Monday, December 24, 2018
Repost : When will the SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers simply say that there are no baptism of desire cases in our reality ?
JULY 5, 2017
When will the SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers simply say that there are no baptism of desire cases in our reality ?
St. Cyprian BM, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem BCD, St. John Chrysostome BCD, St. Ambrose BCD, St. Augustine BCD, St. Thomas Aquinas CD, St. Catherine of Sienna V, Ecumenical Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguori BCD, Pope Pius IX, Baltimore Cathechism (19th century), The Cathechism Explained (1899), Cathechism of Pope St. Pius X, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Code of Canon Law (1917), Catholic Dictionary (1946), Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (1949), mons. Joseph Fenton (1952), Archbishop Lefebvre FSSPX, Fr. Schmidberger FSSPX, Bishop Fellay FSSPX...
Brother Andre Marie had simply to point out that the long list of baptism of desire references, are meaningless. Since they do not exist in our reality. So they could not be relevant or exceptions to the dogma EENS.
St. Cyprian BM, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem BCD, St. John Chrysostome BCD, St. Ambrose BCD, St. Augustine BCD, St. Thomas Aquinas CD, St. Catherine of Sienna V, Ecumenical Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguori BCD, Pope Pius IX...do not state that the baptism of desire refers to known cases and so is an exception to EENS.
Brother André Marie,
Thank you very much, and I congratulate you on your envious and honorable status as a "radical traditionalist".
But I have a question, if you don't mind. I would be interested to know how the supporters of Father Feeney can explain their resistance to the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium in the matters of Baptism of Blood and the explicit and implicit Baptism of Desire, as expressed by numerous bishops, doctors and theologians, from the third century onward, including an ecumenical council, and all the pre-conciliar popes since - and including - Pius IX?
It is, after all, a part of Catholic Tradition, and an infallible one at that.
This article contains many of those quotes, I have others too:
www.rosarychapel.net/threefoldbaptism.php
Also, to mention praxis, do you reckognize Saint Emerentiana and the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste, martyred in the 3rd century, as Catholic saints, since they are examples of both Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood?
Ecclesia Militans,
I refer you to the following postings on our site:
Hopefully, the links I put up will work. I'm never fully confident posting HTML code in a comment box.
Brother André Marie,
I've studied the articles and I must say that they do not make a convincing argument against the threefold Baptism.
Other than quoting the many various forms of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and discussions and speculations on St. Augustine's view, there are only two or three marginal quotes by doctors that speak againstthe threefold Baptism.
As for St. Emerentiana, I see that Fr. Feeney decided to deny Tradition by saying she must have been baptised in water before martyrdom, although she has always been counted as an unbaptized cathecumen who died for Christ and received the Baptism of Blood.
On the other hand, I present you a short list of those important documents, theologians, bishops and doctors that explicitly affirmed the threefold Baptism (most of the quotes are found in the article mentioned in my last comment, if you wish, I can send you the others by mail):
St. Cyprian BM, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem BCD, St. John Chrysostome BCD, St. Ambrose BCD, St. Augustine BCD, St. Thomas Aquinas CD, St. Catherine of Sienna V, Ecumenical Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguori BCD, Pope Pius IX, Baltimore Cathechism (19th century), The Cathechism Explained (1899), Cathechism of Pope St. Pius X, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Code of Canon Law (1917), Catholic Dictionary (1946), Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (1949), mons. Joseph Fenton (1952), Archbishop Lefebvre FSSPX, Fr. Schmidberger FSSPX, Bishop Fellay FSSPX...
The inescapable conclusion is that the doctrine of Fr. Feeney denies or contradicts the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as expressed through the above teachings of the said theologians, doctors etc.
It even goes against the Code of Canon Law which was valid at the time (canons 737 & 1239).
I hope you can see that to assert that so many theologians, doctors, popes and Church documents were in error for so many centuries is to deny the indefectibility of the Church.
St. Alphonsus Liguori calls the baptism of desire de fide, and St. Cyprian BM, back in the 3rd century, seems to call those who do not believe in the Baptism of Blood of the cathecumens "aiders and favourers of heretics".
Finally a short and precise quote:
"Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.“
Pope Pius IX, SINGULARI QUIDEM
http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9singul.htm
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Bishop Fellay, Fr.Schmidberger,FSSP,Joseph Fenton seem unaware the baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to the dogma
Ecclesia Militans said...
Brother André Marie,
I've studied the articles and I must say that they do not make a convincing argument against the threefold Baptism.
Lionel:
it is important to note that there is only one baptism which is explicit. It is the baptism of water.
Ecclesia Militans
Other than quoting the many various forms of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and discussions and speculations on St. Augustine's view, there are only two or three marginal quotes by doctors that speak against the threefold Baptism.
Lionel:
We can only accept the baptism of desire and martrydom in pinciple. Explicitly we do not know any case, we cannot judge.If the Church declares someone a martyr we accept it.
CONTINUED
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/bishop-fellay-frschmidbergerfsspjoseph.html
MARCH 20, 2012
Bishop Fellay, Fr.Schmidberger,FSSP,Joseph Fenton seem unaware the baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to the dogma
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/03/bishop-fellay-frschmidbergerfsspjoseph.html
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2017/07/when-will-sspx-and-stbenedict-centers.html
_______________________________________________________
DECEMBER 24, 2018
Fr.Brian Harrison, Bro.Andre Marie MICM overlook Bishop Robert Barron's mistake on Vatican Council IIhttps://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/12/frbrian-harrison-broandre-marie-micm.html
Repost : Brother Andre Marie MICM and a priest of the Institute of Christ the King do not mention Vatican Council II being in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus
NOVEMBER 17, 2017
Brother Andre Marie MICM and a priest of the Institute of Christ the King do not mention Vatican Council II being in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Brother Andre Marie MICM has written an article onextra ecclesiam nulla salus after a very long time and again there is no mention of Vatican Council II.1
He recommends the video of a priest of the Institute of Christ the King.The priest also does not mention Vatican Council II being in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Superiors at the St. Benedict Centers, at Still River and Richmond, N.H have been recognized by the Church and they are not affirming Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. Instead they are allowing Vatican Council II to be seen as a rupture with Tradition and this is acceptable for the bishops in New England...2
Neither does the priest of the traditionalist Institute of Christ the King nor Brother Andre Marie and the St.Benedict Centers, state, that Vatican Council II is not a development with EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century. Instead they agree with Pope Benedict. Vatican Council II is a rupture with EENS.Of course only with the use of the false premise, which Pope Benedcit encouraged in theology.
Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,St.Benedict Center, Still River which last month was given granted canonical status negate the dogma EENS( Feeneyite) with Vatican Council II interpreted with the premise.
The communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA are denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) as it was interpreted over the centuries.When they interpret Vatican Council II, with the irrational premise then the Council is a rupture with the dogam extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to Fr. Leonard Feeney. 3
The communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA are denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) as it was interpreted over the centuries.When they interpret Vatican Council II, with the irrational premise then the Council is a rupture with the dogam extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to Fr. Leonard Feeney. 3
Instead Brother Andre Marie and the traditionalist priest could have said that Vatican Council II isFeeneyite. It is in line with EENS as it wasinterpreted in the 16th century. So Pope Benedict was wrong.
If they announce LG 16( invincible ignorance), LG 14( baptism, of desire) etc refer to hypothetical cases only their bishops will not be pleased.For then Vatican Council II will not be ' a development' .
So by omitting the subject of Vatican Council II in his article, Brother Andre Marie is telling his bishop, the two popes, the cardinals and the Jewish Left, that he rejects the old exclusivistecclesiology of the Church just as they do.He does not interpret LG 16 as referring to invisible people in 2017.So he supports the newecclesiology which is s rupture with the Syllabus of Errors on ecumenism and non Christian religions.
-Lionel Andrades
1
Religious Pluralism is Evil by Brother Andre Marie MICM http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-304.html
2.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/superiors-at-st-benedict-centers-still.html
3.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/repost-communities-of-frleonard-feeney.html
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2017/11/brother-andre-marie-micm-and-priest-of.html
_____________________________________________
Repost : Charles Coulombe, Brother Andre Marie MICM and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM have been discussing the baptism of desire with reference to justification and salvation when there are no physically visible cases
DECEMBER 6, 2017
Charles Coulombe, Brother Andre Marie MICM and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM have been discussing the baptism of desire with reference to justification and salvation when there are no physically visible cases
Charles Coulombe, Brother Andre Marie MICM and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM have been discussing the baptism of desire with reference to justification and salvation when there are no physically visible cases.They do not state that the baptism of desire is not visible like the baptism of water and there are no known cases of the baptism of desire in our reality. So the baptism of desire is not relevant or an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.
Sedevacantists Peter Dimond1and Steven Speray 2 have written books on the baptism of desire while not mentioning that there are no seen in the flesh cases of the baptism of desire.We cannot see or meet someone saved with the baptism of desire.
