The SSPX,CMRI,MHFM,FSSP
and numerous others are all interpreting Vatican Council II with a False and
not Rational Premise.
For them LG 8, LG 14, LG
16, UR 3, GS 22 etc refer to visible non Catholics saved outside the Church in
the present times (2022). While for me they refer to only hypothetical cases
and not objective and visible cases in 1965-2022.
So for me they are not objective
exceptions for the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus or Errors.But for the
conservatives, traditionalists, sedevacantists and liberals they are objective exceptions
for Tradition.So Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition for all of them-
but not for me.
Now tomorrow if Pope
Francis announces that Vatican Council II is to be interpreted with LG 8, LG
14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, referring to only hypothetical and
speculative cases in the present times and so not objective exceptions for the
dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors, the whole Church
comes back to Tradition overnight.
The Council can only be
interpreted rationally. So those who continue to interpret the Council with the
False Premise ( invisible cases are visible, LG 8 etc refer to objective cases
in the present times) would be in heresy and schism.They would be irrational
and their interpretation would be dishonest.
So the Council would be traditional and the popes would have to be traditional and the people would be traditional and the Church would once again be traditional.-Lionel Andrades
MAY 10, 2022
MAY 9, 2022
We now see before us the whole Catholic Church coming back to Tradition at all rites and liturgies.
MAY 18, 2019
SSPX priests here in Italy are to afraid to discuss this. They do not want to displease Econe and create personal problems for themselves. How can they say that Archbishop Lefebvre made an objective mistake? How can they say that they were wrong about Vatican Council II these 50 years? How can they say that they were wrong on EENS too since there are no known cases of the baptism of desire etc in our human reality for them to be exceptions to EENS.The SSPX is part of the doctrinal problem in the Catholic Church.
SSPX on 'Heresy Open Letter': "A Radical Approach Doomed to Failure"
Regarding the Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic ChurchMAY 17, 2019On Tuesday, April 30, 2019, twenty or so Catholic theologians and university professors published an Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church, inviting them to intervene with Pope Francis, to ask him to renounce the heresies of which he is accused. In case he persists, the canonical crime of heresy would be established, and the pope would then be “subject to the canonical consequences.” The summary published by the authors explains this last point: if Francis obstinately refuses to renounce his heresies, the bishop will then be asked to declare “that he is freely divested of the papacy.”This summary also explains that this Letter is the third step of a process that began in the summer of 2016. The first consisted of a private letter with 45 signatories, addressed to all the cardinals and eastern patriarchs and denouncing the heresies or grave errors held or supported by the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. The second step presented a text titled Correctio filialis (Filial Correction), signed by 250 participants, made public in September 2017 and supported by a petition signed by 14,000 persons. It asked the pope to take a position on the grave deviations produced by his writings and his declarations. Finally, the present Open Letter, claims that Pope Francis is guilty of the crime of heresy and endeavors to prove it, because Pope Francis’ words and actions constitute a profound rejection of Catholic teaching on marriage, moral law, grace, and the forgiveness of sins. Already more than 5,000 people have signed the petition put online by the authors.This initiative reveals the growing irritation and exasperation of many Catholics in the face of the writings and acts of the current Sovereign Pontiff. And certainly, there is good reason to worry when faced with Pope Francis’ teaching in moral matters. Moreover, there is a greater disturbance in Catholic opinion today over an error in this domain, than duplicity against the Faith. But the pope’s teaching is also deviant—if not more so—in matters of Faith.
Faced with an apparently unprecedented situation—although Church history, unfortunately, offers examples of time periods that were singularly troubled and close enough to ours—the temptation to resort to extreme measures can be easily understood. The situation of Catholicism is today so tragic, that only with difficulty could one condemn Catholics who try the impossible by reacting to and calling out the pastors to whom the flock is entrusted.The Fruits of the CouncilNevertheless, it must first be noted that the trouble did not start yesterday. It began with the “third world war” that was, according to Archbishop Lefebvre, the Second Vatican Council.
