Sunday, February 11, 2018

The exposure of the devil's plan.

See how the spirit of addictions works in the family

See how the spirit of addictions works in the family

See how the spirit of addiction works in people

You don't believe in hell... So watch this video!

VATICAN REVIEW THE FR.LEONARD FEENEY CASE

Image result for Photo Fr.Leonard Feeney


November 16, 2011
JESUIT SUPERIOR GENERAL REVIEW THE FR.LEONARD FEENEY CASE : THERE IS NO KNOWN CASE OF A PERSON SAVED WITH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE WHICH IS VISIBLE

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/11/jesuit-superior-general-review.html



FEBRUARY 11, 2018


Repost : That an error was made in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case it was known for a long time: Even the SSPX communique supports the priest from Boston

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/they-have-rejected-eens-changed-nicene.html


FEBRUARY 11, 2018


Repost : If you consider the Holy Office or Fr.Leonard Feeney in heresy determines how you interpret Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/repost-if-you-consider-holy-office-or.html

FEBRUARY 11, 2018


Repost : Were the excommunications of Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. Leonard Feeney leftist excommunications?: their fault was orthodoxy

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/repost-were-excommunications-of.html


FEBRUARY 11, 2018


Repost : LG 16, LG 14, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are not exceptions to EENS : Fr.Leonard Feeney's excommunication was a mistake

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/repost-lg16-lg-14-lg-8-ur-3-na-2-etc.html


FEBRUARY 11, 2018


Repost : JESUITS OPEN THE FR.LEONARD FEENEY CASE

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/repost-jesuits-open-frleonard-feeney.html



FEBRUARY 11, 2018


Repost : Pope Francis, Jesuits review the Fr.Leonard Feeney case

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/repost-pope-francis-jesuits-review.html


 FEBRUARY 11, 2018


Repost : ROBERT KENNEDY ASKED RICHARD CUSHING TO SUPPRESS FR.LEONARD FEENEY

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/repost-robert-kennedy-asked-richard.html


-Lionel Andrades

Repost : That an error was made in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case it was known for a long time: Even the SSPX communique supports the priest from Boston

 JULY 21, 2012


That an error was made in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case it was known for a long time: Even the SSPX communique supports the priest from Boston


Cardinal Sean O'Malley's office will still not answer two questions.(1) For many years the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary have been saying there is no baptism of desire.
Image result for Photo Fr.Leonard Feeney
 Whether implicit or 'explicit' the baptism of desire is irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma since we do not know any case.

The Society of St.Pius X communique has united the traditionalists. The SSPX announcement has supported the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center. The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary have always been saying that there is no baptism of desire.

They mean there is no 'explicit' or implicit baptism of desire which contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Now the SSPX communique has reaffirmed their faith in the Catholic Church and the dogma and also clarified that there is no ‘… possibility to find the means leading to salvation’ outside the Church.There is no possibility of being saved with the baptism of desire. There is no possibility of being saved with a good conscience outside the visible Church. There is no possibility of being saved in invincible ignnorance in 2012 for all those who do not have Catholic Faith and the baptism of desire. There is no possibility of being saved in the present times  with the 'seeds of the Word'.

Why ? When the Church Fathers and the popes say there is a possibility of being saved in these conditions do they say there is no possibility?

There is no possibility of being saved in the present time, for all on earth presently with the baptism of desire.Since we do not know any such case. The ordinary means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. The dogma and the Bible says all must convert into the Church for salvation.

So there is no possibility of being saved in the present time, for all on earth presently with a good conscience since we do not know any such case and so cannot claim that any one in particular is going to Heaven with a good conscience.

Only God can know who has the baptism of desire or a good conscience and is saved.

So assuming that there can be people on earth in the present time, 2012 with the baptism of desire etc is wrong.

So when the Church Fathers and the popes mention those who can be saved in invincible ignorance etc  these are possibilities unknown to us and known only to God. So in principle we can accept that a person can be saved in this condition. In reality, defacto, when I meet a non Catholic, in the present times, in 2012  I do not and cannot know any such case.-Lionel Andrades


1.
1) Do we personally know the dead saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc ?
2) Since we do not know any of these cases, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

If the Letter of the Holy Office made a mistake to assume that those saved with implicit desire etc are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus then an injustice was done to Fr.Leonard Feeney. This issue should be reviewed and a Press Statement issued.

