Friday, March 16, 2018

Repost : Dialogue with the MHFM continued after a pause-2

AUGUST 10, 2014

Dialogue with the MHFM continued after a pause-2

I affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus as you do. I affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise. I affirm implicit for us baptism of desire and I am not a sedevacantist. Things couldnt be better.
I have received an e-mail from the MHFM continuing our dialogue.Here it is.
MHFM:
Wrong. That's modernism. You hold that dogmas are preceptive norms for acting, but not norms for believing. That's your error (and heresy, actually).
Lionel:
 I hold dogmas are norms for believing and acting. Like you, I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There are no exceptions for me dejure or defacto, in theory or practise.
Unlike you, I affirm implicit for us baptism of desire. I accept it in faith, in theory. In fact (de facto, known to us) there are no cases.There are no defato cases of the baptism of desire.This is the reality of the baptism of desire. You instead assume there is explicit for us baptism of desire.It is visible in the flesh. Since they are exceptions to EENS for you. You imply that these cases visible cases of the baptism of desire, people now saved in Heaven, are people dead  who are now  physically visible to you  on earth.Then you reject  the baptism of desire.
So we both affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus but you do not affirm implicit for us baptism of desire.
I accept Vatican Council II without the premise of the baptism of desire cases now in Heaven being visible. So there is no false premise for me of the baptism of desire cases being visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the MHFM premise and conclusion.It is irrational.
You reject Vatican Council II assuming there are explicit, visible exceptions mentioned in the Council(LG 8 etc).
I accept implicit for us baptism of desire.You reject the baptism of desire, since it is explicit for you.
I accept the popes. You are a sedevacantist.
You are irrational.Since we cannot see the deceased who are allegedly saved with the baptism of desire. Since they are invisible for us they cannot be relevant or exceptions to EENS.
You are also heretical according to your own standards.You are in schism with the past popes on the Nicene Creed. You interpret Vatican Council II as a rupture with EENS and the past popes on EENS.
You have still not addressed the issue of the non physical baptism of desire which I affirm. Perhaps you do not understand what I am saying.So we can make allowances for this.
I have cited an American apologist and Catholic priests in Rome supporting me and you overlook what I have said.You still talk in terms of theology when I am referring to physical cases on earth.
MHFM:
Let us explain it for you: when the Church proclaims that all who die as pagans, etc. go to Hell, that's not only what we preach, it's also what we must believe. It is also what holds true in God's sight. Got it.
Lionel:
Numerous times on my blog and in correspondence with you I have said this .I agree with you here. I affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS like the missionaries and Magisterium of the past.
MHFM:
That means that it would be heretical to assert, as you do, that God could perhaps invisibly make exceptions that are not known to us or mentioned in the dogma.
Lionel:
I am glad you have mentioned this point.
I believe that all who go to Heaven are Catholics. They are there with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water and without mortal sin on their soul. I have mentioned this on my blog.I think we agree here.
If a soul goes to Heaven with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water I believe God will send that person back to earth to be baptised with water. This has been the experience of saints including St.Francis of Xavier. I have mentioned this on my blog.