That Council, through its reforms, provoked “the auto-destruction of the Church” (Paul VI), by sowing ruin and desolation in the areas of faith, morals, discipline, priestly and religious life, the liturgy, catechism, and the entirety of Catholic life. But few observers really realize that. Even more rare still are those who will confront this universal destruction in a determined and effective way.
In fact, what we are witnessing with Pope Francis is only the ripening of the fruit. The poisoned fruit of a plant whose seed was developed in the progressive and modernist theological laboratories of the 1950s, like a GMO (genetically modified organism), a type of impossible interbreeding between Catholic doctrine and the liberal spirit. What is appearing today is no worse than Vatican II's novelties, but it is now a more visible and more complete manifestation. Just as the Assisi meeting under John Paul II in 1986 was only the fruit of the seeds of ecumenical and interfaith dialogue deposited at the Council, likewise the present pontificate illustrates the inevitable outcomes of the Second Vatican Council.
A Radical Approach Doomed to Failure
Lionel: Bishop Bernard Fellay, former Superior of the SSPX was a signatory of one of these petitions.The second observation focuses on the modus operandi. Given the radical way in which the successors of the apostles are called out, we have to question what results are expected from such an action. Is this way of doing things prudent? Does it have a chance to succeed?
Let's ask about the recipients. Who are they? What formation have they received? What theology has been taught to them? How were they chosen? Given the way in which the incriminating texts have been received by the various episcopates in the world, it is highly probable, even certain, that the vast majority of bishops will not react. With a few exceptions, all of them seem to be prisoners of their corrupt formation and of a paralyzing collegiality if, by chance, one or the other wanted to be different.
And if they remain silent? What will happen then? What must be done? If this is not to note the failure of such an initiative that might ridicule the authors and their cause. This Open Letter is a waste of time—an action producing little effect, the fruit of a legitimate indignation but which falls into excess, at the risk of lessening its good influence.Moreover, the danger of this approach may be in inducing its authors to deviate from the ongoing fight. We risk being captivated by the present evil, forgetting that it has roots, that it is a logical result of a tainted process at its origin. Like a pendulum, some believe they can magnify the recent past to better denounce the present, including counting on the magisterium of the popes of the Council—from Paul VI to Benedict XVI—to oppose Francis. This is the position of many conservatives, who forget that Pope Francis is only drawing out the consequences of the teachings of the Council and his predecessors. We cannot uproot an evil tree by only cutting off the last branch …
The Example of Archbishop Lefebvre
“What to do?”, some ask. Without parochialism or misplaced pride, we can say there is an example to follow, that of the Athanasius of modern times—Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
Cushingism is irrational, non traditional and it creates heresy.
Indeed, he spoke firmly against the direction taken by the modern popes. But in his fight for the Faith, he avoided falling into excess and never claimed to want to resolve all the problems inflicted on Catholic conscience by the crisis the Church that has been going on for more than half a century. He never lost the respect due to legitimate authority, but he knew how to correct firmly without allowing himself to judge it as if he were superior to it, while leaving to the Church of the future the task of resolving a presently insoluble question.
Archbishop Lefebvre fought on the doctrinal front, first at the Council, then with his many writings and conferences to combat the liberal and modernist hydra.
