Repost : Archbishop Lefebvre's books are now obsolete

 

AUGUST 5, 2017

Archbishop Lefebvre's books are now obsolete

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was correct. Vatican Council II(Cushingite) was a rupture with Tradition. It was heretical.He was right to reject it.

The SSPX bishops were also correct to reject Vatican Council II which was commonly interpreted with an irrational premise.
VATICAN COUNCIL II HAS CHANGED DOGMA ACCORDING TO POPE BENEDICT XVI

This would seem obvious, for example, when it refers to being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) which would mean there is salvation outside the Church. So as Pope Benedict XVI confirmed last year, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the missionaries of the 16th century. Vatican Council II is a rupture with the magisterium of the 16th century.So Vatican Council II is not a pastoral Council it has changed dogma.
ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE WAS CORRECT TO REJECT ALL THIS

Since LG 16 is an exception to the dogma EENS it means that the old ecclesiology of the Church has been done away with. Now with salvation outside the Church there can be the Anonymous Christian saved in his religion. This was the foundation for the new ecumenism. So it was said that a non Christian does not necessily have to enter the Church for salvation.Since he could be saved in invincible ignorance. He could be saved with the baptism of desire. He could be saved with 'seeds of the Word' all without 'faith and baptism'.Archbishop Lefebvre was correct to reject all this.

So this was a grand rupture with Tradition.Doctrine has been changed. I repeat - Vatican Council II was not a pastoral Council as some of the traditionalists like to believe. Archbishop Lefebvre rejected this interpretation of Vatican Council II and the popes did not.

They all made a mistake.

There was an obvious mistake and it was overlooked.

It got pass every one.

Reason it out. 

If LG 16 is an exception to the dogma EENS then it would have to be known.An unknown person cannot be an exception.If there is a box of oranges and there is an apple in the box the apple is an exception because it is different but also becuase it is there in that box.

Someone has to exist and be visible to be an exception to the teaching on all needing to be members of the Church for salvation (Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441).
This person would have to live in our reality. We would have to know his name and surname.

So this was the inference.

It is upon this inference that we have the New Theology of Vatican Council II accepted by the popes and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

And there is no such person. There cannot be any such person.

No one in our life time.
How can we humans know of someone saved outside the Church? He would be in Heaven. How can we see people in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water? This would be known only to God.
For us humans this is ' a zero case' as John Martignoni, the apologist puts it.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma EENS said Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson.

Fr.Stefano Visintin osb, the new Benedictine Rector at the Pontifical University of St. Anselm, Rome agrees with him.

MYSTICI CORPORIS  REFERS TO A HYPOTHETICAL CASE

So LG 16 was really a hypothetical case. It was speculative and theoretical and not an exception to the dogma EENS. 

It never was an exception even in the past.Mystici Corporis is referring to a hypothetical case. The Catechism of the Council of Trent is referring to an unknown person. When the Catechism of Pope Pius X mentions invincible ignorance it was not an exception to EENS at that time.St.Thomas Aquinas was not saying there was a known case of a catechumen who desired the baptism of water and died before he received and so was now in Heaven.This had to be wrongly inferred by the liberal theologians.

The Holy Office 1949, Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits made a mistake.
Cardinal Cushing imposed the leftist excommunication on Fr. Leonard Feeney for over 19 years.So it gave him time to place the mistake in Vatican Council. The excommunication was political and supported by the Jewish Left.

There are now superflous references to being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I), baptism of desire(BOD) and baptism of blood (BOB) in Vatican Council II.

They are not a rupture with Tradition.Non existing cases on earth do not contradict  EENS ( Feeneyite) or the Syllabus of Errors.

Archbishop Lefebvre did not know this.

Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger did not tell him about it.

He kept writing books criticizing Vatican Council II in which he interpreted LG 16 as being an exception to Tradition.When Archbishop Marcel Lefbvre wrote J'accuse le Concile and Letter to Confused Catholics  he did not know about Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).

Even now after some 50 years the SSPX bishops still interpret LG 16 as referring to a visible case.

ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE'S WRITINGS DO NOT APPLY TO VATICAN COUNCIL II (FEENEYITE)

When LG 16, LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, AG 7, AG 14, GS 22,NA 2 etc are seen only as hypothetical cases in 2017 they are not a rupture with Tradition.We get a new interpretation of the Council which is traditional.

So it makes the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre obsolete.

They no more apply to Vatican Council II(Feeneyite). We now know that there cannot be a new ecumenism when the ecclesiology of the Church has not changed.So with a rational and traditional theology there can only be an ecumenism of return.