So there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Theoretically,de jure there are no exceptions for me .
Secondly, de facto we do not know of any case in 2014 saved without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. So there are no defacto exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.In reality there cannot be practical exceptions to EENS for any of us.
 So in theory, hypothethically and in fact, in the present times there are no exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
So all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II (imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), elements of sanctification and truth (LG 8) etc are not implicit or explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is what I believe.
You do not make the distinction between implicit and explicit- for- us salvation. You assume that all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II is explicit- for- us and so contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So you reject Vatican Council II.
MHFM:
Dogmas are truths fallen from Heaven. They are are perfect reflection of the reality in God's sight.
Lionel:
Correct.I agree. 
MHFM:
Here's where you heresy is condemned.
Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22:
The dogmas which the Church professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned[xix]
Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #54:
The dogmas, the sacraments, the hierarchy, as far as pertains both to the notion and to the reality, are nothing but interpretations and the evolution of Christian intelligence, which have increased and perfected the little germ latent in the Gospel.”- Condemned[xx]
Lionel:
Non applicable to me.I affirm the dogma EENS with Feeneyism and not Cushingism. I do not postulate that invisible for us baptism of desire etc is a visible exception to the dogma EENS.
MHFM:
Dogmas of the faith, like Outside the Church There is No Salvation, are truths fallen from heaven.
This refutes all of your statements about 'objective, subjective', etc. We hope you see the heresy in which you have fallen and come out of it, but you are very dishonest. These points address and refute the argument you constantly make on this issue: that there are exceptions known to God, on baptism, salvation, etc.,
Lionel:
The baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance are only possibilities.So they cannot be exceptions to EENS Exceptions must exist in real life. Possibilities are dejure. Possibilities are theoretical. Exceptions are de facto, known cases.
If there was a case of the baptism of desire known to God it would not be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Since for us it would still be an unknown case. It would be invisible on earth. It would not be an exception de jure or de facto.
 1) God would send this person a preacher or someone to have him baptised with water ( St.Thomas Aquinas, St.Francis Xavier etc) and 2) defacto this case would not be known to us on earth.So it is irrelevan to EENS.It would not be an exception to all needing to enter the Church with the baptism of water for salvation.
Even if someone believes that  that there is someone there in Heaven without the baptism of water, it still would not be a visible, known exception to the dogma EENS on earth.So baptism of desire and baptism of blood ,with or without the baptism of water , there cannot be an  exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, since these cases are known only to God in Heaven .
MHFM
that are not mentioned in the dogmatic proclamations - HERESY. You teach modernism, and you do it all the time.
Lionel:
I affirm Vatican Council II ( without the premise). You deny it. Is this heresy?
I affirm implicit for us baptism of desire. You deny it. Is this heresy?
I accept the pope. You are a sedevacantist. Is this heresy?
-Lionel Andrades

