Repost : Michael and Peter Dimond, sedevacantists, at the Most Holy Family Monastery , USA are still interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise, inference and conclusion and they refer to the 'anti-popes' and 'x,y and z heretics'. They do not choose to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and conclusion and instead follow the popes from Paul VI.

FEBRUARY 24, 2020

Michael and Peter Dimond, sedevacantists, at the Most Holy Family Monastery , USA are still interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise, inference and conclusion and they refer to the 'anti-popes' and 'x,y and z heretics'. They do not choose to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and conclusion and instead follow the popes from Paul VI.

Michael and Peter Dimond, sedevacantists, at the Most Holy Family Monastery , USA  are still interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise, inference and conclusion  and they refer to the 'anti-popes' and 'x,y and z heretics'. They do not choose to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and conclusion and instead follow the popes from Paul VI.

I interpret Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents with the rational premise, inference and conclusion.

The MHFM need to announce the obvious i.e there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance in the present times(1965-2020). This is a beginning. This is also something obvious.

So Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( EENS) according to Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, 1441,

Vatican Council II does not contradict the Athanasius Creed( Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.) The Athanasius Creed is referring to the Catholic faith. There was no Lutheran and Anglican faith at that time. 

The Most Holy Family Monastery(MHFM) are  correct in their interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite) while the rest of the Church is wrong to accept EENS ( Cushingite).It is no surprise that  Michael and Peter Dimond  see the rest of the Church as being members of a false new church, after 1965.Their measuing rod for authenticity and orthodoxy is EENS (Feeneyite).

The popes from Paul VI interpreted EENS and Vatican Council II with a false premise. The interpretation is Cushingite. Cushingism causes a rupture with Tradition.When it is avoided the result is orthodoxy.

So there is a Cushingite and Feeneyite EENS and Vatican Council II.The Creeds and Catechisms can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism.All papal documetns can be interpreted with Cushingim or Feeneyism.

The sedevcantists Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae (CMRI) whose Superior is Bishop Mark Pivaranus, also interprets EENS and Vatican Council II with Cushingism.

The sedevacantist community of Bishops Dolan and Sanborn in Florida, USA also interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with Cushingism. The popes from Paul VI to Francis have done the same and so no one corrects or advises the sedevacantists and traditionalists.

Michael and Peter Dimond were correct on EENS but they interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingism.This is an error they can correct.They are not yet part of the Feeneyite Conciliar Church.They have to look at the Council with a different perspective.Vatican Council II must be accepted by the MHFM as not contradicting EENS.So there would be a new version of Vatican Council II, for them. It would be Vatican Council II which does not contradict their strict interpretation of EENS.It would mean they do not have to reject the baptism of desire(LG 14) or invincible ignorance(LG 16) and still be able to affirm the strict interpretation of EENS.

They must see hypothetical cases as just being hypothetical .Then they do not become exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and the Syllabus of Errors on EENS and ecumenism.Then they can announce that there are no exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II. The Council does not contradict the past ecclesiology or an ecumenism of return. 1

 

 

-Lionel Andrades

1

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/10/michael-and-peter-dimond-must-see.html

AUGUST 26, 2018

Jimmy Akin (Catholic Answers) and sedevacantists Peter and Michael Dimond, interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X, as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors : no denial from the SSPX or Bishops Sanborn and Pivarunas on the same error

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/jimmy-akins-like-sedevacantists-peter.html

FEENEYISM ( SEE LABELS / TAGS FROM THE RIGHT HAND SIDE BAR. CLICK TO ACCESS)

• Feeneyism (110)
• Feeneyism is the missing link (9)
• Feeneyism on Wikipedia (13)
• Feeneyism.Cushingism (7)
• Feeneyismo (10)
• Feeneyite Catechism of the Catholic Church 1995 (2)
• Feeneyite Catholic College (1)
• Feeneyite EENS (1)
• Feeneyite EENS Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) (4)
• Feeneyite Theology (1)
• Feeneyite Vatican Council II (2)
• Feeneyite-Cushingite Model (1)
• Feeneyites (4)
• Feeneyites were always correct (1)

CUSHINGISM

• Cushing Additions (2)
• Cushing heresy (5)
• Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error (22)
• Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error Examples in Vatican Council II(25)
• Cushingism (116)
• Cushingism and the Catholic popes(7)
• Cushingism at Vatican Council II(1)
• Cushingism in Vatican Council II(17)
• Cushingismo (6)
• Cushingite (3)
• Cushingite Bishops (1)
• Cushingite examples (1)
• Cushingite passages cannot be exceptions to EENS (1)
• Cushingite propaganda on the Internet (1)
• Cushingite Theology (6)
• Cushingite Vatican Council II (1)
• Cushingites (1)
• Cushingites must make the correction (1)

MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY/ PETER AND MICHAEL DIMOND