He fought on the front of tradition, both liturgical and disciplinary, to preserve the Church's ancient and august Sacrifice, by assuring the formation of priests chosen to perpetuate this essential action for the continuity of the Church.He fought on the Roman front, calling out the ecclesiastical authorities on the excesses of Peter's barque, without ever getting tired or hardening, always in the light of a wonderful prudence drawn from prayer and strengthened by the examples and the teachings of 20 centuries of the papacy.The results have proven that this was the right manner, the right way,
as St. Paul said: “Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine” (II Tim 4:2). May the Virgin, our Queen, terrible as an army arrayed in battle, help us to “labor until our last breath for the restoration of all things in Christ, for the spreading of His Kingdom, and for the preparation of the glorious triumph of [her] Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart” (Consecration of the Society of Saint Pius X).(Source : FSSPX/MG [Maison générale -General House] - 05/17/2019)
- SSPX Admits Mistake (1)
- SSPX - heresy and sacrilege.No denial(1)
- SSPX - interprets Magisterial documents as a rupture with Tradition (1)
- SSPX -Vatican reconciliation (4)
- SSPX Admits Mistake (10)
- SSPX and Catechism of the Catholic Church (1)
- SSPX Bishops misinterpret Vatican Council II and EENS (1)
- SSPX cannot accept Vatican Council II because of the restrictions placed by the Jewish Left (1)
- SSPX Communique on Pope Paul VI Beatification (1)
- SSPX condones Vatican Council II Cushingite (1)
- SSPX considers hypothetical cases as being explicit (5)
- SSPX divided on doctrine and theology (3)
- SSPX does not affirm traditional Catholic theology on other religions and Christian communities (1)
- SSPX does not ask Rome to come back to EENS and Vatican Council II Feeneyite (1)
- SSPX does not proclaim the Faith any more (2)
- SSPX fails on tradition (1)
- SSPX General Chapter Statement (6)
- SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 (5)
- SSPX Great Britain (1)
- SSPX has been misleading Catholics(1)
- SSPX heresy (1)
- SSPX Holy Cows (1)
- SSPX in a crisis (2)
- SSPX Italy (10)
- SSPX Mass (1)
- SSPX Mass has an impediment (1)
- SSPX New Superior's Oath Against Modernism is meaningless. (1)
- SSPX ordians seminarians after changing doctrine (1)
- SSPX priests in France and Canada are not proclaiming Catholic doctrine on Vatican Council II (1)
- SSPX proclaim the Catholic Faith (3)
- SSPX seminarians (2)
- SSPX silent (1)
- SSPX still clueless (1)
- SSPX still in a doctrinal crisis (1)
- SSPX theology-big gaps (1)
- SSPX website obsolete (2)
- SSPX- Mixing metaphysics with laws of physics. (3)
- SSPX- the new liberals (1)
- SSPX-doctrine (12)
- SSPX. extra ecclesiam nulla salus (1)
- SSPX. John Vennari (1)
- https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/05/sspx-on-heresy-open-letter-radical.html
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2012
SSPX U.S website unable to defend SSPX on crucial point
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/is-sspx-heretical_15.html#links
Is the SSPX heretical?-1
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/is-sspx-heretical.html#links
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/sspx-lets-archbishop-gerhard-muller-go.html#links
SSPX CLAIMS TRADITION TAUGHT THAT OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION BUT VATICAN COUNCIL II DOES NOT TEACH THIS
FRIDAY, MAY 20, 2016
SSPX is in doctrinal error like the contemporary magisterium Steve Skojec
Steve Skojec in his podcast says (24:00) Pope Benedict has said that the problem with the SSPX is doctrinal..What doctrine do they hold which that Church does not hold over the course of its existence...?
The SSPX is rejecting Vatican Council II since they interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism as a theology. So the Council emerges as a break with Tradition, in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Instead if they interpreted Vatican Council II with Feeneyism i.e there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Council would be traditional and they would not have to reject it.
_________________
As expected there is no clarification or denial from Archbishop Guido Pozzo or the Vatican to these blog posts.Vatican Council II is not the issue.They are faking it.It never was the issue.The CDF/Ecclesia Dei wanted the SSPX to compromise with error. They wanted the SSPX to interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational inference.Then they wanted the SSPX to accept the non traditional conclusion.This would be a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).This would be a rupture with Tradition.This hermeneutic of discontinuity is approved by Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis.Summorum Pontificum was probably a bait for the SSPX to approve Vatican Council II interpreted with a new theology, based on irrational Cushingism.
__________________
Bishop Williamson is correct. Rome must come back to the Faith before there can be an agreement.There cannot be an agreement with liberals who do not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions ( SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012).No agreement please, with magisterial heresy.____________________
So Vatican Council II is no more an issue after we have discovered the factual error in Vatican Council II.
SSPX has simply to announce that they accept Vatican Council II with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism, with no known exceptions to the dogma EENS instead of known exceptions, with no known salvation outside the Church instead of known salvation.________________
Vatican Council II is no more an issue.We have found the factual error in the Council and it is linked to the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston.
