eucharistandmission: With this rational and traditional approach there no more is a doctrinal error created with the interpretation of Vatican Council II.All religious communities can follow it : Letter of the Holy Office 1949 heretical and schismatic

Friday, March 23, 2018

With this rational and traditional approach there no more is a doctrinal error created with the interpretation of Vatican Council II.All religious communities can follow it : Letter of the Holy Office 1949 heretical and schismatic

INNOVATIVE LETTER
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston is in heresy since it rejects the traditional teachings of the popes on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and it does this with an irrational premise.The innovation came about by assuming invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were visible.Then it was further assumed that these cases were examples of salvation without the baptism of water, salvation outside the Church.

LETTER SAYS INVISIBLE PEOPLE ARE VISIBLE

It is common sense that there are no such cases known to us in real life.We cannot know any one saved outside the Church. Yet the Letter(1949) suggested that invisible people are visible, and that hypothetical cases are really objective in 1949.It then criticized Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center for not saying the same thing.

WHOLE CHURCH DRAGGED INTO SCHISM
This Letter(1949) has taken the whole Church into schism with the past popes on BOD, BOB and I.I and it's affect was seen at the Press Conference on the CDF Letter, Placiut Deo this month.

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria assumed references to invisible people, allegedly saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8), were visible. He also concluded that there were known people saved outside the Church where the true Church of Christ subsists(LG 8).

Is BOD,BOB and I.I an exception to EENS? For the Letter it is Yes. For the popes before Pius XII it was No.

PAST POPES HAVE TO BE REINTERPRETED WITH IRRATIONALITY

Over the centuries the popes only mentioned BOD,BOB and I.I when asked about it and did not say that they were personally known people. Since it is obvious that they cannot be known to us.This is a given. But not for the Letter(1949).So now we have to choose between the past popes and the Letter.

BOD,BOB AND I.I CAN BE INTERPRETED WITH FEENEYISM OR CUSHINGISM
BOD,BOB and I.I cannot be practical exceptions to EENS since we cannot meet or see any person saved as such.This is Feeneyism(according to L.A). Cushingism(according to L.A) says we can meet such people saved outside the Church.

CARD.LADARIA SUPPORTS HERESY IN PUBLIC
The reasoning of the Letter is that invisible cases of BOD,BOB and I.I are visible and are even exceptions to traditional EENS.So it was a new understanding of EENS. This was heresy. Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,in public tells us that invisible cases mentioned in Lumen Gentium 8 were exceptions to the exclusivist understanding on salvation.

CARD.AVEZ WANTS THE F.I TO AFFIRM HERESY

Similarly it is because of the mistake in this 1949 Letter that Cardinal Braz de Avez wants the Franciscans of the Immaculate( and all religious communities) to interpret Vatican Council II (LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc) as a rupture with the exclusivist understanding of salvation.It was this understanding of salvation which was associated with the Traditional Latin Mass of the past.

UNA VOCE,FSSP IN A RUPTURE WITH PAST ECCLESIOLOGY

The present Una Voce Latin Mass is offered by the FSSP and other priests, who are forced to interpret Lumen Gentium 8,as being a rupture with the past exclusivist understanding of salvation.

This is also how Mass in Italian is offered today by the Franciscans of the Immaculate, approved by Pope Francis.

So the ecclesiology of the Una Voce Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass today is based on the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

LADARIA ERROR IMPOSED ON ALL RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES

The Ladaria Error of March 1,2018 which is irrational, non traditional and heretical,being based on the Letter(1949), is being imposed by Pope Francis and Cardinal Braz de Avez on all religious communities in the Catholic Church.Religious communities are not free to attend/offer Holy Mass without the Ladaria Error.

LADARIA ERROR OBLIGATORY FOR CANONICAL STATUS
The Religious Communities, Carmelites,Dominicans, Redemptorists etc ,cannot announce that they affirm Vatican Council II without the Ladaria Error, and in harmony with the dogma EENS, the old understanding of salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.This will not be accepted by Pope Francis.

For Cardinal Braz de Avez it is not enough that the religious communities affirm Vatican Council II.They are also obliged to interpret it with the Ladaria Error for canonical status.This is heresy amd it is schism with the past popes.

The religious communities have to interpret BOD,BOB and I.I as referring to visible and not invisible people.They have to say that these are known people saved outside the Church when there are no such known people.

DOCTRINAL MESS ASSURED

They also have to fake it and say that the popes and saints over the centuries mentioned BOD, BOB and I.I and they were referring to visible and personally known people saved outside the Church and not hypothetical cases.Is this not going to result in a doctrinal mess in the Church?

So the popes and saints in this way become a rupture with Feeneyite EENS as the Letter(1949) indicates.

ABP.MARCEL LEFEBVRE,FR.MANELLI IN LINE WITH LADARIA ERROR

This is a magisterial mistake.Yet it also was the mistake of Fr.Stefano Manelli F.I, the founder of the Franciscans of the Immaculate.The same mistake was made by Brunero Gherardino, Roberto dei Mattei, Corrado Gnerre and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the traditionalists of his time.

MISTAKE LIES IN SECOND PART OF 1949 LETTER

Unlike all of them, I reject the second part of the Letter(1949), where the mistake lies.So Vatican Council II for me is not a rupture with the exclusivist understanding of salvation.I affirm Vatican Council II( premise-free) and the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS as it was known to St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine and the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.

EENS HAS CHANGED FOR POPE BENEDICT BUT NOT FOR ME
EENS has not changed for me as it has for Pope Benedict , who accepted the Letter(1949) and rejected EENS as it was interpreted by the past popes.In his Catechism of the Catholic Church(846) he calls EENS an 'aphorism'.Then in March 2016 he asks what was the purpose of Mission when for him Vatican Council II says there is known salvation outside the Church.He means Lumen Gentium 8 is a known case of salvation outside the Church.

VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH OR WITHOUT THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS.

Now the issue for the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the Society of St.Paul is how do they interpret the Council , with or without the Ladaria Error, with or without Feeneyite EENS, with or without the Syllabus of Errors?

For me Lumen Gentium 8 being a reference to an invisible case, is not a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors,which was rejected by Pope Benedict and the CDF.

With there being no known salvation outside the Church for me , there can only be an ecumenism of return.I cannot meet the Anonymous Christian saved outside the Catholic Church.

Since outside the Church there is no known salvation and no salvation,the priority is proclaiming the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation,especially in these times when the laws are pro-Satan.

With this rational and traditional approach there no more is a doctrinal error created with the interpretation of Vatican Council II.All religious communities can follow it -Lionel Andrades