OCTOBER 1, 2015
Fr.John Zuhlsdorf is in material heresy
Fr.John Zuhlsdorf recently wrote that the SSPX could be in material/ de iure schism and that their canonical position is 'ambigous'. He mentions ' the gravity of the material schism by which souls are at grave risk of not being saved for as long as the situation perdures.'.
Fr.John Zuhlsdorf recently wrote that the SSPX could be in material/ de iure schism and that their canonical position is 'ambigous'. He mentions ' the gravity of the material schism by which souls are at grave risk of not being saved for as long as the situation perdures.'.
Yes the SSPX would be in material schism for rejecting Vatican Council II if the criteria for the interpretation of the Council is Cushingism, the irrational premise and inference and the right hand column.(Pl.see tags for a definition of these terms)
If the irrational premise and inference was avoided, and if Feeneyism and the left hand column were used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II then Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis and Fr. John Zuhlsdorf would be in material schism.They would be interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). This is material schism with the past popes.The pot has been calling the kettle black.
I Lionel, affirm Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise and inference and with Feeneyism and the left hand side column.
At the centre of Fr. Zuhlsdorf and my interpretation of Vatican Council II is EENS.He does not realize this.
For Fr.Z the popes cannot be in heresy since he cannot conceive, perhaps, of magisterial heresy among the contemporary popes ( from Pius XII to Francis).
For me the contemporary Magisterium uses fantasy theology which is a break with the pre-1949 magisterium.So the Magisterium has to be wrong either before or after 1949.Any one who infers we can see and know people in Heaven in 2015 as we see and know people on earth has to be wrog. If a pope or cardinal implies this he is still wrong.
The SSPX says they affirm the perennial Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The perennial Magisterium ( before 1949) did not interpret the dogma EENS with Cushingism.
1.They did not assume salvation in Heaven is visible and known on earth for us human beings.
2. They did not assume that these 'visible cases' exclude the baptism of water.
3.They did not infer that these allegedly visible cases were explicit exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Church with 'faith and baptism' for salvation.
For Fr.John Zuhlsdorf and the present Magisterium all these three errors ( 1,2,3) are there in their theology.
It is their position on Vatican Council II which is ambigous because of this irrationality of which they are not aware of.
For the SSPX and for them, there would be no ambiguity if they interpreted all magisterial documents without irrational Cushingism and without the false premise and inference which creates a new theology.
There is no ambiguity then in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
The ambiguity comes with Cushingism which is a new theology based on the irrationality of being able to see and know of non Catholics now in Heaven who are there without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith( the premise) and who are exceptions to the strict interpretation of EENS ( the false inference).So all do not need to convert into the Church in the present times ( is the false conclusion).
I have written about this in the past. Quite a few times and I have e-mailed and tweeted this to Fr.Z. He could comment on his schism with the past popes on EENS ' the gravity of the material schism (heresy) by which souls are at grave risk of not being saved for as long as the situation perdures.'.-Lionel Andrades
One last time:
There are 3 ways to enter the Church--BOW, BOD, and BOB.
Feeney denied BOB and BOD as means to enter the Church.
We can't see anyone in Heaven so how do you know water baptized people are there? On the authority of the Church! That's how! St. Emerantiana is in Heaven by BOB--the Church teaches it in her liturgy and in such matters the Church is infallible. If you object "How do we know"--because this is what the Church teaches! If you object "we can't see her" We can't see anyone who's been baptized either! So we can't know anybody in Heaven, even by Church proclamation! Here's a list of Church sources proclaiming BOD and BOB. When you can answer them all; then we can have a discussion. We don't answer (sedes) because you are of such a low intellect as to be a joke. You can't/don't understand the basic illogic of your heresy.
Here's the link:http://www.romancatholicism.org/bod-quotes.html
One last time:
There are 3 ways to enter the Church--BOW, BOD, and BOB.
Lionel:
Agreed.
Is BOD and BOB an exception to EENS ? This is the issue.
Why is all this so difficult for you? Is this some political position of the sedevanatists in your community?...(March 2018 and still there is no clarification or correction from them).
He denied the baptism of desire and baptism of blood, without the baptism of water, as known means of entering the Church.I agree with him.
He also denied that we human beings could know any such case for them to be relevant to the dogma. He criticised the Rector of Boston College and the Jesuit Provincial for saying there was salvation outside the Church.How could the Rector know ?
Your position and that of the sedevacantist seminary in Florida is that of the Jesuit Rector and Provinciial during the time of Fr. Leonard Feeney. It is is also the position of the Jesuits and the liberals today.
This is heresy and it is supported by Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada. The Left must be clapping in approval.
All of you interpret Vatican Council II with the same heresy, of there being explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Vatican Council II (LG 16, LG 8).
Even when it is so obvious and pointed out to you over some four months your persist. Are you so emotionally attached to them ?
_________________________
Lionel:
Lionel:
O.K she is in Heaven with the baptism of blood ( martyrdom).Where does the Church state that in her case it excludes the baptism of water? How could someone in the Church make this claim ?
How could you or any one infer that she is in Heaven without the baptism of water?
Again you make me ask the question which I don't want to mention : who saw her in Heaven without the baptism of water?
So why is it being said that she is an exception to the dogmatic teaching on salvation? Where is the proof ?
Where is the Church authority which says otherwise?
The liturgy only says she is a martyr.
It reminds me of the Good Thief on the Cross. We know he is in Heaven but the Church does not state that he did not receive the baptism of water before or after his death.The liberals and the sedevacantists say he is in Heaven without the baptism of water. O.k that is an inference but it is not the teaching of the Church.
_______________________
Lionel:
I have covered this point in the last comment.Here I go again.
Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada and all those associated with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre have accepted that BOD and BOB are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.
For someone to be an exception to the dogma( all needing to formally enter the Church with no exceptions)these people must have a name and they must live, they need to be real.
We beleive St.Emerentina is in Heaven with the baptism of blood ( martrydom) but :
1. We cannot say that someone who died centuries back is a real case today; she exists today, to be an exception to the dogmatic teaching on exclusive salvation in the Church. Some one from the past cannot be an exception to all needing to enter the Church today ( October 2015).So when you say there are exceptions you imply you know who these exceptions are or who are going to be exceptions tomorrow.
Also there is no way of knowing if she did not make it to Heaven as a martyr and received the baptism of water after she 'died', as the saints have explained.Either way, with or without the baptism of water, there is no way of knowing.
2.In general hypothetical cases cannot be defacto exceptions to the dogma. So LG 16 would be irrelevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
3.We believe the saints are in Heaven but we cannot postulate that those who are martyrs are there with or without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and so are exceptions to EENS.
Lionel:
Not a single one of them ! - says BOD and BOB are explicit or that they are exceptions to EENS.
This is the inference of Bishop Sanborn and Fr.Anthony Cekada.
I have pointed this out to Fr. Cekada a long time back but he still will not remove that article.
You do not have a single source to support your position. Not a single reference!
This is liberalism.