The Lefebvrist are having their summer conference.They interpret hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II as being practical exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).They consider this normal.
As in the past, they will act as if all is normal (since their bills are paid).They will not accept and interpret Vatican Council II with LG 8, LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc not being exceptions to 16th century EENS.
Then they would have to affirm Feeneyite EENS which would affect their career for the worse.
As in the past, they will act as if all is normal (since their bills are paid).They will not accept and interpret Vatican Council II with LG 8, LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc not being exceptions to 16th century EENS.
Then they would have to affirm Feeneyite EENS which would affect their career for the worse.
They will not admit, or comment, on the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO).They accept it. It has an error. LOHO suggests unknown cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are known. These known cases are practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.So every one does not need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation, is the conclusion.This is formal heresy in black and white.
They will not admit it. Neither will they say that Lumen Gentium 14 has a mistake. The Council Fathers assumed unknown cases of being saved in invincible ignorance outside the Catholic Church(LG 14) as being known exceptions to the dogma EENS.So it says only those who know need to enter the Church. As if those who do not know will be saved outside the Church.
The participants at the annual summer conference do not want to affirm Feeneyite EENS. This is the bottom line.
So their interpretation of Vatican Council II is skewered. They have to do theological gymnastics to appear normal.
They can only see a Vatican Council II Cushingite and not a Vatican Council II Feeneyite. They can only see LG 8 etc as referring to an exception to EENS.So they infer that these are personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church.With this superficial reading of the Council they ignore a rational interpretation.
The rational interpretation could affect their teaching jobs etc.
So their interpretation of Vatican Council II is skewered. They have to do theological gymnastics to appear normal.
They can only see a Vatican Council II Cushingite and not a Vatican Council II Feeneyite. They can only see LG 8 etc as referring to an exception to EENS.So they infer that these are personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church.With this superficial reading of the Council they ignore a rational interpretation.
The rational interpretation could affect their teaching jobs etc.
They accept the heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II.This is the only one they know of.Then they criticize and blame the Council.The fault lies with their irrational premise and inference .
They accept the heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II, or over look it.Since it is the interpretation of their superiors and employers.They are part of the corrupt system.Yet they call themselves traditionalists.
1.Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Dr. Joseph Shaw have pointed out the heresies of Pope Francis but will not say that he is a heretic.Someone who supports heresy in public is not a heretic.
2.They will not say that Protestants need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. Since it would mean that they do not accept the common irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Cushingite-version.Unitatitis Redintigratio 3(saved in imperfect communion with the Church) must be interpreted as referring to known Protestants saved outside the Catholic Church.Whom do they know who is saved in imperfect communion with the Church?
3.They will not say that Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct when he said that there are no practical cases of the baptism of desire etc,for them to be exceptions to traditional EENS.
The Holy Office(CDF) in 1949 made a mistake. The CDF is making the same mistake today in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.This is being over looked by Catholics.
4. The conference participants will not say that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not know that Vatican Council II interpreted rationally i.e LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, Gs 22 etc being only hypothetical, did not contradict the past ecclesiology, the ecumenism of return, the Syllabus of Errors and the Athanasius Creed.This is a big one that they overlook. For 50 plus years they were obviously wrong on the Council.
5.The popes before Pius XII interpreted baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) as being only hypothetical. This is obvious. It could not be anything else.
So the participants at the conference contradict the popes over the centuries.Yet they call themselves traditionalists.
So the participants at the conference contradict the popes over the centuries.Yet they call themselves traditionalists.
6.The popes from Paul VI to Francis interpret BOD, BOB and I.I and LG 8, UR 3, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II irrationally. They referring to known non Catholics saved outside the Church.So they become exceptions to EENS and the Syllabus of Errors, in this way.The conference participants accept this. They make the same mistake as these popes.
7.I interpret LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as referring to hypothetical cases only.So they do not contradict an ecumenism of return and the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.,They have no comment or correction. Since it would expose their theological position, for or against.
This is the attitude of Bishop Steven J. Lopes who has excommunicated Fr. Vaughn Treco.The bishop only mentioned the Conciliar popes in general and did not go into the details in hIs criticism of Fr. Treco. He could not do so since he would be exposed as being irrational. This is also the prudent position of the Diocese of Manchester trying to thrust an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS on the St. Benedict Center in New Hampshire.-Lionel Andrades
From right hand bar. Click to access
JUNE 10, 2019
All the popes, Creeds and catechisms before Pope Pius XII support Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston when the small 't' is not mistaken for being the big 'T'
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/06/all-popes-creeds-and-catechisms-before.html
JUNE 8, 2019
Catholics wrongly interpret Vatican Council II with the small 't' and assume it is the big 'T'
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/06/catholics-wrongly-interpret-vatican.html
JUNE 8, 2019
Catholics today follow the small 't' and believe that it has been the big 'T' in the Church for centuries.They assume that the the saints who refer to BOD, BOB and I.I refer to exceptions to EENS.In other words, personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church. Visible and not invisible people. But this was the thinking in the Church only since Pius XII. It is the small 't'
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/06/catholics-today-follow-small-t-and.html
JUNE 9, 2019
Some examples of what has been taken for 'known cases' since Pius XII, when the small ' t ' is confused as the big ' T '
From right hand bar. Click to access
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment