When someone affirms the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) it does not mean that he rejects Vatican Council II but that he is only seeing LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being hypothetical cases in 2022 and so are not practical exceptions for EENS.

 

When someone affirms the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) it does not mean that he rejects  Vatican Council II but that he is only seeing LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being hypothetical cases in 2022 and so are not practical exceptions for EENS.

So a Catholic does not have to reject the baptism of desire (BOD), invincible ignorance (I.I) and the baptism of blood (BOB) to be a Feeneyite.

BOD, BOB and I.I are not a problem for a Feeneyite since they refer to invisible cases.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective error when it projected unknown cases of BOD, BOB and I.I as being objective exceptions for Feeneyite EENS.

The Lefebvrists and liberals still see BOD, BOB and I.I as being objective and visible cases and so reject Feeneyite EENS.

The popes and saints when they were asked about BOD, BOB and I.I were referring to hypothetical cases. This is common sense.

However the Lefebvrists and liberals re-interpret the popes and saints wrongly. They assume that St.Anthony Marie Claret, St. Thomas Aquinas and St.Robert Bellarmine were referring to visible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I. This is using the False Premise instead of the Rational Premise to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I, wrongly.-Lionel Andrades

SEPTEMBER 19, 2018

Catholics can interpret Vatican Council II with BOD, BOB and I.I Cushingite or Feeneyite

What are we defending Vatican Council II any more for ?

Since there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II. 1.One of the Lefebvrist traditionalists, the liberals and Masons and the other 2. mine.

There is Vatican Council II 1.Cushingite and Vatican Council II 2.Feeneyite.

The liberals and traditionalists only know of Vatican Council II Cushingite. It is a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the old ecumenism, the past ecclesiology and the Syllabus of Errors. It is heretical. It supports apostasy in the Church and it is the only Vatican Council II understood by the popes, cardinals and bishops.

Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) is in harmony with the past ecclesiology, the ecumenism of return, Syllabus of Errors and the old Catechisms.

There are also two interpretations of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I). There can be BOD, BOB and I.I, Cushingite or Feeneyite.

So one can interpret Vatican Council II with BOD, BOB and I.I Cushingite or BOD,BOB and I.I, Feeneyite.

It is the same with the Catechisms. We can interpet the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) with BOD,BOB and I.I, Cushingite or Feeneyite.The conclusion changes. The conclusion is different.
-Lionel Andrades

SEPTEMBER 17, 2018

Until today the popes and cardinals make a doctrinal error on the issue of salvation   http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/09/until-today-popes-and-cardinals-make.html

COSA SIGNIFICA ADORARE - Padre Serafino Tognetti - 3 Piccoli Passi con Gesù

Repost . Sedevcantism based on Archbishop Lefebvre's understanding of Vatican Council II is obsolete ( Graphics)

 

APRIL 7, 2018

Sedevcantism based on Archbishop Lefebvre's understanding of Vatican Council II is obsolete ( Graphics)

APRIL 7, 2018

We now know that sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II is obsolete : Archbishop Lefebvre made an objective mistake

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/04/we-now-know-that-sedevacantism-based-on.html

MARCH 31, 2018

Sedevacantism, Traditionalism and Liberalism based on Vatican Council II with the premise is finished : the LOHO(1949) and liberal theologians depended upon an objective error

Sedevacantists now know that invisible cases mentioned in  Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura, the Catechism of Pope Pius X  etc cannot be visible exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).

They know that invisible and hypothetical cases mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 are not explicit.So they are not exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.

They know that for there to be exceptions to EENS someone must exist, there must be a real person saved outside the Church.

So they now know that Lumen Gentium 8( 'elements of sanctification and truth' in other religions) are not real people in 2018.So there is no contradiction to  the dogma EENS in 2018.
So when there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS and the old exclusivist ecclesiology, how can they criticize Pope Paul VI? How can they blame the popes from John XXIII for a traditional Vatican Council II ( premise free).

Vatican Council II is traditional and we can atted the Novus Ordo Mass with the ecclesiology of the Church having the superiority in salvation.

We can attend the Greek Byzantine Rite  and Syro Malabar Rite with the past ecclesiology. This was the ecclesiology of the Church since the time of St. Thomas the Apostle.This is now possible since we now know that there are no exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II or the LOHO(Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston).

Sedevacantistism, traditionalism and liberalism based on Vatican Council II (Cushingite, with the false premise) is now obsolete. Vatican Council II can be affirmed without the false premise.

The sedevacantists Most Holy Family Monastery, USA 1 would refer to the Vatican Council II sect.Since Vatican Council II was interpreted wrongly  as a rupture with EENS.They need to acknowledge this issue on their website.

Also the website of Bishop Donald Sanborn, Bishop and Rector of the Most Holy Trinity Seminary, Brooksville, Florida 2 needs to acknowledge that the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance)I.I) refer to unknown people in 2018. It is the same with LG 8, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc.

Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada still have articles on line criticizing Fr.Leonard Feeney.These articles are not removed even after they have been informed.Years have passed. The points mentioned on this blog addressed to them specifically are never addressed.Their articles  online are based on invisible BOD etc being visible and known exceptions to EENS in the present times.3

Conservative Cathollics need to call attention to the error made by Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) in the question and answer session of the Press Conference on Placuit Deo (March 1,2018).He cited Lumen Gentium 8 as being a visible and known case of someone saved outside the church. So for him it was an exception to the dogma EENS. The dogma EENS is now obsolete for him and Pope Benedict.

The same error was made by Pope Benedict in March 2016 (Avvenire).He said EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century.Since for him Vatican Council II , with LG 16, GS 2 etc ( See Chrisitianity and the World Religions of the International Theological Commission, Vatican which he approved as Cardinal Ratzinger) were known cases of salvation outside the Church. 

Sedevacantists and traditionalists need to clarify these point and admit that they were wrong all these years. They need to place a correction on their websites.

Outside the Church there is no salvation and so no one physically saw St. Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water.The Church does not state that anyone has a special gift and saw her Heaven  and also recognised her without the baptism of water.

We can accept her as a saint but to suggest that she is an exception to the general rule for salvation, which is faith and baptism for all (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II) has no empirical proof.

The Holy Spirit teaches the Church that all need faith and baptism for salvation(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) etc.This is our faith.This is the ordinary way of salvation.If someone is saved through the 'extraordinary ' way of salvation( baptism of desire without the baptism of water) it would only be known to God.So it canot be an explicit example of salvation outside the Church for us humans. It cannot be an exception to EENS for us.

Catholics must note the error on the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) website on the subject of Feeneyism.  4  The same error is made in a book by Fr. Francois Laisney titled 'Is Feeneyism Catholic'. It is published by the Angelus Press.
The SSPX and its supporters have annual conferences based upon visible for them BOD, BOB and I.I. and so their conclusions are the same and they keep moving in circles.
-Lionel Andrades

1.

Most Holy Family Monastery

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/E-Exchanges.php

______________________________

MARCH 30, 2018

Ask your sedevacantist and SSPX priest the following questions

There are no visible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) in 2018.

There are no known cases of BOD, BOD and I.I in the present times

We cannot see or meet any one saved with the BOD, BOB and I.I .

There have been no known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I over the last 100 years ; they were not physically visible on earth.

So ask the sedevacantist priests and the priest with the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) the following questions.They refuse to answer me. It is over a year now and they will not answer if Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) refers to visible or invisible people in the present times (2017-2018).

QUESTIONS

1) How can Mystici Corporis. Quanta Cura, the Catechism of Pope Pius X etc contradict Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).Since all these magisterial documents referred to hypothetical cases. ?

2) How can the Letter of the Holy Office 1949(LOHO) suggest that invisible for us BOD, BOB and I.I are visible exceptions to Feeneyite EENS? LOHO made a mistake?

3) How can LOHO criticize Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center for not affirming BOD, BOB and I.I as exceptions to EENS?

4) Who has seen cases of LG 8.LG 16, UR 3, GS 22, etc  in 2018? How can they be exceptions to the EENS and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church?

5) So when Vatican Council II does not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS, then how can the popes since John XXIII to Paul VI be blamed and rejected ? When Vatican Council II supports the past exclusivist and superior understanding of salvation in the Church, why blame Pope Paul VI?

6) Since the Latin Mass is the immemorial Mass of All Ages and is a continuation of the Greek Mass, then is not the Novus Ordo Mass also the Mass of All Ages, the immemoral Mass of the Church?

COMMON ERROR

Presently most priests in the Catholic Church, and not only the traditionalists, interpret Mystici Corporis etc as a rupture with Feeneyite EENS. They repeat the mistake of the LOHO and assume BOD,BOB and I.I were, and are, exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.They criticize Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center for not affirming BOD,BOB and I.I as exceptions to EENS.For them LG 8 etc, refer to explicit cases ,saved outside the Church.So they become exceptions to EENS and the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

They reject the Novus Ordo Mass, since they believe that liturgy determines ecclesiology.This is not true.It is assuming BOD, BOB and I.I as being phsyically visible or invisible which determines ecclesiology. It is rejecting or accepting the second part of LOHO which determines ecclesiology.The present Magisterium has rejected the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.They do this by accepting the error in the second half of LOHO and they interpret BOD, BOB and I.I as referring to explicit cases, in the present times, objectively visible people saved outside the Catholic Church. This is irrational.They use this same irrational LOHO reasoning to interpret Vatican Council II. This is the hermeneutic of rupture. Then they project Vatican Council II as a rupture with Tradition and expect all religious communities to accept it for canonical recognition.-Lionel Andrades

__________________________________________

MARCH 30, 2018

___________________________________

MARCH 14, 2018

Without the theological error of the two popes, without the Ladaria Error, theologically, sedevacantists no more have reason to remain in sedevacantism because of Vatican Council II ?

