Sunday, January 14, 2018

Repost : Why is Vatican Council II not fundamentalist for La Stampa? Archbishop Guido Pozzo does not state that Vatican Council II is fundamentalist.Even Catholic conservatives, traditionalists and La Stampa journalists are not aware that Vatican Council II in itself is fundamentalist

OCTOBER 20, 2016


Why is Vatican Council II not fundamentalist for La Stampa?Archbishop Guido Pozzo does not state that Vatican Council II is fundamentalist.Even Catholic conservatives, traditionalists and La Stampa journalists are not aware that Vatican Council II in itself is fundamentalist

Comment from The Eponymous Flower
Hit List Against "Anti-Bergoglians"? -- Misericordina for Pope Critics
The La Stampa report suggesting conservatives and even the SSPX are  fundamentalist was not contested by Ecclesia Dei.
Archbishop Guido Pozzo does not state that Vatican Council II is fundamentalist.
Even Catholic conservatives, traditionalists and La Stampa journalists are not aware that Vatican Council II in itself is fundamentalist.
Why is Vatican Council II not fundamentalist for La Stampa?
It is because their leftist journalists infer that hypothetical cases are explicit in 2016.Then with this irrational premise they interpret Vatican Council II.They get a non traditional and heretical conclusion.In this way Vatican Council II is not 'fundamentalist'.It is a rupture with Tradition.
Like me they could assume hypothetical cases are just hypothetical.So then hypothetical LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc would not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

There would be nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyite EENS.
The Council would be saying there has to be an ecumenism of return and all non Christians need to formally convert into the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism'(AG 7). This would be terribly fundamentalistic.
Instead Archbishop Pozzo like the leftist journalists at Vatican Insider,interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise and conclusion. So the SSPX is fundamentalist for accepting this interpretation of Vatican Council II with the premise and then rejecting the Council.They reject the Council when it is a rupture with Tradition.

While La Stampa, CDF are not fundamentalist since they also use the same false premise to interpret Vatican Council II and they accept the conclusion.
La Stampa, CDF and SSPX interpret Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases being physically visible. Then they infer that these visible cases are exceptions to the dogma EENS in 2016.So the Council (with the premise) is a break with traditional and 'fundamentalistic documents'(EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc)
Tancred what's your position on Vatican Council II, is it fundamentalist or not for you?
-Lionel Andrades

Repost : Vatican Council II is fundamentalist if you stay clear of the Kasper-Lefebvre theology.

OCTOBER 18, 2016

Vatican Council II is fundamentalist if you stay clear of the Kasper-Lefebvre theology.

Vatican Council II is fundamentalist if you stay clear of the Kasper-Lefebvre  theology.
La Stampa/Vatican Insider is calling all those who do not accept Vatican Council II with Cushingite theology, as being fundamentalists.1
While La Stampa is not aware that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the Feeneyite theology and the Council itself would be 'fundamentalist'.
Only those Catholics who avoid the Kasper-Lefebvre theology  can see through the error.
It is only with the Ratzinger-Kasper-Lefebvrist theology that they make the distinction between liberals and conservatives,sedevacantists and progressivists.
Eliminate this theology and Vatican Council II changes. It reverts to being a traditional Council and this would be 'fundamentalist' for the Left.
-Lionel Andrades
1
http://www.lastampa.it/2016/10/16/vaticaninsider/eng/the-vatican/catholics-who-are-antifrancis-but-love-putin-T190LZLzBzspqV9pJoe7AP/pagina.html

Repost : I know what I am saying will be new for you.It will be new for most Catholics

 












OCTOBER 28, 2016


I know what I am saying will be new for you.It will be new for most Catholics



I know what I am saying will be new for you.

It will be new for most Catholics


Yes. Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition only if you use an irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.

Try it and see.

Give me an example from Vatican Council II. Where does Vatican Council II contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

If Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus then there is no change in the teachings on ecumenism, other religions and the Social Reign of Christ the King.

Give me an example please.

__________________________

Vatican Council II is not a break with Tradition in itself.

