FRIDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2015
Sedevacantist and Roman bishops and clergy want to remain politically correct
Why would they want to do this, it's just like the bishops and priests in Rome? Both groups the sedevancantists and the Vatican, know it it is irrational. They continue like this since it is politically correct.There are no threats to their property, their churches, their reputation etc.They are not really interested in Catholic doctrine.
If they say that LG 16 refers to an invisible case then it means their politically correct position with the Left has changed. It would mean they were wrong all these years, there was a fault in their reasoning.Since it would mean Vatican Council II now supports the old ecclesiology of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They would be affirming the Feeneyite traditional version of the dogma.
This would mean Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger were wrong in the past but worse still it would put the sedevacantists in the USA in direct conflict with the Jewish Left.
Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada would also be saying, if they made the change, that Vatican Council II says all Muslims need 'faith and baptism' (AG 7, LG 14) for salvation.Now if they admit that LG 16 was not an exception to AG 7, LG 14 it would be saying LG 16 is not explicit and it does not refer to concrete cases. So there are no exceptions then in Vatican Council II to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.
For Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Di Noia Vatican Council II is a break with the Syllabus of Errors since LG 16 is explicit. So they did not celebrate the anniversary of the Syllabus of Errors in Rome.It would also not be politically correct. So they pretend that LG 16, LG 8, UR3, NA 2 etc refer to visible and not invisible cases.
The sedevantists have kept quiet on this issue over the years, even after being informed. It is the same with the bishops and priests in Rome to whom I have spoken to or contacted via fax and the Internet e.g the Auxiliary bishops at the Rome Vicariate.
If they say LG 16 refers to a theoretical and invisible-for-us case and so is not a defacto exception to all needing to enter the Church formally, with faith and baptism there would be consequences. They would be saying the Prophet Mohammad and his companions were on the way to Hell at the time of death.They did not have 'faith and baptism' according to Vatican Council II and not just Catholic Tradition before 1960.
But they are not saying all this.They are part of the world. The prudent.
Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada would also be saying, if they made the change, that Vatican Council II says all Muslims need 'faith and baptism' (AG 7, LG 14) for salvation.Now if they admit that LG 16 was not an exception to AG 7, LG 14 it would be saying LG 16 is not explicit and it does not refer to concrete cases. So there are no exceptions then in Vatican Council II to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.
For Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Di Noia Vatican Council II is a break with the Syllabus of Errors since LG 16 is explicit. So they did not celebrate the anniversary of the Syllabus of Errors in Rome.It would also not be politically correct. So they pretend that LG 16, LG 8, UR3, NA 2 etc refer to visible and not invisible cases.
The sedevantists have kept quiet on this issue over the years, even after being informed. It is the same with the bishops and priests in Rome to whom I have spoken to or contacted via fax and the Internet e.g the Auxiliary bishops at the Rome Vicariate.
They dare not say LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc is implicit instead of explicit, invisible instead of visible.
Neither are the priests and bishops in Rome wanting to affirm Vatican Council II in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salusaccording to Fr. Leonard Feeney.
It's all peaceful at the sedevacantist Most Holy Family Monastery, in Florida, USA. They are Cushingites and not Feeneyites. All is well. Cushingites say there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Feeneyites say they do not know of any case on earth saved outside the Catholic Church.
To be a Cushingite is to be politically correct with the Masons, the Left and others who oppose the Church.
Pope Francis wants the SSPX and the suppressed Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate priests to accept Vatican Council II with Cushingism. This is how he interprets the Council.
For him crypto Lefebvrism is rejecting Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8 etc are visible instead of invisible.They must accept Vatican Council II with LG 16 being explicit instead of implicit to get canonical status or to have their situation regularised.They are already interpreting Vatican Council II with LG 16 being explicit.Unlike the Magisterium they reject the Council and are unaware that LG 16 etc are invisible, implicit and known only to God.
