accommodating. He will say there is salvation in only the Catholic Church but will not say that there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).He will not affirm Feeneyite EENS since invisible baptism of desire is a visible exception to the dogma EENS,for him.It is a rupture with the strict interpretation of EENS, as it was known in the 16th century.1
For him presently LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, AG 7, AG 11 are exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.Will he be able to announce that common sense tells us that they are not exceptions and so we must reverse our interpretation of Vatican Council II? Could he say that invisible LG 16 etc cannot be visible exceptions to EENS?

CAN HE CLARIFY THAT ONLY VATICAN COUNCIL II FEENEYITE IS A LEGITIMATE ASSEMBY?
When he says that 'Vatican Council II is a legitimate assembly' will he clarify that he is referring to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Feeneyism only which makes it a legitimate assembly? Vatican Council II Cushingite cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit since it has its foundation on an irrational premise.This would cause a storm.Only Vatican Council II Feeneyite could be legitimate?!!
 If  he in Trruth affirms Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) which is in harmony with EENS ( Feeneyite) and the Syllabus of Errors Pope Francis could penalize him.The Left would rise up.
Since he would be clear after all on the Council. 
In  his diocese he would be telling them that all Muslims are on the way to Hell in Kazhastan  unless they formally enter the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism'.
When other Catholics affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) in public will he stay away from them? Will he stay away from the issue of Vatican Council II completely ?
-Lionel Andrades

1

JULY 25, 2017