There cannot be salvation outside the Church for Jews etc when there is no known salvation outside the Church in 2017 to contradict traditional EENS as the missionareis in the 16th century knew it.Mission is still based on the old understanding of non Catholic religions and salvation.

We need to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State since there is absolutely no salvation outside the Church.

Collegiality is not a problem when there is unity on doctrine. If all the bishops and popes are willing to affirm LG 16 as referring to invisible cases we are united on Vatican Council II(Feeneyite).

Religious liberty was never an issue in the past when the ecclesiology of the Church and State was exclusivist. The papal states allowed the Jews and other non Catholics to follow their religion.The religion of the state however taught outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation based on John 3:5 and Mark 16:16. Enter through the narrow gate for the road to Hell is wide and most people take it.(Matt.7:13).All this was unknown to Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops since their premise was wrong. They accepted the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.SSPX bishops and priests are still interpreting Vatican Council II with the irrational inference.
Here is Bishop Fellay making the mistake.

MISTAKES BY BISHOP FELLAY AND FR. PIER PAOLO PETRUCCI

The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)

Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church, which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949". -Bishop Bernard Fellay (April 13, 2014 ) Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82  2

The same mistake was made by Father Pier Paulo Petrucci the present Superior of the SSPX at Albano, Italy. 3

ROME CAN COME BACK TO THE FAITH WITH VATICAN COUNCIL II (FEENEYITE)
When they accept or proclaim Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite, with LG 16 referring to an invisible case ) they are not rejecting Vatican Council II and neither are they rejecting Tradition.Instead as Archbishop Lefebvre suggested they can ask Rome to come back to the faith.IThey can do this in a simple way.They can choose a rational and traditional interpretation of the Council .It has an obvious continuity with the past and no ambiguity within it.

So it is meaningless to read the books of the good Archbishop. They belong to another time.He was correct that Vatican Council II (Cushingite- with LG referring to a visible case) was a rupture with Tradition and the SSPX should continue to reject it as their founder did.

WRONG TO EXCOMMUNICATE HIM

They were wrong to excommunicate him since the magisterium's interpretation of Vatican Council II was rupture with the past and was heretical. Instead there should be an apology.

It was a leftist excommunication as in the case of Fr. Leonard Feeney who was not teaching any thing new. We now know that invisIble for us being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire never ever was an exception to his interpretation of the dogma EENS.

-Lionel Andrades

1.

AUGUST 4, 2017

SSPX Italy is not affirming Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) for political reasons

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/08/sspx-italy-is-not-affirming-vatican.html

2.

NOVEMBER 4, 2016

Bishop Bernard Fellay interprets Vatican Council II with the irrational premise and conclusion : there is an option, a rational conclusion of which he is unaware of http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/11/bishop-bernard-fellay-interprets.html

3.

JANUARY 12, 2016

Fr. Pierpaolo Petrucci, Superior General,SSPX , Italy makes the familiar SSPX error http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/fr-pier-paolo-petrucci-superior.html

________________________________________

JUNE 14, 2014

Even if a non Catholic was saved in his religion or by his religion the case is implicit for us: Bishop Fellay uses the right hand column

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/even-if-non-catholic-was-saved-in-his.html

APRIL 28, 2017

Bishop Fellay does not realize that he is confused between Feeneyism and Cushingism http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/04/bishop-fellay-does-not-realize-that-he.html

________________________________________________________

 OCTOBER 29, 2021

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a mistake on Vatican Council II. He used a False Premise like the liberals, to interpret the Council. Now his followers are not correcting the error. They do not caution new readers of his books.

 

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a mistake on Vatican Council II. He used a False Premise like the liberals, to interpret the Council. Now his followers are not correcting the error. They do not caution new readers of his books.

Michael Matt’s Remnant News does not make this correction and neither does the Angelus Presds of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).

KAROL WOJTYLA

The same objective error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II is there in the  books of Michael Davies, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Roberto dei Mattei and Chris Ferarra.Vatican Council II was also interpreted with the False Premise by Karol Wojtyla, Joseph Ratzinger, Karl Rahner, Yves Congar and Alfredo Ottaviani.

There many books are now obsolete since we can interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise. Catholics have an option today.Why should we interpret the Council like the Lefebvrists and liberals and create a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology ?- Lionel Andrades

 OCTOBER 28, 2021

We are no more in the times of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Michael Davies.They made a mistake on Vatican Council II and EENS

Remnant News has a report on Yves Congar and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who are no more relevant to Vatican Council II since they did not know that the Council could be interpreted  with a Rational Premise and it becomes ecclesiocentric and in harmony with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

Robert Morrison the Remnant Columnist, is still reading Archbishop Lefebvre’s books. No one is telling him that the Council when interpreted with the Rational Premise is traditional.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not know this when he wrote ‘I blame the Council’.Also he did not know this when he wrote, ‘Against the Heresies’.