Repost : If you consider the Holy Office or Fr.Leonard Feeney in heresy determines how you interpret Vatican Council II

JANUARY 7, 2015

If you consider the Holy Office or Fr.Leonard Feeney in heresy determines how you interpret Vatican Council II

I think it was the Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing who were in heresy for denying the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, with their alleged 'exceptions', whom they could not name and which no Church document prior to 1949 mentioned.
The dogma said all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church with the baptism of water and they were saying, not all.
1.Who were the exceptions visible and known to them? Who were these objective exceptions in Boston and elsewhere? No one.
2.Where in Mystici Corporis or the Council of Trent was it said that the baptism of desire referred to personally known cases and so these hypothetical persons were exceptions to the dogma? No Church document infers this. This was the error of the magisterium and ecclesiastical hierarchy in Boston. It was a new doctrine in the Church. It was heresy.
It was irrational theology based on assuming that visible cases in Heaven  ( baptism of desire etc) were exceptions to the dogma.This was the irrational premise which was the foundation of their theology. They concluded that these 'visible cases' were 'explicit' exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors etc. So with an irrational proposition ( visible baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance) they concluded that Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center were wrong.


The Archbishop also misused his power and excommunicated Fr.Leonard Feeney. The  excommunication was not lifted even during Vatican Council II.This gave them time to  enforce heresy, the new doctrine,in the Council.The popes were not supporting Fr.Leonard Feeney in public.No one was going to say that all the non Catholics in Boston need to convert for salvation and there were no exceptions.
Ask yourself where are the exceptions in 2015? Can you see anyone who does not need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and who will be saved?
How can we know that someone is saved outside the Church (without faith and baptism)?
Why did Fr.Leonard Feeney have to say in 1949 that there was salvation outside the Church? They did not know of any one saved outside the Church.
How can a defined dogma be replaced by a letter from a cardinal  and that too with an objective mistake?
The Letter was wrong in assuming that the baptism of desire was relevant or an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It had nothing to do with the dogma.
How could the magisterium in 1949 contradict the magisterium of the previous centuries?
Why did the Catholic professors at Boston College, members of the St.Benedict Center, lose their teaching job ? It was because they refused to proclaim this irrationality!
How we see Vatican Council II, how we interpret it, depends upon  how we see the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.It is like putting on two different coloured glasses.It changes how we look at the world.If Fr.Leonard Feeney is in heresy then Vatican Council II is a break with the past.If the Holy Office and the Archbishop of Boston were in heresy, then Vatican Council II is in agreement with Tradition.
We make our choice between two spectacles with different colours, at the point of the Fr.Leonard Feeney Case.To whom does the Boston Heresy refer to ?So if Mons. Bruno Gherardini says Vatican Council II is wrong for 'these and those' logical reasons, I would say he is responding to the premise he has chosen.He assumes Fr.Leonard Feeney was in error.This is the premise chosen by the SSPX,many traditionalists and the Vatican Curia.
If someone(Lionel for example) says Vatican Council II is traditional for 'these or that' logical reason, I would say this is correct based on the choice of the two premises. For me the  Letter of the Holy Office made an objective mistake.We choose to accept or reject the  premise made by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. If you reject the irrational inference in the Letter, the Council becomes traditional and in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney's rigorist interpretation.(It is choosing between the red and blue columns, the left and right hand side column).
If Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX)  wants Vatican Council II to be interpreted in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors he simply has to say that the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII  was in heresy. Vatican Council II changes.If the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Fr.Leonard Feeney's community in the USA,want to interpret Vatican Council II in agreement with the rigorist interpretation  of the dogma, they simply have to say that the magisterium in 1949 made an objective, factual error. Vatican Council II changes. They have put on different glasses.
The theologians John Lamont, Thomas Pink  and others are not using this paradigm when discussing Vatican Council II, since like the original professors at Boston College, they could lose their teaching authority, now given to them by bishops,for whom Fr.Leonard Feeney is in heresy.Even the Franciscans of the Immaculate have to accept Vatican Council II using the red hand side column. They make the Gherardini choice.
-Lionel Andrades

Repost : Were the excommunications of Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. Leonard Feeney leftist excommunications?: their fault was orthodoxy

DECEMBER 11, 2017

Were the excommunications of Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. Leonard Feeney leftist excommunications?: their fault was orthodoxy

All Catholic religious communities can interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise of Pope Benedict but then the Jewish Left will oppose it.Since Vatican Council II would support what Rabbi Rosen, would call 'a replacement or supersession theology'.1.