The 1949 Letter assumed hypothetical cases were explicit i.e objectively visible.Then this error in reasoning has been placed all over Vatican Council II.
If we read Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases being just that - hypothetical, the Council changes. It is then not in contradiction but in accord with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Feeneyite version. So then there are no exceptions to the old ecclesiology. This is the ecclesiology which the SSPX can support. Since it means there is no change in the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church and all non Catholics need to formally convert into the Church to avoid Hell.
Similarly they (SSPX) need to announce that they reject Vatican Council II with Cushingism, with the irrational premise and inference used to interpret the Council. So they can ask the contemporary magisterium, to stop interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism, which is irrational, non traditional and heretical.
Cushingism cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake, nor contradict the magisterium of the Church before the Council of Trent.
The Council interpreted with Feeneyism changes the discussion between the SSPX and the Vatican. It is the Vatican Curia which will now be on the defensive. The SSPX simply has to ask the CDF/Ecclesia Dei to affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite version)-Lionel Andrades
SSPX has simply to announce that they accept Vatican Council II with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism, with no known exceptions to the dogma EENS instead of known exceptions, with no known salvation outside the Church instead of known salvation.
The 1949 Letter assumed hypothetical cases were explicit i.e objectively visible.Then this error in reasoning has been placed all over Vatican Council II.
If we read Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases being just that - hypothetical, the Council changes. It is then not in contradiction but in accord with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Feeneyite version. So then there are no exceptions to the old ecclesiology. This is the ecclesiology which the SSPX can support. Since it means there is no change in the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church and all non Catholics need to formally convert into the Church to avoid Hell.
Similarly they (SSPX) need to announce that they reject Vatican Council II with Cushingism, with the irrational premise and inference used to interpret the Council. So they can ask the contemporary magisterium, to stop interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism, which is irrational, non traditional and heretical.
Cushingism cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake, nor contradict the magisterium of the Church before the Council of Trent.
The Council interpreted with Feeneyism changes the discussion between the SSPX and the Vatican. It is the Vatican Curia which will now be on the defensive. The SSPX simply has to ask the CDF/Ecclesia Dei to affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite version)
SSPX (USA) repeats the error in the Letter of the Holy Office : contradicts the dogma defined three times and also Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7)
Why cannot you say that the SSPX made a doctrinal mistake ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/why-cant-you-say-that-sspx-made.html
SSPX PRIESTS IN ALBANO,ITALY DISAGREE WITH U.S WEBSITE: THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS IN VATICAN COUNCIL IIhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/01/sspx-priests-in-albanoitaly-disagree.html
If the Bishops of Argentine and Albano cannot accept Vatican Council II without the irrational inference, then it is a doctrinal issue
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/if-bishops-of-argentine-and-albano.html
SSPX two groups divided on doctrine
JANUARY 12, 2016
Doctrinal error within the SSPX too ?
There is no comment from the SSPX Canada to this blog post which I sent them after the statement was issued by the District Superior, Canada.Fr. Daniel Couture, the District Superior of Canada issues a controversial statement critical of the Vatican Document on the Jews
Neither has the SSPX Italy over the last few years issued a denial.If the SSPX bishops and Fr.Pierpaulo Petrucci would admit that the baptism of desire refers to invisible cases in 2016, the entire interpretation of Vatican Council changes : error in the article
Nor is there any denial from the SSPX , USAOCTOBER 14, 2013http:// eucharistandmission.blogspot. it/2013/10/sspx-namerica- abetting-spread-of.html
Factual mistakes in Vatican Council II are not noted on the SSPX website
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/sspx-district-superior-italy-makes-same.html#links
No denial from Archbishop Pozzo : CDF/Ecclesia Dei will not interpret Vatican Council II with the Feeneyite theology
FSSP priests in Rome not allowed to affirm Vatican Council II, extra ecclesiam nulla salus without three irrational points: no denial from religious community
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/without-three-points-we-get-rational.html
If the Holy See chooses to interpret Vatican Council without the false premise there can be a reconciliation.The announcement has first to be made by the Holy See
The two hermeneutics depend on the use or omission of the irrational premise from Marchetti's letter
Lay Catholics,including bloggers still do not realize that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the blue or red column
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/lay-catholicsincluding-bloggers-still.html#links
___________________
OCTOBER 16, 2020
In the Catholic diocese of Manchester, USA, Bishop Peter Libasci, and the sedevacantist community, Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen(CMRI) interpret Vatican Council II with the New Theology. They use the false premise to create a new theology.Both Catholic groups do not have unity in doctrine and theology because of Cushingism; the use of the New Theology to interpret the Council
In the Catholic diocese of Manchester, USA, Bishop Peter Libasci, and the sedevacantist community, Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen(CMRI) interpret Vatican Council II with the New Theology. They use the false premise to create a new theology.The diocese website mentions the CMRI 1. It states that the CMRI are not Catholic.