August 9, 2014
Dialogue with the MHFM continued after a pause -1

Repost : Fr.Anthony Cekada has used an irrational premise ( BOD is explicit, objective in the present times ) and an irrational inference ( BOD is explicit and so an exception to EENS).

JULY 9, 2015


Fr.Anthony Cekada has used an irrational premise ( BOD is explicit, objective in the present times ) and an irrational inference ( BOD is explicit and so an exception to EENS).

HTTP://WWW.TRADITIONALMASS.ORG/ARTICLES/ARTICLE.PHP?ID=28&CATNAME=2
FIRST ASK: WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA FOR OUR BELIEF
Dear N.N.:
Thank you for your e-mail.
      Unfortunately, by going directly to a series of questions about the particular issue of baptism of desire, you pass over the key to this discussion: Ascertaining all the general criteria by which a particular issue such as this must be judged.
      My original article, “Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles,” began by setting forth the “general rules for belief” that the Church imposes upon Catholics. What kinds of teaching are we obliged to adhere to?
      Answering this question establishes the general principles, or the rules of evidence, for discussing any point of Catholic teaching. Only when all these principles are established can one then look at aparticular issue.
      Vatican I and Pius IX laid down these general principles by establishing all the following as the types of teaching that a Catholic must believe and adhere to:
1.  Solemn pronouncements of the extraordinary Magisterium.
2.     Teachings of the universal ordinary Magisterium.
3.     Teachings of the universal ordinary Magisterium held by the universal and common consent of theologians to belong to the faith.
4.  Doctrinal decisions of the Vatican congregations.
5.     Theological truths and conclusions so certain that opposition to them merits some theological censure short of “heresy.”
      Fr. Feeney’s followers (and many traditionalists) seem to have the impression that a Catholic’s obligation is pretty much limited to point 1 on the list. Your letter stops after point 2 and then asks a series of questions.
      But a Catholic has to accept all these criteria, and consequently also believe or adhere to all the teachings which fall under points 2-5.
      Otherwise, a reasonable discussion of almost any theological point among Catholics becomes entirely impossible, because some of the Church’s standards have been set aside.
      So, I ask you to reread Section I of my original article, with particular attention to the quotes from Tuas Libenter and the Syllabus of Errors, in order to verify that points 2-5 above do in fact accurately represent the obligations that Pius IX laid down.
Lionel:
None of the First Principles before 1949 stated that the baptism of desire (BOD) and baptism of blood (BOB)  were
1) explicit 
2) they were explicit and so were exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)
 3) they are explicit for us in the present times.
So we do not have a First Principle before 1949 condeming Fr. Leonard Feeney. Instead they support Fr.Leonard Feeney and negate Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani and Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits in Boston.
      I think that if you carefully study the issue, you will come to understand and accept the Church’s requirements as regards points 2-5.
      Acknowledging these as first principles would go a long way towards resolving any difficulties over the specific issue of baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
Lionel:
My reading of the First Principles show Cardinals Marchetti and Cushing and now Fr.Anthonty Cekada in error. They have used an irrational premise ( BOD is explicit, objective in the present times ) and an irrational inference ( BOD is explicit and so an exception to EENS in the present times). This is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. It is something new which has come into the Church. It  is 'a development' of both BOD and EENS.
      Please take your time in replying. I’ll be away for about two weeks (seminary teaching and missions) and I won’t have access to e-mail.
Yours in Christ,
— The Rev. Anthony Cekada
 http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=28&catname=2

The Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake. It was an objective mistake and not just a mistake in theology. It was an error of observation. In a sense it was a philosophical error

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/the-holy-office-1949-made-factual.html









Repost : Sedevacantists and traditionalists should check the websites they follow and ask where is B an exception to A

JULY 13, 2015


Sedevacantists and traditionalists should check the websites they follow and ask where is B an exception to A

Immagine correlataSedevacantists and traditionalists should check the websites they follow and ask  where is B an exception to A.They will find many examples of this irrationality in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.

For example Lumen Gentium 8 'subsist it', can it be exception to the orthodox passages in Ad Gentes 7 and Unitatitis Redintigratio 3 ? No! Yet this is the mistake made by bishops and priests.
They should also ask  where in the writings of the Church Fathers, Church Councils and saints before 1949 is it mentioned that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, refer to explicit cases and that they are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus? There are none. This is also a common error on Catholic websites.
-Lionel Andrades

In Ecumenism B is not an exception to A. UR 3 does not contradict AG 7 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/in-ecumenism-b-is-not-exception-to-ur-3.html
 The Council of Trent does not mention the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood as being explicit or as being explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/the-council-of-trent-does-not-mention.html

Repost : The subsist it confusion is based on B being an exception to A

JULY 14, 2015

The subsist it confusion is based on B being an exception to A



traditionalmass.org | Traditional Latin Mass Resources
The Magisterium of Vatican II
Rev. Curzio Nitoglia

