Thursday, March 15, 2018

Announcement and apology expected from Bishop Daniel Dolan, Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada


Image result for Photo of Fr.Anthony Cekada

In 2015 I wrote to Fr. Anthony Cekada, sedevacantist at the St. Gertrude the Great Church, Ohio,USA  telling him that there are no  known cases of the baptism of desire in our reality and the long list of his references to the baptism of desire do not state that they refer to personally known people saved outside the Church. No pope or saint has said this. However he infers that the saints and popes were referring to known people saved outside the Church.So the baptism of desire is an exception to his concept of Feeneyism.

ANNOUNCEMENT AWAITED
Common sense tells us that the baptism of desire is always hypothetical for us. So the baptism of desire never ever was an exception to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).So when will he make an announcement saying they were wrong on this issue?
For him the baptism of desire was an exception to Feeneyite EENS and so he wanted the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney, the St. Benedict Center in the USA to say the same. Since they would not do so he accused them of being in mortal sin.
srsgrp18
He needed to apologize to the Slaves of the Immaculate Hear of Mary since now we know that hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire were not relevant or exceptions to EENS.

VATICAN COUNCIL II NO MORE BASIS FOR SEDEVACANTISM
Today I reminded him via e-mail that not only is the baptism of desire not an exception to Feeneyite EENS since there are no practical exceptions but there are no exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors etc. So with Vatican Council II not a rupture with Tradition( when hypothetical cases are interpreted as just being hypothetical and not objective exceptions to EENS) then there is no reason to go into sedevacantism  assuming  Vatican Council II is a rupture with Tradition.

FLIPPANT
He responded flippantly.Probably he wants me to come back after another three years and he will still be teaching the seminarians that Vatican Council II contradicts the Syllabus of Errors and there are objective cases of the baptism of desire which are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS in 2015-2018.
Image result for Photo Bishop Daniel DolanImage result for Photo Bishop Daniel Dolan

BAPTISM OF DESIRE A RUPTURE WITH FEENEYITE EENS FOR THREE SEDEVACANTIST BISHOPS
The Pastor at the St.Gertrude the Great church, their principal church, is Bishop Daniel Dolan.He  was ordained  a bishop in 1992 by Bishop Mark Pivarunas of the Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae (CMRI).It is also a traditionalist sedevacantist community which interprets Vatican Council II as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors.Also for them the the baptism of desire is a rupture with Feeneyite EENS.Yesterday I e-mailed these blog posts to the CMRI and Bishop Pivarunas.There is no response from him.
Image result for Photo Bishop Donald Sanborn
I have also e-mailed Bishop Donald Sanborn, the founder of the sedevacantist Most Holy Trinity Seminary, Florida.Fr.Anthony Cekada is a member of the faculty. .
When will Fr.Anthony Cekada have the integrity to say that he made a mistake about the baptism of desire(BOD) and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary being in mortal sin ?





Over three years, he knows that the BOD can be interpreted as being 1) visible and known in personal cases or 2) just hypothetical.The conclusion is different. That it is hypothetical for us is common sense.It was obviously hypothetical for the popes and saints in the past too.

FR.CEKADA MADE A MISTAKE ON VATICAN COUNCIL II TOO
Fr.Cekada made a similar mistake with Vatican Council II. He interpreted Lumen Gentium 16(invincible ignorance) and Lumen Gentium 14( case of the catechumen) as being exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. So his  inference was that these were known people.Otherwise they could not be  exceptions.For him these were known cases of salvation outside the Church.So Vatican Council II became a rupture with Tradition and he went into sedevacantism,when the fault lay with this false premise.
Three years back perhaps there was a problem with comprehension on his part but now after being informed  are we dealing with deception and sin ?

FR.CEKADA KNOWS THERE ARE NO KNOWN CASES OF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IN 2018
There should be an announcement from Fr. Anthony Cekada saying that he agrees that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire in our reality.

Mystici Corporis, Syllabus of Errors and the Catechisms of Trent and Pius X are referring to hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.





SEDEVACANTIST INFERENCE WAS WRONG.
So these Magisterial documents never were objective exceptions to the traditional interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation.The inference of the sedevacantists were wrong.

