Thursday, September 20, 2018

Bishop who interprets Vatican Council II and outside the Churchno salvation with irrational Cushingism instead of traditional Feeneyism is the new Chairman of the USCCB Doctrinal Committee

domazxrw4aa2fae

From Whispers of Restoration
After being asked “Is it a sin for Catholics to join in non-Catholic worship services?” at 24:05, Bishop Rhoades offers a number of directives that have become fairly standard since the Second Vatican Council. While reminding Catholics of the prohibition against receiving non-Catholic sacraments (although it remains unclear what would qualify as such, or what their reception would entail), he goes on to assure Catholics that they may:
  • Participate in Protestant worship, “in the singing and the praying”
  • Participate in “ecumenical” worship
  • Participate in Jewish temple or synagogue worship
  • Participate in non-Christian worship; but not “to a deity we don’t believe in”

To restate Rhoades’ directives in the classical categories: Catholics are welcome to participate in the rites of heretics, schismatics, Jews and other infidels; provided that there is a “believable” deity involved (the criteria or determining body for discerning such a deity being uncertain) and no false sacraments are received (the nature of these or their reception remaining likewise unclear).

Coming from a bishop in a significant doctrinal role for the United States, one would expect these statements to have some grounding in the constant and uniform teaching of the Church; for they entail not only a moral question (what to do) but also a number of critical underlying doctrines (what to believe), e.g. that worship is man’s principle duty in the natural order and by grace, that worship can be either true or false, and that true worship is retained in the Catholic Church alone.
Yet even a cursory review of Scripture and Tradition lends no support to the Bishop’s directives. Instead, they stand clearly and consistently condemned by the same, at least until a certain fuzziness appears around 1962. Limiting oneself to only a few magisterial *pronouncements on the point, the discontinuity is still rather jarring:
  • “No one shall pray in common with heretics and schismatics” –Synod of Laodicea, 363
  • “No one must either pray or sing psalms with heretics” –Council of Carthage, 397
  • “Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, who has prayed with heretics be excommunicated” –Apostolic Canons, c. 450
  • “If any cleric or layman shall enter into a synagogue of Jews or heretics to pray, let the former be deposed and the latter be excommunicated” –Ibid.
  • “If anyone refuses to avoid heretics after they have been pointed out by the Church, let them also be excommunicated” –Council of Lateran IV, 1215
  • “Heretics and those stained with some taint of heresy, or Judaizers, are to be totally excluded from the company of Christ’s faithful” –Council of Lateran V, 1512
  • “It is illicit to invite heretics into choir during sacred services, to sing alternately with them, to give them peace, sacred ashes, candles and blessed palms, and other such tokens of external worship” –Cong. of the Holy Office, 1859
  • “It is not licit for Catholics to attend or take part in an active way in non-catholic ceremonies” –Canon Law, 1917
  • “In all these meetings and conferences, any communication whatsoever in worship must be avoided” –Cong. of the Holy Office, 1949
image.jpg
To distill a bit further, one could hazard an illustration:
If one gathered the bishops of the first nineteen centuries in a room together with Bishop Rhoades, and asked the group whether it is sinful to actively participate in non-Catholic worship (with or without fake sacraments), every bishop would respond “Yes,” with the exception of the USCCB’s current Doctrine Committee Chairman.
Of course, that lone voice of dissent could stand for any number of bishops since the Second Vatican Council; and this is precisely the problem.

Continued
https://whispersofrestoration.blog/2018/09/19/futurecatholic-usccb-chairman-on-doctrine-offers-case-in-point/

Bishop Rhoades interprets Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism.-Lionel Andrades











How can the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make a mistake?

I had been banned on all Catholic forums.I have been blocked by liberals, conservatives and traditionalist Catholics over the last few years.The ban also included the website of the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, NH.
But of late I have noticed that I have been un-blocked by many.The Most Holy Family Monastery, USA are now receiving my e-mails.Bishop Donald Sanborn, Ryan Grant and Athanasius( Rorate Caeili) don't say 'go away'.
A few months back when I wrote on a Catholic sedevacantists forum that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 teaches heresy, I was immediately banned.But interestingly they left my posts on line.They could not refute me rationally and at the same time what I was saying was not being accepted by them. I was affirming traditional EENS and not rejecting hypothetical baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.So I was also not rejecting the Catechisms but only interpreting them with hypothetical for us BOD, BOB and I.I.
The problem arises when they do not make the invisible-visible, unknown-known distinction in the interpretation of BOD. BOB and I.I. They always interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as referring to known and visible non Catholics saved outside the Church - and they are not aware of this error.
So when I say that I affirm Feeneyite EENS they assume that I am rejecting visible for all BOD,BOB and I.I. For them it had to be EENS or BOD, BOB and I.I.One or the other.
So when I say that BOD, BOB and I.I are not an exception to Feeneyite EENS they do not understand me.
How can the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make a mistake?
-Lionel Andrades

Pope Benedict confirmed this error in public ( Avvenire, March 2016) and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj at the Placuet Deo Press Conference, question and answer session( March 1, 2018). So Fr. Leonard Feeney held the de fide teaching on EENS and BOD, BOB and I.I and those who excommunicated him were teaching heresy.