Meanwhile the CMRI puts down the Novus Ordo diocese.
Both Catholic groups do not have unity in doctrine and theology because of Cushingism; the use of the New Theology to interpret the Council.
Once they identify the problem of Cushingism Vatican Council II would not be a rupture for the both of them.So there would be no theological basis for the bishop's liberalism.Now would the CMRI be able to reject Vatican Council II and the Creeds and Catechisms, which they now interpret with Cushingim. -Lionel Andrades
1
What is the status of “The Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen” and “Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Mission” in Salem?
A group which calls itself “The Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen” (“CMRI”) has established a church in Salem by the name of “Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Mission.” On its website, this group indicates that it offers the Tridentine Rite Mass (sometimes referred to as the “Traditional” or “Latin” Mass), Catechism classes for children, and Confessions and other sacraments.
This group and this church are not Catholic, and do not have the right to call themselves Catholic. CMRI is not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, and the sacraments they claim to offer have no validity in the Roman Catholic Church. Catholics are not permitted to receive the sacraments from CMRI ministers under any circumstances, nor should they participate in any activity provided by this group.
The members of CMRI are what are called “sedevacantists,” meaning that they believe that the current pope is not truly the pope and that the See of St. Peter is vacant. They believe that there has not been a pope in the Catholic Church since the death of Saint John XXIII, and therefore do not recognize any subsequent pope, including Pope Francis, as head of the Church.
For those who have a desire to attend a celebration of the Tridentine Rite Mass within the Church in union with the Holy See, visit our online directory for a listing of our Latin Masses.
If you have any questions about the relationship between CMRI and the Roman Catholic Church, please contact your pastor, or the diocese.
https://www.catholicnh.org/about/stay-informed/frequently-asked-questions/#stbenedict
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2020/10/in-catholic-diocese-of-manchester-usa.html
____________________________________
APRIL 10, 2019
Repost : Without the irrational interpretation of BOD,BOB and I.I by the sedevacantists CMRI, Quanta Cura, Syllabus of Errors,Mystici Corporis etc are not contradicted by Vatican Council II : the fault lies with the sedevacantists and not Vatican Council II
MARCH 14, 2018
Without the irrational interpretation of BOD,BOB and I.I by the sedevacantists CMRI, Quanta Cura, Syllabus of Errors,Mystici Corporis etc are not contradicted by Vatican Council II : the fault lies with the sedevacantists and not Vatican Council II
from the sedevacantist CMRI webiste
Theological Position: Sede Vacante
The CMRI can change to hypothetical instead of non hypothetical BOD, BOB and I.I.Then the conclusion of Vatican Council II is different.
Even the CMRI like the SSPX and FSSP do not not affirm Feeneyite EENS. So doctrine stands changed.
OCTOBER 21, 2020
Bishop William Byrne will not ask the traditionalist CMRI community under Bishop Mark Pivarunas, in New Hampshire, USA to interpret Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) without the fake premise and so affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church with no known exceptions - since then he would have to do the same
Bishop William Byrne will not ask the traditionalist CMRI community under Bishop Mark Pivarunas, in New Hampshire, USA to interpret Vatican Council II and extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) without the fake premise and so affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church with no known exceptions - since then he would have to do the same. -Lionel Andrades
___________________________________________