It is only a break with Tradition if:-

1.It is assumed that hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but objectively visible in 2016.

2.It is assumed that Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy and not Cardinal Cushng the Archbishop of Boston.

3.It is assumed that Cushingism is the acceptable new theology which replaces Feeneyism.

If you and I are discusing something and I use a different premise then our conclusion will be different. This is what happened with Vatican Council II and it can be corrected.

You read Vatican Council II with a premise at Lumen Gentium 16, for example. I do not.

You assume it(LG 16) refers to known cases of someone saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water. I do not.

So for you Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.Not for me.
-Lionel Andrades

https://gloria.tv/video/aKZLQrSpm8Gb3mW47P6Cs1nT7/postings/

Repost : Mons.Guido Pozzo, Secretary,Ecclesia Dei will not say it : with Feeneyism Vatican Council II affirms an Ecumenism of Return, Social Reign of Christ the King and no known salvation outside the Church



NOVEMBER 1, 2016


Mons.Guido Pozzo, Secretary,Ecclesia Dei will not say it : with Feeneyism Vatican Council II affirms an Ecumenism of Return, Social Reign of Christ the King and no known salvation outside the Church



Mons.Guido Pozzo, Secretary of Ecclesia Dei will not admit in public that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II affirms an Ecumenism of Return, Social Reign of Christ the King and no known salvation outside the Church.

He is not admitting that  with Feeneyism Vatican Council II does not have a hermeneutic of rupture .
He is not announcing that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II would not contradict the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).So there can only be an ecumenism of return.All Lutherans in 2016 need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
With Feeneyism Vatican Council II affirms the Social Reign of Christ the King but he does not say this to the SSPX.
For political reasons he will not say that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II says all Jews and Muslims need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.Since there are no pratical exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma EENS as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.-Lionel Andrades

JANUARY 30, 2014



...and Monsignor Guido Pozzo

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/01/and-monsignor-guido-pozzo.html


OCTOBER 27, 2014

Mons.Guido Pozzo still hides the factual mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office which is carried over into the Catechism of the Catholic Church

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/monsguido-pozzo-still-hides-factual.html

 OCTOBER 27, 2014 
Mons.Guido Pozzo nasconde ancora l'errore di fatto nella Lettera del Sant'Uffizio, che รจ riportato nel Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica 
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/monsguido-pozzo-nasconde-ancora-lerrore.html

OCTOBER 24, 2014
Mons.Guido vuole la FSSPX accettare il magistero con errori di fatto e dottrinali
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/mnonsguido-vuole-la-fsspx-accettare-il.html

 APRIL 1, 2015
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/new-hope-for-sspx-vatican-doctrinal.html

OCTOBER 26, 2014
If Vatican Council II is ‘discovered’ to be traditional on other religions and Christian communities then the Vatican Curia will have to go on the defensive http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/if-vatican-council-ii-is-discovered-to.html


 OCTOBER 31, 2016



Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre did not know : with Feeneyism Vatican Council II affirms an Ecumenism of Return, Social Reign of Christ the King and no known salvation outside the Church

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/10/cardinal-ratzinger-and-archbishop.html
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/where-are-we-sspx%E2%80%94abp-pozzo-14381

There cannot be a development of doctrine based on a false premise : this would be deception

 Professor Ramage:  https://muse.jhu.edu/article/609198/summary (Project MUSE)

Professor Matthew Ramage in 
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Substance of Catholic Doctrine:Towards a Realization of Benedict XVI’s “Hermeneutic of Reform” does not realize that invisible baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance cannot be a visible exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
This is the false premise in his thesis here.
He is not also aware that the irrational premise, unknown people are known  in the present times, was also unfortunately accepted at Vatican Council II.
So there cannot be a development of doctrine based on these objective errors in Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Without this factual error Vatican Council II is not a rupture with traditional EENS. This could not be observed by Matthew Ramage because he was not aware of the false premise he is using.
-Lionel Andrades



Tantumblogo and commentators on the Dallas blog do not know that the baptism of desire has nothing to do with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)