If Michael Matt knows it he does not want to bring this information out in the public.

When Lefebvre wrote ‘An Open Letter to Confused Catholics’ he had confused LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc as referring to invisible and not visible cases.

 There were explicit and not implicit, objective and not subjective.So his inference was wrong and conclusion non traditional.He put the blame on Vatican Council II in general, since he did not know about the Specific Error in the Council.He did not know about his False Premise.

We are no more in the times of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Michael Davies.They made a mistake on Vatican Council II and EENS.-Lionel Andrades

October 24, 2021

FRANCIS, CONGAR, AND THE CASE OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE

Written by  Robert Morrison | Remnant Columnisthttps://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/5661-francis-congar-and-the-case-of-archbishop-lefebvrehttps://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/10/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-made-mistake.html_____________________

OCTOBER 29, 2021

At the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) chapels and centers the Catechism of Pope Pius X is sold which they interpret with the False Premise, so 29Q( invincible ignorance) contradicts 24Q and 27Q( outside the Church there is no salvation).

 At  the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) chapels and centers the Catechism of Pope Pius X is sold which they interpret with the False Premise, so 29Q( invincible ignorance) contradicts 24Q and 27Q( outside the Church there is no salvation).

So when the liberal Archbishop Augustine di Noia , Adjunct Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican asked Brother Andre Marie micm, Prior at the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire, to interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( 847-848-invincible ignorance) as an exception for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus, no one from the SSPX pointed out the error. 

Since this is how they also interpret the Catechisms, old and new.

The SSPX Bishops too would interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church with the same False Premise i.e the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, are visible cases in the present times, of salvation outside the Catholic Church.With the False Premise the SSPX is interpreting Magisterial Documents like the liberal Massimo Faggioli. It's an either-or.Massimo Faggiolu says on Twitter that we have to choose the theology of the Syllabus of Errors or Vatican Council II as interpreted by the popes and him ( with the False Premise). Bishop Roland Minnerath in his writings says the same.

-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/10/at-society-of-stpius-x-sspx-chapels-and.html

_________________________________

OCTOBER 18, 2021

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not know

 

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not know  that Vatican Council II taught that there was exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church (Ad Gentes 7 ) and so was dogmatic . He did not know that hypothetical cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc did not contradict AG 7 and the Catechism of Pope Pius X, 24Q,27Q.

So Vatican Council II was not a break with the Council of Trent on extra ecclesiam nulla salus etc.

Also he did not know that when the Catechism of the Council of Trent and the Catechism of Pope Pius X mentioned implicit the baptism of desire it did not contradict Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, on EENS. This was also not known to the SSPX bishops, especially Bishop Bernard Fellay.Fellay issued many statements on the Council in which he made an error.

So now lay supporters of the SSPX at the Latin Mass, 

project exceptions for the Athanasius Creed, the 

Syllabus of Errors and EENS. The mistake in there in 

the official website of the SSPX (See Feeneyism).-Lionel Andrades

OCTOBER 17, 2021

The SSPX have to admit that they have made a mistake in the interpretation of the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the Syllabus of Errors. The same mistake they made in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 

Being saved in invincible ignorance is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) for Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).

The Syllabus of Errors affirms EENS.

The Syllabus of Errors also affirms an ecumenism of return.

The Syllabus of Errors also affirms the past exlusivist ecclesiology upon which was based the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King.

So when invincible ignorance is assumed to be known-people saved outside the Church it would be an exception to the Syllabus of Errors on EENS.

So the Catechism of Pope Pius X would contradict the Syllabus of Errors for Archbishop Lefebvre.

The Catechism of Pope Pius X would also contradict itself for Archbishop Lefebvre. 

Since this Catechism says all need to be members of the Church for salvation. It does not state that invincible ignorance is an exception to all needing to be members of the Church.But this is how Archbishop Lefebvre and the present SSPX and liberal Cushingites would interpret it.

For the SSPX in the Catechism of the Catholic Church n.1257( The Necessity of Baptism) would also contradict itself. Since it says the Church knows of no means to eternal beatiude other than the baptism of water and also says God is not limited to the Sacraments.

So the SSPX have to admit that they have made a mistake in the interpretation of the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the Syllabus of Errors. The same mistake they made in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2021/10/cardinal-marx-and-michael-matt-editor.html

_______________________