There are also videos 3discussing the baptism of desire and no one states that for the baptism of desire to be relevant or an exception to EENS as it was interpreted by the popes and saints there would have to be a known case.Invisible cases of the baptism of desire cannot be visible examples of salvation outside the Church.
Similarly Charles Coulombe discusses the baptism of desire on the video 4 and does not state that we do not know the name and surname of someone saved with the baptism of desire in the present times.Also no one could have seen someone in the past, in Heaven, saved with the baptism of desire,with or without the baptism of water.
Such an important point is left out in these discussions, in which every one is going in circles.They do not realize that it is the magisterium which has made the mistake and are keeping quiet on this subject since it changes the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre mistook the baptism of desire as being a known exception to Feeneyite EENS and Cardinal Burke makes the same mistake today.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 with this error has been placed in the Denzinger.It is part of the 'magisterial teachings' I suppose just like the Buenos Aires Letter in the Acta Apostolica Sedis.In both cases we humans cannot know exceptions to the rule for faith (exclusive salvation) and morals(mortal sin).Theoretically we can postulate but in reality there are no known cases.
Christine Niles made this mistake in a Mic'd up program a few years back on the subject of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. She also interviewed Charles Coulombe on that program.
There are no baptism of desire cases in our reality and they are all discussing the baptism of desire with for and against positions.Theoretically they speculate and theologically they pro or contra.
When I point out to the traditionalists and sedevacantists there are no baptism of desire cases they either ban me or block me on their forums and websites.
Sedevacantists Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr.Anthony Cekada have articles on line criticizing Feeneyite EENS and citing the baptism of desire as an exception. It is the same on the official website of the SSPX. The SSPX has been selling Fr. Francois Lasiney's book, Is Feeneyism Catholic? in which he assumed there are physically known cases of the baptism of desire.Otherwise how could the baptism of desire be an exception to Feeneyite EENS for him?
So it is no surprise that all of them reject Vatican Council II since Lumen Gentium 14( case of the catechumen) and Lumen Gentium 16( case of salvation in invincible ignorance) are not hypothetical cases for them as it is for me. LG 14 and LG 16 refer to known people, for them, saved outside the Church.
It is the same for Pope Benedict and he expressed it last March 2016 in the interview in Avvenire.He said that since there is salvation outside the Church.....-Lionel Andrades
1.
http://www.mhfm1store.com/booucachthis.html
2.
https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/category/baptism-of-desire-and-blood/page/2/
3.
4.
DECEMBER 6, 2017
Charles Coulombe discusses the baptism of desire as if there are known cases in our reality
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/charles-coulombe-discusses-baptism-of.html
DECEMBER 6, 2017
Charles Coulombe could have said that there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/charles-coulombe-could-have-said-that.html
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2017/12/charles-coulumbe-brother-andre-marie.html
______________________________________
DECEMBER 24, 2018
Fr.Brian Harrison, Bro.Andre Marie MICM overlook Bishop Robert Barron's mistake on Vatican Council IIhttps://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/12/frbrian-harrison-broandre-marie-micm.html
Repost : Priors at the St.Benedict Centers will not affirm Feeneyite Vatican Council II opposed by their bishops.They continue to support Vatican Council II(Cushingite) which is a rupture with EENS(Feeneyite)
DECEMBER 19, 2017
Priors at the St.Benedict Centers will not affirm Feeneyite Vatican Council II opposed by their bishops.They continue to support Vatican Council II(Cushingite) which is a rupture with EENS(Feeneyite)
The Priors at the St.Benedict Centers will not affirm Feeneyite Vatican Council II since it could get them into trouble.They continue to support Vatican Council II(Cushingite) like their bishops.It is an interpretation which contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) as it was known to Fr.Leonard Feeney and Catherine Goddard Clarke.
Ecclesia Dei and the bishops of Worcester and Manchester,USA have no objections to the St. Benedict Centers( SBC) affirming the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS as long as they accept Vatican Council II(Cushingite).Vatican Council II(Cushingite) is a rupture with Tradition.It is a break with the old exclusivist ecclesiology and Feeneyite EENS.So in reality, like the SSPX, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Centers are affirming an EENS(Cushingite).
Here there is no objection from Ecclesia Dei.The St. Benedict Centers, the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney can now receive canonical recognition.
They interpret Lumen Gentium 16(inculpableignorance) as does Wikipedia (See extra ecclesiam nulla salus).