The baptism of desire(BOD) has nothing to do with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) yet this is beyond Tantumblogo and commentators on  the Dallas blog (Columbe on Fr.Feeney). 1
Tantumblogo is a Cushingite who attends the Traditional Latin Mass(TLM) and interprets the baptism of desire(BOD) as being an exception to EENS(Feeneyite).
While some of the commentators on(Columbe on Fr.Feeney)
are supporters of Feeneyism according to the St.Benedict Centers.They reject  BOD as an exception to EENS,and they too attend the TLM.
So we have two groups of traditionalists who use a different theology and attend the TLM.
Their doctrines will also change with Vatican Council II.
So there is no unity of doctrine and theology at the TLM.I too could attend the TLM and unlike them affirm,Vatican Council II(Feeneyite), support the St. Benedict Centers on EENS(Feeneyite) and reject Tantumblogo on EENS and Vatican,which is Cushingite for him.It is the same Mass and we are all Catholics.
So when Fr.John Zuhlsdorf and Pope Benedict refer to liturgy as being everything, it is because they have to accept the false theology and reject EENS (Feeneyite) and Vatican Council(Feeneyite).This is how Bishop Morlino also offers the TLM in the Diocese of Madison, USA.
So every once in a while they churn out the usual stuff-save the liturgy and save the world( even with false theologies and doctrines).
They do not approve EENS and they approve the wedding Mass between a Protestant and Catholic.It is a Sacrament for them and not adultery.
The problem originates with them not knowing that the  baptism of desire(BOD) has nothing to do with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).It definitely was not,and nor,is an exception to EENS.-Lionel Andrades










1.
https://veneremurcernui.wordpress.com/2018/01/11/coulombe-on-fr-feeney/

When the MHFM refer to 'the Vatican Council II sect' there is some truth in what they say.

Most Holy Family Monastery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Most Holy Family Monastery is a sedevacantist organization run by Michael Dimond.
Lionel: They are a community and not an organization.
 Due to its publication of a pamphlet entitled "101 Heresies of Anti-Pope John Paul II" it was declared "a dissident organization that challenges the papal authority" by The Catholic League in January, 1999.[1] The group has also been condemned by the Catholic diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska,[2] and was designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2014.[3]
Lionel:
Their understanding of outside the Church there is no salvation is correct.For them there are no exceptions.They support Feeneyism. On the other hand the Catholic diocese of Lincoln,Nebraska and the Catholic League wrongly assume that invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions to traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). So when the MHFM refer to 'the Vatican Council II sect' there is some truth in what they say.

History

Most Holy Family Monastery was founded in 1967, in Berlin, New Jersey, by a self-proclaimed Benedictine monk named Joseph Natale (1933-1995), originally as a community for handicapped men. Natale entered...in 1960 as a lay postulant, but left less than a year later to start his own Holy Family Monastery. According to an archivist of the Saint Vincent Archabbey in Latrobe, Natale left before taking vows; he never actually became a Benedictine monk.[4]

Throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s, Natale denounced the Second Vatican Council and the New Mass, and by the mid-1970s the community had separated from the Vatican. By mid-1980s, there were ten monks in it, but by 1994 the number declined to three. Shortly after a conference in 1994, John Vennari left to work for Fr. Nicholas Gruner.

Natale died in 1995, whereupon Michael Dimond (born Frederick Dimond[5]), who joined in 1992 at the age of 19 after converting to Catholicism four years earlier,[6] was elected the Superior. Soon after, he relocated to Granger, New York (close to Fillmore, New York), where Natale owned more than 90 acres (36 ha) of donated land.[7]
Dimond supported Gerry Matatics when he held similar beliefs.[8]

Michael and Peter Dimond's position condemning the Vatican's promotion of Natural Family Planning (a fertility awareness method for married couples to regulate conception, pregnancy, and birth) was noted in the 2010 book Twentieth-Century Global Christianity by Fortress Press, as "an admittedly rare example of contemporary opposition".[9]