Image result for Photos Questions and Answers
I can not even imagine how you could possibly defend Father Feeney who at the very LEAST misunderstood the teaching of the Catholic Church on BOB, BOD and II


Fr: Leonard Feeney was not saying any thing knew. Instead he was rejecting the theological innovation, based on an irrationality, which was brought into the Catholic Church.
He was affirming the 'strict' interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus; outside the Church there is no salvation.He was doing this without assuming invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood( BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were visible exceptions to the traditional teaching on all needing to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation with no known exceptions( Catechism of the Catholic Church, Athanasius Creed, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 etc).
At the same time he theoretically and hypothetically accepted BOD, BOB and I.I as is seen in his book The Bread of Life. He could, conceive of the theoretical case of the unknown catechumen who desired the baptism of water before he died and would allegedly be saved.For him it could only result in justification. For salvation the baptism of water was always needed.
The Catechism of Pope Pius X, like Fr. Leonard Feeney says that all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation and that Protestants etc are on the way to Hell since they are outside the Church. This Catechism also mentions the case of someone theoretically being saved in invincible ignorance etc.It  does not state that this is a known person saved outside the Church. Since obviously there is no such known person. This is a given.
However liberal theologians interpreted invincible ignorance in this Catechism, and magisterial documents in general,  as referring not to an invisible person. For me however this Catechism refers to a physically invisible person who is allegedly saved in invincible ignorance.
So for the theologicans this Catechism would contradict itself and the dogma EENS as it was interpreted over the centuries. This error was also overlooked by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and those who have had their religious formation under him or his bishops.
They all interpret invincible ignorance in the Catechism of Pope Pius X as contradicting the past exclusivist  ecclesiology of the Church. So hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II are also made a rupture with EENS as it was interpreted by the missionaries and Magisterium in the 16h century.
Pope Benedict confirmed this error in public ( Avvenire, March 2016) and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj at the Placuet Deo Press Conference, question and answer session( March 1, 2018).
So Fr. Leonard Feeney held the de fide teaching on EENS and BOD, BOB and I.I and those who excommunicated were teaching heresy. They were rejecting traditional EENS with known and visible for them cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.For Fr.Leonard Feeney literally there were no cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.
-Lionel Andrades




SEPTEMBER 20, 2018


Fr.Leonard Feeney did not have to reject BOD, BOB and I.I theologically, since there is no theology for him with BOD,BOB and I.I being exceptions. They do not exist.Literally they are not there

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/frleonard-feeney-did-not-have-to-reject.html


SEPTEMBER 19, 2018


Catholics can interpret Vatican Council II with BOD, BOB and I.I Cushingite or Feeneyite http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/catholics-can-interpret-vatican-council.html


SEPTEMBER 17, 2018

Until today the popes and cardinals make a doctrinal error on the issue of salvation   http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/until-today-popes-and-cardinals-make.html


Fr.Leonard Feeney did not have to reject BOD, BOB and I.I theologically, since there is no theology for him with BOD,BOB and I.I being exceptions. They do not exist.Literally they are not there.

Image result for Photos Questions and Answers
When Father Feeney said over and over and over again was that there was no such thing as baptism of blood(BOB), baptism of desire (BOD) or  invincible ignorance (I.I).  He WAS wrong.
For example in his Book " Bread of Life" on page 41 He openly denounces BOB ,  BOD   and II as ever existing in probability and/or reality.


For him literally there could be no such thing as BOD, BOB and I.I. And he is correct.Don't you agree?. Are you saying that literally, objectively, there are BOD, BOB and I.I cases? Of course not! You are saying what is obvious, what is common sense.It was the same with him. You are saying the same thing as him.

In his book he is interpreted as theologically rejecting BOD,BOB and I.I as exceptions. As exceptions and not as hypothetical cases. 
He does not have to reject BOD, BOB and I.I theologically, since there is no theology for him with BOD,BOB and I.I being exceptions. They do not exist.Literally they are not there.
They do not exist in our reality. Literally they are not there. You can have many wonderful thoughts about BOD, BOB and I.I but they do not exist for us in reality.This is the bottom line and he knew it.
-Lionel Andrades


SEPTEMBER 19, 2018

Catholics can interpret Vatican Council II with BOD, BOB and I.I Cushingite or Feeneyite http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/catholics-can-interpret-vatican-council.html