• Most Holy Family Monastery (56)

• Dimond Brothers (6)

• Peter and Michael Dimond (3)
• Peter and Michael Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery (2)
• Peter Dimond (1)

 MARCH 2, 2020

The Most Holy Family Monastery(MHFM) interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise, inference and conclusion and they complain about the popes doing the same thing. Cardinal Schonborn and Taylor Marshall also interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, just like the MHFM and the popes since Paul VI.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-most-holy-family-monasterymhfm.html

Toleration also means accepting traditional Catholic teachings like outside the Church there is no salvation, an ecumenism of return and the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in political legislation with the non separation of Church and State (Graphics )

FEBRUARY 28, 2020

Abrahamic Faiths Initiative ignores the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II by Catholics

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/abrahamic-faiths-initiative-ignores.html

FEBRUARY 28, 2020

The U.S Embassy to the Holy See's interaction with Catholics is based on the irrational model of Vatican Council II

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-us-embassy-to-holy-sees-interaction.html

March 1, 2020

This is unethical for the U.S State Department and the U.S Foreign Sevice   https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/03/this-is-unethical-for-us-state.html

A Medjugorje i momenti dell'Apparizione alla Veggente Mirjana - 2 marzo ...

Messaggio del 2 marzo 2020 - Medjugorje

The Most Holy Family Monastery(MHFM) interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise, inference and conclusion and they complain about the popes doing the same thing. Cardinal Schonborn and Taylor Marshall also interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, just like the MHFM and the popes since Paul VI.

E-Exchanges on various issues

Contradictions

 

MHFM: False traditionalist heretic Taylor Marshall recently complained: “JP2 named the heretic Schonborn in 1998.”  Schönborn is certainly a heretic, but the typical argument of non-sedevacantists is that Francis must not be regarded as a heretic (but the pope) because Catholics supposedly don’t have the authority to consider anyone who claims to be Catholic an actual heretic in the external forum until there has been a declaration.  Their position is nonsense, of course.  It’s refuted by Catholic teaching.  But it’s interesting to see how they don’t even remain consistent with it.  When it’s someone they really want to criticize (e.g. Schonborn or perhaps a pro-abortion politician), their principles get thrown out the window.  They are inconsistent because their position is false.  

 

“Cardinal” Schönborn & The Counter Church In Vienna, Austria

Please note that the Most Holy Family Monastery(MHFM) interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise, inference and conclusion and they complain about the popes  doing the same thing.

Cardinal Schonborn and Taylor Marshall also interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, just like the MHFM and the popes since Paul VI.

The MHFM considers the position of Catholics heretical since they accept the popes since Paul VI but do not consider themself,Peter and Michael Dimond, heretical for interpreting Vatican Council II with the same irrationality instead of without it.-Lionel Andrades 

 https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/E-Exchanges.php?utm_source=WPhp&utm_medium=Recent&utm_campaign=Theme2020

• 
  
• Model Rational and Irrational Marco Tosatti and La Stampa (1)
• Model-Rational and Irrational (45)
• Model-Rational and Irrational - back to the past with one step (1)
• Model-Rational and Irrational - Legion of Christ Universities (1)
• Model-Rational and Irrational -George Weigel (1)
• Model-Rational and Irrational -Jewish Left Rabbis approve (1)
• Model-Rational and Irrational Andrea Tornielli and Vatican (1)
• Model-Rational and Irrational Bologna School Alberto Melloni (1)
• Model-Rational and Irrational Croation Government (1)
• Model-Rational and Irrational John Allen JR and Crux (1)
• Model-Rational and Irrational Mons.Marco Gnarvi Vicariate Rome (1)

 

The SSPX must categorically announce that they reject the Vatican Council II of Pope Paul VI interpreted with a false premise and that they accept Vatican Council II interpreted with a rational premise.

 
The SSPX must categorically announce that they reject the Vatican Council II of Pope Paul VI interpreted with a false premise and that they accept Vatican Council II interpreted with a rational premise.

They must not say that they accept 10 % of the Council. This is vague and a compromise.Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise is always wrong . Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre rejected it. He was correct- period.
 

The SSPX  must also not say that they affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)  with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance being exceptions.It is irrational when they state that everyone needs to enter the Church but some do not need to do so.

Affirm BOD, BOB and I.i as hypothetical cases ( they cannot be anyhting more) and also the strict interpretation of EENS.
 

So Vatican Council Ii and BOD, BOB and I.I would not be exceptions to EENS.

So the SSPX would be affirming Vatican Council II and EENS. But they would be rejecting EENS according to Pope Pius XII and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and they would be rejecting Vatican COuncil II according to the Pope Paul VI and the popes who follwoed.
 

In this way they return to the traditional rational theology and doctrines which are no more contradictory and heretical for them.-Lionel Andrades