 atzmon-moffa-nitoglia-400
Subsists in: “Found in, but not Exclusively Identified with”
What does this formula “subsists in” actually mean? It was chosen deliberately in order to deny that the Church of Christ is only the Catholic Church. “Subsistit in” means, in fact, that the Church of Christ is found in the Catholic Church, but is not exclusively identified with the Catholic Church.
“The change of est (Pius XII) to subsistit (Gaudium et Spes) took place for ecumenical reasons,” explains Fr. Mucci, S.J. in Civiltà Cattolica(December 5, 1988). And Fr. Louis Bouyer writes that thanks to the “subsistit” introduced by the Council, one has sought to“propose again the idea of the one Church, even if it is presently divided among the diverse Christian Churches, as if among many branches.”[8] This idea was taken up again by John Paul II in Canterbury. Furthermore Cardinal Willebrands, on May 5th and 8th of 1987, held some conferences in which he affirmed that the “subsistit” supersedes and corrects the est of Pius XII (cf.Documentation Catholique, January 3, 1988). While the Council was in progress, Bishop Carli (then Bishop of Segni) and Fr. Aniceto Fernandez, Master General of the Dominicans, vigorously intervened to request the correction of Lumen Gentium by using the word est instead of “subsistit,” in order to unequivocally reaffirm the Catholic Faith. But the ecumenical choice — or better, the heretical choice — prevailed. Fr. Congar writes:
The problem remains if Lumen Gentium strictly and exclusively identifies the Mystical Body of Christ with the Catholic Church, as did Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Can we not call it into doubt when we observe that not only is the attribute “Roman”missing, but also that one avoids saying that only Catholics are members of the Mystical Body.
Lionel: Only Catholics are members of the Catholic Church according to Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7. Those who have faith and baptism are members of the Catholic Church. Let's call this statement A.
 Thus they are telling us (in Gaudium et Spes) that the Church of Christ and of the Apostles subsistit in, is found in the Catholic Church. There is consequently no strict identification, that isexclusive, between the Church of Christ and the “Roman” Church. Vatican II admits, fundamentally, that non-catholic christians are members of the Mystical Body and not merely ordered to it.[emphasis added][9]
Lionel: There is nothing in Gaudium e Spes to contradict A. If non Catholic Christians are members of the Mystical Body we do not know of any case who has been saved as such. If it is  assumed  that there are personally known non Catholic Christians who are saved without being formal members of the Church then we could call this statement BB would refer to explicit cases known in the present times. So B would be an exception to A.This would be irrational. Since Congar could not have known any one saved outside the Church. If there was such a case it would only be known to God.So his reasoning was faulty.
In fact Pius XII, in Mystici Corporis, teaches that the unique Church of Christ is (est) the Catholic Church.
Lionel: Yes. It is in agreement with A in Vatican Council II (AG 7).
Lumen Gentium, on the other hand, changes the est to subsistitbecause it no longer identifies (est) the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. This is to say that the Church founded by Christexists in the catholic Church, without excluding the other “separated churches.” (The conciliar magisterium uses capital C for the “separated Churches”)
In short, the Mystical Body of Christ has a greater extension than that of the Roman Catholic Church.
Lionel: This is an inference. The text does not state this. Pope Benedict XVI also issued a document clarifying this point.The document was traditional.
And why do they assert this? It is simple: just as each man is divinized by the very fact that the Word became incarnate, it is inconceivable that only Catholics are members of the Mystical Body of Christ, but as well the sects and all men are united in an indissoluble manner to Christ and form a part of His Mystical Body. (Cf. John Paul II, Speech to the Roman Curia, December, 1986: “The Church as Symbol of the Unity of the Human Race”)
Lionel: This would be an inference in which Bwould be an exception to A. 
Correct Interpretation of“Subsists in”
But here it may be objected that this interpretation of “subsistit in” is factious and extremist, and that, ultimately, such a phrase could be interpreted in an orthodox way by seeing it “in the light of tradition.” The very “conciliar magisterium,” however, taken as a whole, gives us the “authentic” interpretation of the phrase.
Lumen Gentium continues:
Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible confines [that is, outside the Catholic Church]. Since these are gifts proper to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity. (no. 7) [emphasis added]
Lionel:
We do not know anyone saved with 'elements of sanctification and of truth'(LG 8) and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.So LG 8 is not an exception to A.
If it is assumed that these cases are known to us in the present times, to be explicit and obvious exceptions to the dogma, then this would be irrational and a falsehood.Then Bwould be an exception to A.
Yet this is implied by the sedevacantist writer.
 