The Catholic Church also teaches that the doctrine does not mean that everyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned in case of inculpable ignorance.-Wikipedia
So having accepted Vatican Council II and now recognized as Priors at the St. Benedict Centers, their message is that Lumen Gentium 16(inculpable ignorance) is an exception to the dogma EENS, as it is also understood by Wikipedia.This is acceptable for Ecclesia Dei and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
So the SBC will say that they affirm EENS according to Fr. Leonard Feeney or the missionaries in the 16th century and then simultaneously they will negate this statement by admitting that they know only Vatican Council II(Cushingite).Of course it theologically negates EENS(Feeneyite).
So Brothers Thomas Augustine and Andre Marie,MICM, Priors, at the St.Benedict Centers in the diocese Worcester and Manchester,USA affirm the strict interpretation of Vatican Council II and also contradict it with Cushingite EENS, like Wikipedia and the present magisterium.
Brother Thomas Augustine MICM, whose community at Still RIver was recently granted canonical recognition by Bishop Robert McMahon, the bishop of Worcester is not affirming Vatican Council II(Feeneyite).Since then it would mean that Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the strict interpretation of EENS.The Council has to be a rupture with EENS for the magisterium.So the bishop and his Curia in Worcester do not affirm the strict interpretation of EENS.If they did it would mean Vatican Council II(AG 7) says all need faith and baptism for salvation(Jews, Muslims etc) and LG 16 is not a known exception to EENS.It would negate Wikipedia too. So the diocese would have returned to the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.This will not be acceptable to the Jewish Left.They would demand that the priors be suspended or the communities de-regularised.
So Brothers Thomas Augustine and Andre Marie will not interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with Feeneyite EENS since it would not be politically correct.They will not continue to get the recognition they presently have from their bishops.
I have been reporting on this for quite some time and there is no denial from them.
How can they issue a denial ? How can they say that I am wrong and that they really affirm Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) which is in harmony with the old ecclesiology of the Church ? The old ecclesiology was the basis for the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the understanding of mission according to the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.There would be protests from at least the German and English bishops.The bishops in Worcester and Manchester would be criticized by the liberal USCCB. This could be the end of the understanding the priors and their good communities have built with their bishops over the last few years.So the priors keep silent.-Lionel Andrades
DECEMBER 18, 2017
Bishop Thomas Augustine MICM, and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Still River,MA have compromised on Vatican Council II and EENS
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/12/bishop-thomas-augustine-micm-and-slaves.html
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2017/12/priors-at-stbenedict-centers-will-not.html
Repost : Bro. Andre Marie MICM, Prior, St. Benedict Center needs to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and inference and ask Bishop Peter Libasci to do the same
OCTOBER 23, 2018
Bro. Andre Marie MICM, Prior, St. Benedict Center needs to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II without the irrational premise and inference and ask Bishop Peter Libasci to do the same
The diocese of Manchester, USA recognizes Bro.Andre Marie MICM as Prior of the St. Benedict Center, Richmond, N.H since he does not proclaim the Catholic Faith on Vatican Council II, Feeneyite.He does not affirm Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise and inference. Instead he condones the irrational Cushingite interpretation of Vatican Council II in the diocese which is a rupture with extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). He does not ask Bishop Peter Anthony Libasci, the bishop of Manchester, to also affirm Vatican Council IIwithout the irrationality and so it would be in harmony with EENS, interpreted without the Cushingite irrationality.
Presently Bishop Libasci assumes unknown casesof the baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved invincible ignorance(I.I) arepersonally known, examples of salvation outside the Church. So for him there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of EENS. I call this reasoning Cushingite.
FOR BP.LIBASCI EENS IS CUSHINGITE FOR ME IT IS FEENEYITE
FOR BP.LIBASCI EENS IS CUSHINGITE FOR ME IT IS FEENEYITE
For me there are no personally known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I in 2018. If they existed they would only be known to God.I cannot meet someone saved with BOD, BOB and I.I.
Bishop Libasci sees EENS as Cushingite.For me it isFeeneyite.
Similarly for Bishop Libasci, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer toknown people saved outside the Catholic Church.They are saved without faith and baptism and instead with 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) etc.The text does not say it but this is what he and his Curia infer.So LG 8 etc areexamples of salvation outside the Church. For him there are objective exceptions to the dogma EENS.
But there are no such cases in real life.There are no objective exceptions to EENS. I call this way of looking at Vatican Council II, Feeneyite.
FOR BP. LIBASCI VATICAN COUNCIL II IS CUSHINGITE AND FOR ME IT IS FEENEYITE
So for Bishop Libasci, Vatican Council II isCushingite and for me it is Feeneyite.But for Bro.Andre Marie too Vatican Council II isCushingite and not Feeneyite.