About 45 minutes back I prayed the rosary before Mass in Italian with a few people at the Salesian church at Termini,Rome.I am reminded of a former Parish Priest at this church.The Salesianpriest told me that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and I posted his statement on this blog.This was a few years back.He was saying the same thing as Don Bosco. He got a warning.He was not allowed by the Rome- Vicariate and the Vatican to affirm Feeneyite EENS.The Vatican and Vicariate are monitored and controlled by the Jewish Left with ties to Israel.So the priest could not say something which is obvious i.e that cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are physically invisible in our reality.They never ever were an exception to the dogma EENS.
This mistake was permitted in the Church in 1949 about the time Israel got its independence.The Zionist state could have threatened the Church as it does now.So the ecclesiology of this Salesian priest, who offers Mass in Italian, would be the same as the ecclesiologyof the Latin Mass in the 16th century.
It is of course not the ecclesiology of the Tridentine Rite Mass offered today which takes into account the theological demands of the Jewish Left.Priests cannot speak freely in the homily.The Italian governments permit the local police to monitor homilies,especially those at the SSPX chapels.
23. The Church is called the new people of God (cf. "Nostra aetate", No.4) but not in the sense that the people of God of Israel has ceased to exist.
The Church does not replace the people of God of Israel, since as the community founded on Christ it represents in him the fulfilment of the promises made to Israel. 
Yes the Catholic Church replaces the Jewish religion.Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7, LG 14). Jews do not have the baptism of water with Catholic faith at the time of death.But Catholic religious communities are not allowed to affirm this.Rabbi Rosen and others would object and use their weapon, the Anti-Semitic laws.
Another priest, a  diocesan priest  who offered the Tridentine Rite Mass in Rome agreed with me that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance .They are  not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.I told him that I would quote him on my blog.He agreed.
This priest was not allowed to offer Holy Mass the next Sunday.It was only after an auxiliary bishop visited the Church did things return to normal.
So it is obligatory for all priests to interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise.The SSPX and FSSP priests use the false premise yet it is surprising to see the sedevancatists priests also doing the same,since they are not under the Vatican.
A Brazilian Dominican priest affirmed the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions and gave me permission to quote him. He was a confessor at St. Mary Majors.He was soon gone.Even his Confessional was removed.He was prepared for these repercussions.
So when Pope Benedict said in March 2016 that Vatican Council II is 'a development' of the dogma EENS and since 'there is salvation outside the Church' .so why have mission, this was all a big bluff. There is no known salvation outside the Church.




The popes are not being allowed by the Jewish Left to speak the truth.They do not allow Catholics priests and religious communities to speak to affirm Vatican Council II( premise-free).
The Vatican, to protect its financial and other interests would be forced to suspend the priest or religious.
So all this makes me ask why do the sedevacantists like MHFM, Bishop Donald Sanborn, Fr.Anthony Cekada and CMRI interpret invisible baptism of desire as being a visible exception to Feeneyite EENS? Since they are not under direct pressure from the Jewish Left as is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
Also what prevents Bishop Richard Williamson from saying there are no known cases of the baptism of desire in 2017 ? Is it difficult to state that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a mistake? This was the reason why the Council was a rupture with Tradition for him.
Since if Archbishop Lefebvre said that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, GS 22, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases,then Vatican Council II would not be a rupture with EENS, as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century. There would be no break with the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.This would be replacement and supersession theology.
He was correct in saying Vatican Council II ( with the premise) is a rupture with Tradition.It is.