Sacraments

As none of their members were ordained into the priesthood, and as they believe that the New Mass is invalid and that the Tridentine Mass (promoted by Benedict XVI) is compromised by the 1962 Missal changes made by John XXIII, they receive the sacraments from a Byzantine rite Catholic Church that is in communion with the Vatican, in Rochester, New York. During these occasions they wear layman's clothes in lieu of their Benedictine habits. Peter Dimond wrote: "In receiving the sacraments from certain Byzantine priests for over the last decade – i.e. from priests who are not notorious or imposing about their heresies – I've received what I consider to be tremendous spiritual graces."[10][11]


Claims of miraculous experience

  • According to Michael Cuneo, who researched the various traditional movements in the USA, Natale claimed that he had the gift of prophecy in these words:
Even before Vatican II was finished, I knew, and knew absolutely, that it was part of a Communist conspiracy to destroy the Church. The bishops at the council wanted to democratize Catholicism, they wanted an egalitarian theology, and most of them were secret communists and Masons. They knew exactly what they were doing. My community here was the first one in the United States to see the council for what it really was, and we rejected it completely.
 
Regardless of what you have been told, John Paul I did not die of natural causes. He was murdered. Shortly after his election "I went into a kind of trance" and was told that John Paul I would be murdered because he wanted to return the Church to its traditions. He was murdered by his own. The Communist infiltrators in the Vatican and the College of Cardinals, working together with the Masons, killed John Paul I. At the same time I also had a vision of John Paul II, and I was told that he would be the next pope and also that he would be an authentic pope, even though most of his actions would be controlled by Communist advisers and manipulators in the Vatican.
Five years [from 1994] is about all the time the world has left.[4]
  • A former member claimed that he heard angels singing when he joined the monastery.[12]

Criticisms

  • Griff Ruby (a traditionalist) wrote against Peter Dimond regarding baptism of desire.[13]
Lionel: Griff Ruby wrongly assumes that the baptism of desire refers to known people saved outside the Church.
  • Richard Ibranyi (a sedevecantist writer and speaker) wrote against the Dimonds regarding several topics.[14]

Southern Poverty Law Center listing

The Southern Poverty Law Center listed MHFM as a hate group[15] by placing them in the category of adherents of "radical traditional Catholicism, or 'integrism'."[16] 
Lionel: The SPLC is opposed to those who affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.For them the dogma has to be interpreted as having known exceptions like the baptism of desire etc.
This is also the only interpretation of Vatican Council II which they know.
For the SPLC Jesus, in John 3:5 and Mark 16:16 would also be hate.
__________________________

This category is said to "routinely pillory Jews as 'the perpetual enemy of Christ' and worse, reject the ecumenical efforts of the Vatican, and sometimes even assert that recent popes have all been illegitimate.
Lionel: When the traditionalists interpret EENS and  Vatican Council II without the false premise  there is no rupture with the past ecclesiology of the Church. The past ecclesiology, theologically, can only support an ecumenism of return.

The popes since Pius XII have assumed unknown cases of the baptism of desire etc were known examples of salvation outside the Church. So they rejected the dogma EENS and did not interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with EENS.
__________________________________
 They are incensed by the liberalizing reforms of the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council, which condemned hatred for the Jews and rejected the accusation that Jews are collectively responsible for deicide in the form of the crucifixion of Christ."[16]
Lionel: This is the SPLC, ADL propaganda which they want all Catholics to support otherwise they will use their hate weapon.
According to Vatican Council II(AG 7) all Jews need faith and baptism for salvation (to avoid Hell).Catholics are the new people of God, the Chosen People (Nostra Aetate 4) and most people, and all Jews, are on the way to Hell today, since they die without faith and baptism in the Catholic Church(AG 7, LG 14).This is the Conciliar Church for me.

This is the teaching of Vatican Council II and not just a personal opinion. It is in harmony with the missionaries  and magisterium of the 16th century.This is Vatican Council II interpreted with the hermeneutic of continuity.-Lionel Andrades


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Holy_Family_Monastery