He supports the New Theology, Cushingite theology, based upon unknown non Catholics being known and objective examples of salvation outside the Church.So they are alleged practical exceptions to EENS.This is why his community, Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, like the SSPX and other traditionalists, reject Vatican Council II.They all use Cushingism as a way of reading when they look at Vatican Council II.
Cushingism is approved by the present two popes, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Ecclesia Dei and the Left.
In general liberal and conservative Catholics are Cushingite on Vatican Council II.
Bro. Andre Marie needs to tell Bishop Libasci that he interprets EENS and Vatican Council II withoutthe irrational and false premise ( invisible non Catholics are physically visible) and inference ( they are examples of salvation outside the Church and so they negate the dogma EENS).
Also the rest of the community at St. Benedict Center, could affirm the same. It is the only rational way to read Vatican Council II and EENS.
Also the rest of the community at St. Benedict Center, could affirm the same. It is the only rational way to read Vatican Council II and EENS.
This is the way the founders of their community reasoned .It was the traditional and rational way of looking at this issue.This was before Cushingism came into the Church and now has spread like the Arian heresy in former times.
The founders did not assume that BOD, BOB and I.I mentioned in the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the Catechism of the Council of Trent referred tophysically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church. This is something obvious. It is common sense.How could they be physically visible?
They did not assume that the man in the forest in ignorance, whom St. Thomas Aquinas mentioned, was someone personally known to Aquinas.He was speaking hypothetically.Obviously!
They did not claim that St. Emerentiana was personally seen in Heaven by someone on earth, without the baptism of water.
In the book The Bread of Life, Fr.Leonard Feeney recognises that a hypothetical case of a catechumen, who has the desire for the baptism of water and dies before he receives it, is only a hypothetical and theoretical case. The Bread of Life does not suggest that Fr. Leonard Feeney considered this person, someone known to him. This was the false premise and inference of the liberal theologians.
So why should the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary today say that BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to known people saved outside the Church? This would be un-truthful.
Brother Andre Marie could announce that he and his community, fully affirms Vatican Council II with no reservations. Since the Council is in harmony with Feeneyite EENS.Since there is no known salvation outside the Church for us human beings there can be no new ecumenism for us.There is only the old ecumenism of return.
Brother Andre Marie could announce that he and his community, fully affirms Vatican Council II with no reservations. Since the Council is in harmony with Feeneyite EENS.Since there is no known salvation outside the Church for us human beings there can be no new ecumenism for us.There is only the old ecumenism of return.
Since the Council is in harmony with the past exclusivist ecclesiology, there is the need to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation, to save souls who are outside the Church.Also to guide those within the Church.
Since BOD, BOB and I.I refer to hypothetical cases only there is no rupture with EENS as it was known to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.
Since outside the Church there is no known salvation , the ecclesiology of the Church before and after Vatican Council II is the same.There is no rupture with the Syllabus of Errors. We are back to the old theology.It was based on outside the Church there is no personally known salvation, for us human beings.All need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7).We cannot know of any exception to Ad Gentes 7.It supports the past ecclesiology when the reasoning is Feeneyite.
CARDINAL LUIZ LADARIA NOT CHECKED
When Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj at the Placuet Deo Press Conference (March 1, 2018) said that LG 8 was an exception to the past exclusivist understanding of salvation he was using Cushingism. He was not corrected on theCatholicism.org website.
POPE BENEDICT CONDONED
When Pope Benedict in March 2016(Avvenire) said that EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century he was using Cushingism. Without Cushingism how could Vatican Council II be' a development' of EENS? There was no comment or correction from the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Pope Benedict was interpreting EENS and Vatican Council II with Cushingism, as he normally does. He could have been asked to interpret EENS and Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.
Bro. Andre Marie must stop interpreting Vatican Council II like the liberals and the Vatican and then he will be able to detect the common Cushingite error.
CARDINAL LUIZ LADARIA NOT CHECKED
When Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj at the Placuet Deo Press Conference (March 1, 2018) said that LG 8 was an exception to the past exclusivist understanding of salvation he was using Cushingism. He was not corrected on theCatholicism.org website.
POPE BENEDICT CONDONED
When Pope Benedict in March 2016(Avvenire) said that EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century he was using Cushingism. Without Cushingism how could Vatican Council II be' a development' of EENS? There was no comment or correction from the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Pope Benedict was interpreting EENS and Vatican Council II with Cushingism, as he normally does. He could have been asked to interpret EENS and Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.
Bro. Andre Marie must stop interpreting Vatican Council II like the liberals and the Vatican and then he will be able to detect the common Cushingite error.
-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/10/bro-andre-marie-micm-prior-st-benedict.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
