Friday, June 14, 2019
Matteo Salvini potrebbe chiedere a p. Anthony Spadero e gli altri gesuiti a Roma affermare il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) come Sant'Ignazio di Loyola e interpretare razionalmente e onestamente il Concilio Vaticano II. I professori cattolici presso le università pontificie, i Rettori e i parroci in Italia, affrontano la coercizione. Secondo il Magistero del XVI secolo, p. Spadero sarebbe stato scomunicato
Michael and Peter Dimond at the MHFM still interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism and ignore the Feeneyite, rational alternative.
E-Exchanges from the Most Holy Family Monastery,
Vatican II
I disagree with all the comments about
Vatican ll. If you actually read the documents, they are quite Orthodox. It's
been the application of said documents and the flight from them that are
heretical.
I Roam Alone
MHFM: You are quite wrong. You
really need to wake up and look at the videos and evidence in this file: The Heresies In
Vatican Council II. Vatican II
is filled with heresy. To name just some of the heresies taught in Vatican II:
it teaches that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion (Orientalium
Ecclesiarum #27); that Protestant religions are a means of salvation (Unitatis
Redintegratio #3); that Protestants and other heretics who dissent from Catholic
dogma are in the Body of Christ (Unitatis Redintegratio #3); that religious
liberty should be a universal civil right (Dignitatis Humanae #2); that the
Church looks upon the Muslims with esteem (Nostra Aetate #3); that Jews
are not to be presented as rejected by God (Nostra Aetate #4).
https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/E-Exchanges.php?utm_source=WPhp&utm_medium=Exchanges-grey&utm_campaign=WP
Before we start to read the text in Vatican Council II we must decide that the Council can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism.Cushingism is irrational and many of the Council Fathers were Cushingite. Feeneyism is rational and the Council emerges as a continuity with Tradition.
Cushingism refers to interpreting hypothetical cases as being objectively known in the present times e.g 1965-2019 and then assuming that they are examples of salvation outside the Church. So outside the Church there is salvation is the conclusion, for Cushingites.
Feeneyism refers to interpreting hypothetical cases as being only hypothetical. So LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are always hypothetical. Always.One does not have to assume or postulate or theorize that they are hypothetical. They are just hypothetical.So they cannot be objective and practical exceptions to the dogma EENS.
So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology and ecumenism of return in Vatican Council II.
To name just some of the heresies taught in Vatican II:
it teaches that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion (Orientalium
Ecclesiarum #27); (This is the Cushingite interpretation of the liberals which is shared by the MHFM) that Protestant religions are a means of salvation (Unitatis
Redintegratio #3) (Cushingites assume UR 3 refers to known Christians saved outside the Catholic Church. For Feeneyites, UR 3 refers to a hypothetical case only) ; that Protestants and other heretics who dissent from Catholic
dogma are in the Body of Christ (Unitatis Redintegratio #3)(For Cushingites there is known salvation outside the Church for Feeneyites there is no known salvation outside the Catholic Church) ; that religious
liberty should be a universal civil right (Dignitatis Humanae #2)(We have a Cushingite interpretation here. There can be religious liberty in a Catholic State which affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus like the Jesuits in the 16th century ); that the
Church looks upon the Muslims with esteem (Nostra Aetate #3); that Jews
are not to be presented as rejected by God (Nostra Aetate #4).(For a Feeneyite, Nostra Aetate does not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. There may be good and holy things in other religions but the religions are not paths to salvation and outside the Church there is no known salvation.Nostra Aetate does not state that there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS and the past ecclesiology.).
Michael and Peter Dimond at the MHFM still interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism and ignore the Feeneyite, rational alternative.-Lionel Andrades
March 13, 2019
Michael Matt and Michael and Peter Dimond are still politically correct with the Left on Vatican Council II : irrational interpretation of Catechisms and Magisterial documents
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/03/michael-matt-and-michael-and-peter.html
All the popes and saints over the centuries, before Pius XII,held the strict interpretation of EENS without assuming BOD,BOB and I.I were exceptions.
No, Feeney was wrong because he explicitly denied even the
hypothetical possibility of someone being saved by BOD. (Lionel: This
is an opinion. But assuming he denied even the hypothetical possibility
of someone being saved by BOD,what has this to do with the dogma EENS ?
He affirmed the strict interpretation of EENS and said there were no
literal cases of BOD. You are saying the same ).
You, also affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS with hypothetical cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.So what's new ? You are saying the same thing.All the popes
and saints over the centuries,before Pius XII, said and did the same. They held the
strict interpretation of EENS without assuming BOD,BOB and I.I were
exceptions.)
Absolute
and relative necessity are not "hypothetical" but describe realities,
whether known by man or God alone. Quit hiding behind Catholic
terminology.( If they are realities they will be known only to God.Only God can decide who is saved)
I reject the Modernist interpretation of BOD but not the doctrine.
(Even the 'Feeneyites' reject the modernist interpretation of BOD and
not the doctrine.Since the doctrine of BOD does not contradict Feeneyite
EENS. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake. The
same mistake was repeated at Vatican Council II. So now there can be
two interpretations of the Council.One is rational and the other is
irrational.)-Lionel Andrades
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