This means that elements of truth and holiness, proper to the Church of Christ, exist also outside the Roman Church, that is, they subsist in her, but do not coincide with her. These elements are found in the Catholic Church as they are found in sects, as they are found in every man united to Christ by the very fact of the Incarnation!
Lionel:
If there are such elements it could be accepted as something theoretical, de jure, known only to God.So they would not be exceptions or relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, theSyllabus of Errors etc. B would not be an exception to A.
 
John Paul II himself intervened to further explain Gaudium et Spes on May 29, 1982 in Canterbury, where he gave a speech in which he said:
The Church of our time is the Church which participates in a particular manner in the prayer of Christ for unity...The promise of Christ fills us with confidence in the power with which the Holy Spirit will heal every division introduced into the Church in the course of the centuries since Pentecost.
Lionel: Yes we seek unity with an ecumenism of return. Ut Unum Sint calls for our separated brethren to be united in the Catholic Church under the pope who represents St. Peter.
As you can see, for the conciliar “magisterium”the Church of Christ is not one(i.e., the Catholic Church), but is divided and subsists or is found in the various sects and in every man and therefore also in the Catholic Church.
Lionel:
As you can see for the writer B is an exception to A.So he interprets Vatican Council II with this irrationality.
He does not know any one in the present times saved with 'elements of sanctification and of truth'. So how can LG 8 be an exception to Tradition for him? Yet it is!
-Lionel Andrades

Vatican Council II (UR ,DH) would contradict Mortalium Animos, Quanta Cura, Syllabus of Errors only if B is an exception to A

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/vatican-council-ii-ur-dh-would.htmls 

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=33&catname=5

Repost : If the whole world violates the Principle of Non Contradiction then the whole world is wrong.If you and the other sedevacantists assume imaginary cases are physically visible in 2016 then you all are wrong

OCTOBER 16, 2016

If the whole world violates the Principle of Non Contradiction then the whole world is wrong.If you and the other sedevacantists assume imaginary cases are physically visible in 2016 then you all are wrong.

'the whole world misunderstands except you is beyond bold.'
Lionel:
If the whole world violates the Principle of Non Contradiction then the whole world is wrong.
If you and the other sedevacantists assume imaginary cases are physically visible in 2016 then you all are wrong.
If for you it is normal that someone saved in invincible ignorance and allegedly without the baptism of water is a known exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( EENS); the 'rigorist interpretation', then something is seriously wrong,especially so after having explained it to you.
If your website can cite a whole list of popes and saints citing the baptism of desire and you infer that they were physically visible cases instead of theoretical possibilities expressed with goodwill and speculation, then there is something seriously wrong.May be you should discuss this reasoning with someone even if he is not a Catholic,perhaps he could help.
I have cited an Achbishop, a Dean of Theology at a pontifical univeristy in Rome, numerous priests and a lay apologist who support me and yet you suggest that this is a persona view and an irrational reasoning.
I support my view with magisterial documents interpreted without your irrational inference,that is invisible cases are visible and so are exceptions to traditional ecclesiology and theology.I affirm Vatican Council II ( without your irrational premise), the Cateshism of the Catholic Church (1995- Feeneyite interpretation), the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the 16th century missionaries,the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( with invincible ignorance referring to a hypothetical case),the Letter of the Holy Office ( first part),Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 on outside the Church there is no salvation, the Nicene Creed with 'I believe in one known baptism and not three or more', the Athanasius Creed on outside the Church there is no salvation,Dominus Iesus , Redemptoris Missio and other magisterial documents interpreted with the theology of Feeneyism and not Cushingism.
Can you beat this?
You reject Vatican Council II ( Cushingite), just as I do and assume that this is the only interpretation of the Council possible.
You also accept the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which contradicts the first part and is responsible for the Cushingite ( Rahner theology) interpretation of Vatican Council II.
So with this Cushingism you will be contradicting the Syllabus of Errors, Catechism of Pope Pius X etc and would assume that this is the only interpretation of magisterial texts possible, not knowing that your reasoning is based on a false premise.
I use a different premise to interpret magisterial documents and so my conclusion is different.It is traditional and non  heretical.
-Lionel Andrades

Repost :Bishop Donald Sanborn and the sedes cannot defend themself theologically and doctrinally

DECEMBER 17, 2016

Bishop Donald Sanborn and the sedes cannot defend themself theologically and doctrinally

See there is no clarification or denial from Bishop Donald Sanborn or Fr.Cekada. They are teaching the error since it is politically correct.Fr. Leonard Feeney is the scapegoat.
There position is the same as the liberals and it is useful not be charged with being Anti-Semitic or racist etc. So they maintain their seminary in Florida, while they compromise the Faith and deny it.
I have been writing about this for a long time on my blog.Now even when it appears on Gloria TV they cannot defend themself theologically and doctrinally.
They say that the magisterium of Pope Pius XII condemned Fr. Leonard Feeney and they support the magisterium. Yet they reject the magisterium of Pope Paul VI and Vatican Council II.They also reject the magisterium of Pope Francis and are sedevacantists.
1.I affirm the baptism of desire and for me it is always INVISIBLE.The baptism of desire can only be invisible for us human beings.Why does Bishop Sanborn not affirm this? It is something obvious. Even an uneducated person would tell him that the baptism of desire is always a hypothetical case for us, something speculated.
2.Since the baptism of desire is invisible for us it is NOT an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII made an objective mistake. Why does Bishop Sanborn not affirm this?
3.The same religious who made the mistake in 1949 were active at Vatican Council II. So it was a mistake for Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits to mention the case of the unknown catechumen (LG 14) and being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) in Vatican Council II.They were never relevant to the dogma EENS.
So Vatican Council II can be interpreted with LG 16 and LG 14 referring to hypothetical cases. Hypothetical cases cannot be explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS in 2016.So why does Bishop Sanborn not affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS, as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.?This is how I see Vatican Council II. It is the only rational option possible.
Instead on these three points above the position of Bishop Sanborn is the same as that of the liberals and Masons .So he is not persecuted but tolerated by them.
-Lionel Andrades

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


November 1, 2016
Sedevacantists Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr.Anthony Cekada have still to say : 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/2016/11/sedevacantists-bishop-donald-sanborn.html

November 1, 2016
Atila S. Guimarães and Robert de Mattei wrote books on Vatican Council II not knowing that 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/2016/11/atila-s-guimaraes-and-robert-de-mattei.html
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

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/monsguido-pozzo-secretaryecclesia-dei.html


November 3, 2016
Irrational premises and conclusions: there can be two interpretations of Vatican Council II http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/irrational-premises-and-conclusions.html
November 3, 2016
Could you identify the irrational premise and conclusion for me ? / Do you agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/could-you-identify-irrational-premise_3.html
November 2, 2016

To understand what I am saying you have to identify the false premise and conclusionhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/to-understand-what-i-am-saying-you-have.html

November 1, 2016
In the past the Catholic Church was always Christocentric with an exclusivist ecclesiology.With the innovation of the false premise and conclusion the Catholic Church only remains Christocentric and so no more supports an ecumenism of return.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/in-past-catholic-church-was-always.html
November 1, 2016
There can only be a clarification if they agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion? This is the central thesis of what I am saying.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/there-can-only-be-clarification-if-they.html


November 1, 2016
So we have two conclusions and two interpretations.One has to be correct and the other wrong.Do you think Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops used the irrational premise and conclusion?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/so-we-have-two-conclusions-and-two.html
November 1, 2016
Bishop Bernard Tisseur de Mallerais repeats the error of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: he assumes Nostra Aetate contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/bishop-bernard-tisseur-de-mallerais.html
November 1, 2016
Do you think that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre also made a mistake in theology and lost the truth?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/do-you-think-that-archbishop-marcel.html

November 1, 2016
With Feeneyism ( no physically known execeptions to EENS) Vatican Council II changes
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/with-feeneyism-no-physically-known.html