Even conservatives like Fr. John Zuhlsdorf and Michael Voris have compromised. They recently announced that there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They confirmed their Cushingism and protected their worldly interests.
Even conservatives like Fr. John Zuhlsdorf and Michael Voris have compromised. They recently announced that there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They confirmed their Cushingism and protected their worldly interests.
There is a choice there for all. They can intepret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism, i.e LG 16 etc refers to invisible cases.This would mean Vatican Council II is in agreement with the old ecclesiology, the traditional teaching on salvation.But they are not going to put their life style at risk.
The sedevacantist website there is so much talk of theology and the sedevacantism position etc yet Bishop Sanborn and his clergy will not answer the following three points. It would be the same with the clergy here in Rome. They want to maintain the status quo her. It is more important then proclaiming the truth of the Faith, especially in a hostile environment without and outside the Church.
2
1. We can't see the dead. Period.
Lionel:
Yes that makes sense. So since we cannot see or know the dead- saved in BOD,BOB or I.I and allegedly without the baptism of water,these cases are not relevant or exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). Agreed? This is Feeneyism.You accept this? Are you breaking ranks with Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada?
3.
The sedevacantist website there is so much talk of theology and the sedevacantism position etc yet Bishop Sanborn and his clergy will not answer the following three points. It would be the same with the clergy here in Rome. They want to maintain the status quo her. It is more important then proclaiming the truth of the Faith, especially in a hostile environment without and outside the Church.
The blog owner at Introibo Ad Altare Dei and the sedevantist bishops and priests are not touching these three points. They want to remain politically correct like their Roman counterparts.
1.1.Baptism of desire (BOD) is not relevant to EENS.So why does Fr. Anthony Cekada say the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary religious, at the St. Benedict Centers USA, are in mortal sin for not accepting BOD with reference to EENS.
2.The SBC say they accept BOD and it will be followed with the baptism of water.These are hypothetical cases. Why does Fr. Cekaga consider hypothetical cases as being exceptions or relevant to the dogma EENS?
3.So why do the professor at the sedevacantist seminary make this claim that they are in in mortal sin? Is he not wrong?
__
So LG 16 is also not an exception to EENS for you?
2.The SBC say they accept BOD and it will be followed with the baptism of water.These are hypothetical cases. Why does Fr. Cekaga consider hypothetical cases as being exceptions or relevant to the dogma EENS?
3.So why do the professor at the sedevacantist seminary make this claim that they are in in mortal sin? Is he not wrong?
__
So LG 16 is also not an exception to EENS for you?
2
1. We can't see the dead. Period.
Lionel:
Yes that makes sense. So since we cannot see or know the dead- saved in BOD,BOB or I.I and allegedly without the baptism of water,these cases are not relevant or exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). Agreed? This is Feeneyism.You accept this? Are you breaking ranks with Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada?
IAAD does not comment on this too: Is LG 8 (subsist it ) an exception to the dogma? Why is it mentioned on the sedevacantist website?
For me LG 8 like LG 16 is not an exception to EENS. The sedevacantists hold the liberal position on this issue and they do not want to change.
Like priests in the main line churches in Rome, the sedevancantist priests do not want to comment upon this issue.
The subsist it confusion is based on B being an exception to A
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/subsist-it-confusion-based-on-b-is.html
'Subsistit it'(LG 8) is not a VISIBLE exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/subsistit-itlg-8-is-not-visible.htm
For me LG 8 like LG 16 is not an exception to EENS. The sedevacantists hold the liberal position on this issue and they do not want to change.
Like priests in the main line churches in Rome, the sedevancantist priests do not want to comment upon this issue.
The subsist it confusion is based on B being an exception to A
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/subsist-it-confusion-based-on-b-is.html
'Subsistit it'(LG 8) is not a VISIBLE exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/subsistit-itlg-8-is-not-visible.htm
-Lionel Andrades
MARCH 19, 2018
Posts