TRADITIONALISTS AND SEDEVACANTISTS MADE A MISTAKE ON VATICAN COUNCIL II
Fr.Cekada also needs to announce that LG 8,LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA2 ,GS 22 etc refer to invisible people in 2018 and so they are not exceptions to the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. They are not exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors on ecumenism etc.So we can affirm Vatican Council II and Feeneyite EENS.Vatican Council II is compatible with the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.

FAITHFUL NEED TO BE INFORMED
It is not a rupture with Tradition as the traditionalists and sedevacantists wrongly believed over the last 50 years.They need to announce that they made a mistake in their interpretation of Vatican Council and the Council is no more a reason to go into sedevacantism.
This announcement should also be made for the interests of seminarians,the faithful and Catholics at large, by Bishop Daniel Dolan and Bishop Donald Sanborn.
-Lionel Andrades

http://www.traditionalmass.org/priests/dolan.php
http://www.traditionalmass.org/priests/sanborn.php
http://www.sgg.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/20180311.pdf
https://sggresources.org/
http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2

_________________________________________




























































I am waiting for Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider, Robero dei Mattei and Chris Ferrara to affirm Vatican Council II and the strict interpretation of EENS

The whole Church is interpreting Vatican Council II as a rupture with Feneeyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) and so is in schism with the past popes.
Even Cardinal Raymond Burke, Cardinal Walter Brandmuller and Bishop Athanasius Schneider are in schism with the popes on Feeneyite EENS.
They need to clarify that Lumen Gentium 8, Lumen Gentium 14, Lumen Gentium 16, Unitatitis Redintigratio 3, Nostra Aetate 2,Gaudium et Specs 22, Ad Gentes 11( seeds of the Word) etc refer to hypothetical cases in 2018. So there are no objective examples of salvation in the present times.So they are not objective exceptions to the old teaching on the Church having the superiority and exclusiveness in salvation.
I have mentioned this numerous times. Now I am waiting for Roberto dei Mattei and Christopher Ferrara to say they they affirm Feeneyite EENS in harmony with Vatican Council II.-LionelAndrades

Sedevacantists agree. Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition

Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr.Anthonty Cekada agree with me Vatican Council II is not a rupture with Tradition!
Also Bishop Mark Pivarunas agrees with me.There is a mistake on the CMRI website.The Sylabus of Errors, Quanta Cura,Mystici Corporis etc are not contradicted by Vatican Council II.Neither does Mystici Corporis etc contradict the the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).They have not objected to me mentioning all this on my blog Eucharist and Mission.
Similarly Peter and Michael Dimond realize that Vatican Council II(LG 16, LG 8, etc) does not contradict the dogma EENS.They made the common mistake.They are presenting any counter arguement or defending themselves.
Since 2013 I had written to Peter and Michael Dimond but they could not understand me.They rejected the baptism of desire but in their mind they pictured it as a known person.Since it is a known person, someone physically visible, it would be an exception to the dogma EENS.Since there cannot be exceptions to the dogma EENS they rejected visible for them BOD.
For me BOD is invisible and so I do not have a problem with it with reference to EENS. It does not have to be BOD or EENS. I do not have to choose.
So Vatican Council II is no more a reason for the sedevacantists to remain in sedevacantism.-Lionel Andrades


March 14, 2018

Without the theological error of the two popes, without the Ladaria Error, theologically, sedevacantists no more have reason to remain in sedevacantism because of Vatican Council II? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/without-theological-error-of-two-popes.html



Wednesday, March 14, 2018

We simply need a prelate, religious congregation or lay movement to announce that they choose to interpret Vatican Council II without the irrational premise: we need a cardinal to announcement what the CDF does not  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/we-simply-need-prelate-religious.html

March 14, 2018
The sedevacantists MHFM interpret Vatican Council II with an irrationality and then reject the Council.This is heretical. They make the same theological error as the Vatican Curia.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/the-mhfm-website-interprets-vatican.html




Wednesday, March 14, 2018photo of Bishop Mark Pivarunas

CMRI website says Vatican Council II contradicts Syllabus of Errors. This is false.http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/cmri-website-says-vatican-council-ii.html



 March 14, 2018

It's time for U.S sedevacantists to renounce sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II interpreted with the Ladaria Error

 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/its-time-for-us-sedevacantists-to.html