Comments from the blog Vox Cantoris

Without the theological error of the two popes, without the Ladaria Error, theologically, sedevacantists no more have reason to remain in sedevacantism because of Vatican Council II ?

It's time for U.S sedevacantists to renounce sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II interpreted with the Ladaria Error

It is now over two years and the sedevacantists in the USA have not denied what I have written. They agree that Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) refers to invisible people in 2015-2018.

Since Lumen Gentium 16(LG 16) refers to a hypothetical case it is not an exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).So Vatican Council II is not really a rupture with EENS.

Vatican Council II does not contradict the teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation as Bishop Donald Sanborn told Dr. Robert Fastiggi in the debate on Ecclesiology which can be viewed on Youtube.

So Vatican Council II should no more be a reason for sedevacantism.The sedevacantists were wrong on Vatican Council II over the last 50 years.

It was only with the modernist New Theology(based on hypothetical cases being non hypothetical and examples of salvation outside the Church) that Vatican Council II could be interpreted as a rupture with Tradition.They had it completely wrong on the Council.They have not been able to deny this over the last two years.

SEDEVACANTISTS CAN INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT LADARIA ERROR

The sedevacantists CMRI,MHFM and others could announce that Vatican Council II could be interpreted without the Ladaria Error. The Council is orthodox and compatible with Feeneyite EENS.

1.The baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) are not exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.They never were in 1949 or 1960-1965.

2.LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, AG 11( seeds of the Word) etc are not exceptions to the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.Feeneyite EENS is compatible with Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.

VATICAN COUNCIL II HAS HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY WITH FEENEYITE EENS

So Vatican Council II has the hermeneutic of continuity with Feeneyite EENS. So the Council is no reason to remain in sedevacantism.

Even when the past popes made a mistake the sedevacantists can correct the error and affirm traditional Vatican Council II.

The CMRI could correct the error on its website. It confuses BOD, BOB and I.I as being known examples of salvation outside the Church. They are really hypothetical, speculative and physically non visible cases in 2018.

MYSTICI CORPORIS DOES NOT CONTRADICT FEENEYITE EEENS

Similarly Mystici Corporis, the Catechisms of Pope Pius X and the Catechism of Trent refer to invisible for us BOD, BOB and I.I.So they never were exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. This is a common mistake on sedevacantist and traditionalist websites.

They have not denied this error over the last two years.They cannot blame Vatican Council II as being the cause of the break with the old exclusivist understanding of salvation.

But why has it taken them two years to correct themselves?

Why cannot they affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS ?

Can Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada who criticize Feeneyism admit that they made a mistake?

OFFICIAL HERESY

The Holy Office 1949 and the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuit Rector of Boston College were teaching heresy with their invisible cases of BOD,BOB and I.I being exceptions to the traditional understanding of EENS.It was Fr. Leonard Feeney who affirmed EENS like the Magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century, the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.-Lionel Andrades

http://voxcantor.blogspot.it/2018/03/the-ratzingoglio-reality.html




https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/03/without-theological-error-of-two-popes.html

La conversione, il più grande miracolo della medaglia miracolosa

The liberalism that we see around us in the Catholic Church comes from the False Premise. The New Theology which replaces the old theology is based upon the False Premise. When we eliminate the False Premise we go back to the old theology of the Church, and the liberalism is finished.

 

The liberalism that we see around us in the Catholic Church comes from the False Premise. The New Theology which replaces the old theology is based upon the False Premise. When we eliminate the False Premise we go back to the old theology of the Church, and the liberalism is finished.

Bishops Donald Sanborn and Mark Pivarunas choose to interpret Vatican Council II with the False and not Rational Premise. They support the liberalism and remain politically correct with the Jewish Left (ADL, SPLC, and Rabbi Rosen etc).

Sanborn and Pivarunas also interpret the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance by confusing what is implicit as being explicit. In this way they create false, but politically exceptions for Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They are Cushingites like the present two liberal popes and not Feeneyities.

Bishop Bernard Fellay no more talks about the doctrinal problem in the Church. He wants to continue to interpret Vatican Council II with the Fake Premise and support the liberals. It is the same with Una Voce International, Latin Mass Societies, Coetus International, Lepanto Foundation, ACIES Ordinata etc.

John Salza interprets the Council with the False Premise and writes articles and books as if all is well.

When a Lefebvrist complains about Vatican Council II he is choosing to interpret Vatican Council II with the False and not Rational Premise.

When the followers of Vietnamese Archbishop Pierre Thuc criticize Vatican Council II they choose not to interpret the Council with the Rational Premise.

 If Michael and Peter Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery, USA would interpret Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise, the Council would be in harmony with their strict interpretation of EENS.-Lionel Andrades