Meanwhile  Cardinal Ratzinger was not ready to say LG 16 etc were hypothetical cases.So they could not be exceptions to Tradition.He still did not say this in March 2016.Does the Jewish Left want it this way? Yes , of course.
Archbishop Lefebvre was correct.Vatican Council II( with the premise) was a rupture with Tradition.So the Masons wanted him excommunicated for not accepting Vatican Council II with the conclusion which comes with the use of the false premise?
Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct in saying that there was no known salvation outside the Church and they excommunicated him.Did the Masons want this too? At about that time there was the new Zionist state of Israel.
Were the excommunications of Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. Leonard Feeney leftist excommunications? They were excommunicated because they were orthodox ?-Lionel Andrades



DECEMBER 11, 2017

Image result for Photo Traditional Latin MAss


There is no concrete case, mentioned in Vatican Council II, which could be ' a development' of EENS contradicting Feeneyite EENS.But this is not known to Catholics

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/there-is-no-concrete-case-mentioned-in.html







1
17.17. On the part of many of the Church Fathers the so-called replacement theory or supersessionism steadily gained favour until in the Middle Ages it represented the standard theological foundation of the relationship with Judaism: the promises and commitments of God would no longer apply to Israel because it had not recognised Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God, but had been transferred to the Church of Jesus Christ which was now the true ‘new Israel’, the new chosen people of God. Arising from the same soil, Judaism and Christianity in the centuries after their separation became involved in a theological antagonism which was only to be defused at the Second Vatican Council. With its Declaration "Nostra aetate" (No.4) the Church unequivocally professes, within a new theological framework, the Jewish roots of Christianity. While affirming salvation through an explicit or even implicit faith in Christ, the Church does not question the continued love of God for the chosen people of Israel. A replacement or supersession theology which sets against one another two separate entities, a Church of the Gentiles and the rejected Synagogue whose place it takes, is deprived of its foundations. From an originally close relationship between Judaism and Christianity a long-term state of tension had developed, which has been gradually transformed after the Second Vatican Council into a constructive dialogue relationship.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html

Repost : LG 16, LG 14, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are not exceptions to EENS : Fr.Leonard Feeney's excommunication was a mistake

SEPTEMBER 28, 2015


LG16,LG 14, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are not exceptions to EENS : Fr.Leonard Feeney's excommunication was a mistake

Immagine correlataWe do not know any one in 2015 saved with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood or invincible ignorance - and without the baptism of water.Not a single such case is known or can be known. Since people in Heaven are not visible and known to us. With or without the baptism of water they are invisible for us.
So the Magisterium in 1949 made an objective mistake.It was a mistake  when they assumed that being saved with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood or invincible ignorance referred to known cases.Then the Magisterium inferred that these 'known cases' were explicit exceptions to the tradtional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus  according to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center at Boston, USA.
Immagine correlataThe error was then carried over into Vatican Council II.

 Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved...
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II
Immagine correlataTherefore though God in ways known to Himself can leadthose inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faithwithout which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)... -Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II

Those saved in 'inculpable ignorance' should not have been mentioned in Ad Gentes 7. Those  who 'know' or those who are in ignorance' and are saved with or without the baptism of water  are known only to God. Here in Lumen Gentium 14 it is being implied that we know these cases and can judge. They would not  be explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It was a mistake to have mentioned this in Lumen Gentium 14.We have to be aware that this is a reference to hypothetican cases followed by the baptism of water, since this is the dogmatic teaching and so they are not exceptions to the old ecclesiology.
Also it is implied that there are now three known baptisms, water, desire and invincible ignorance when the Nicene Creed mentions only one known baptism, the baptism of water.

Immagine correlataWith LG 16, LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 etc it is inferred that there are still more 'baptisms' and all of them are without the baptism of water. The text does not state it but this is the Magisterial inference made.
The Magisterium during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII did not correct the error. Also for some 19 years the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was not lifted. He remained excommunicated even during Vatican Council II. The popes did nothing to defend him.In public they did not affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma.

Immagine correlataRedemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus and the Catechism of the Catholic Church were issued assuming there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The International Theological Commission has made the same mistake in two theological papers.While the SSPX theologians and the sedevacantists CMRI, MHFM etc, have also made the same error as the liberals.
-Lionel Andrades