Trad+Cath+Forum Responsibles in mortal sins of faith, need to go for Confession : common error among Catholics .

Mar 21, 2018 From the Trad+Cath+Forum Lionel: Post by Lionel on Mar 21, 2018 at 8:18pm Like Vatican Council II, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston can be interpreted with the for and against EENS method or the for and neutral to EENS method , with the Ladaria Error or without it, with the false premise or without it.The conclusion would be different. So when the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) is mentioned in the Letter(1949) there are two ways to interpret it.1) We can assume that they refer to hypothetical cases known only to God or 2) we can infer, as is commonly done, that it refers to known people saved outside the Church, saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.Or we can assume that we humans can know of people who will be saved outside the Church, without Catholic faith and the baptism of water. We can assume that they refer to invisible people in 2018 and this would be the obvious choice or we can wrongly assume that they refer to visible people in 2018. Either way our conclusion would be different since the premise is different. The Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII chose the irrational option. It assumed that BOD, BOB and I.I referred to known people saved outside the Church, in other words, there were personally known people saved in 1949 without the baptism of water.So BOD, BOB and I.I became an exception to Feeneyite EENS. Similarly at Vatican Council II , Lumen Gentium 16( invincible ignorance), Lumen Gentium 14( case of the catechumen) etc is read by the Magisterium today as exceptions to traditional, Feeneyite EENS.So on March 1,2018 Cardinal Luiz Ladaria at the Press Conference on Placuit Deo in answer to a question, said Lumen Gentium 8 was an exception to the old exclusivist understanding of salvation. This indicates that he interprets the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II with the for and against EENS method, with the false premise and with the Ladaria Error. So the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 heretically said that it was not necessary that everyone be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation, while the dogma EENS defined by three Church Councils says, it is necessary. The Letter of the Holy Office was an innovation in the Church with a new theology based on an irrational philosophical premise.It was accepted by the Magisterium  of the Church.-Lionel Andrades

Last Edit: Mar 22, 2018  by Voxxkowalski

Accusation of Heresy Against the Holy Office Mar 21, 2018  Post by Pacelli on Mar 21, 2018 at 8:36pm Lionel wrote: So the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 heretically said that it was not necessary that everyone be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation, while the dogma EENS defined by three Church Councils says, it is necessary. Provide even one source which states that membership in the Church is equivalent to one being in the Church, or retract your rash assertion.   Also, I do not want Feeneyite games here. When I say I want a source, I mean a source that exactly supports your assertion, not a self-interpreted source with a forced meaning that is not there. Until you provide either of these, your posting privileges here are suspended.  We do not tolerate errors against the Catholic Faith on this forum.  The rejection of the 1949 Holy Office letter that was approved by Pope Pius XII and ordered published is not something that Catholics are free to disregard. Btw, it is only a perversion of the meaning of Holy Office letter that allows one to interpret it in opposition to previous Catholic teaching.  The Holy Office taught and authoritatively made clear what was was already being taught by the Doctors of the Church and theologians going back hundreds of years, none of which conflicted with Church teaching except in the imagination of the Feeneyites. At this point you are not banned, but if you post anything else without resolving this matter, by either providing your sources or retracting your allegation against the Pius XII Holy Office,  you will be banned from this forum. Continued.

 http://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1533/accusation-heresy-holy-office?page=1#ixzz5BhYYNVST

__________________________

Lionel: 

The Trad+Cath+Forum, which is open to sedevacantists,  are well meaning people but they make a rational error and support the official heresy of the present two popes. They use the same theology as the liberal popes to interpret Magisterial documents as a rupture with Tradition.

Here is the difference between them and me.

1. For them the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) refer to personally known people saved outside the Church and so they are exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

1. For me the BOD, BOB and I.I refer to personally unknown people  and so of course physically invisible people.So they are not known examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church. They do not contradict the dogma EENS.

______________

2.So they affirm the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) with this irrational reasoning.

2.I reject the second part of LOHO which uses this irrational reasoning, to contradict the first part. The first part is traditional and supports Feeneyite EENs and so I accept it.

_____________

3.Since BOD, BOB and I.I , being  hypothetical cases are non hypothetical for them, like the present two popes and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 16 etc are also non hypothetical and known people saved outside the Church. So Vatican Council II has to become a rupture with the past ecclesiology of an ecumenicism of return for them.

3.Since hypothetical cases are just hypothetical for me Vatican Council II does not contradict the past ecclesiology and the Syllabus of Errors for me.

4.They reject the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II since it is a rupture with the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.

4.I do not reject these two documents. For me the Catechism(1994) and Vatican Council II(AG 7) indicate that all non Catholics and non Christians who have died are in Hell and all who are alive today, need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation( to avoid Hell).

5.For them the Nicene Creed says ' I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins, they are baptism of desire and blood and invincible ignorance, all without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.'

5. For me the Nicene Creed says ' I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins'. I understand this as one known baptism, the baptism of water only. 

Conclusion:

So I affirm the Nicene Creed, Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.I also affirm other magisterial documents  all without the irrational premise of invisible people being visible.

The Trad+Cath+Forum interprets the Nicene Creed, Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 with the irrational premise. The conclusion is a rejection of the dogma EENS as it was known to the popes and saints of the past. This is heresy.It is also schism with the past popes.It is also a rejection of the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO).
LOHO was an inter-office communication between bishops.It was kept private for three years and then mysteriously made public by the Archdiocese of Boston.The liberal theologians placed this non-Magisterial document in the Denzinger.It contradicted the past popes on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was the foundation of the New Theology. The philosophical error(invisible people are visible) and theology( outside the Church there is known salvation) was adopted at Vatican Council II.So there are orthodox and orthodox passages in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14).The unorthodox passages come from this error in LOHO.

So I reject the reasoning of the second half of the LOHO and I am in accord with the past popes and Tradition.If any one considers me to be in heresy, then extend this charge to the past popes and numerous saints.

The Responsibles on this forum accept the second half of LOHO which is irrational and heretical and they are in a rupture with the popes of the past and Tradition.


IMPEDIMENT TO ATTENDING THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS

Being in heresy and schism is an impediment to attending the Traditional Latin Mass or Mass in any rite.

To change the meaning of the Nicene Creed is first class heresy.

To change the meaning of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by using an irrational premise( visible for us BOD) is heresy.

To change the interpretation of Vatican Council II with the same irrational premise to make the Council a rupture with Tradition is also heresy.

To not affirm Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and in harmony with the traditional interpretation of EENS, is also heresy.

To interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church with the irrational premise to make it a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition is heresy.

To not interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church without the irrational premise and then not to affirm this rational interpretation, is also heresy.

To not interpret these magisterial documents in harmony with the past popes is schism.

These are mortal sins of faith and the Catholic needs to recant in public and go for Confession.

I am aware that the error they make is not due to bad intentions but this is all 'new stuff' for them.-Lionel Andrades