OCTOBER 29, 2016
Do you see the mistake made by Archbishop Augustine di Noia in the text ?http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/10/do-you-see-mistake-made-by-archbishop.html
Do you see the mistake made by Archbishop Augustine di Noia in the text ?http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/10/do-you-see-mistake-made-by-archbishop.html
OCTOBER 28, 2016
If they would believe Cardinal Cushing and not Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy then the interpretation of Vatican Council II changes : Cardinal Burke, Bishop Athanasius Schneider http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/10/if-they-believe-that-cardinal-cushing.html
OCTOBER 27, 2016 Until Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider affirm Feeneyism as a salvation theology they will not be able to interpret Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of continuity.Vatican Council II will continue to be a rupture with Tradition http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/10/until-cardinal-burke-and-bishop.html
OCTOBER 27, 2016 Until Cardinal Burke and Bishop Schneider affirm Feeneyism as a salvation theology they will not be able to interpret Vatican Council II with the hermeneutic of continuity.Vatican Council II will continue to be a rupture with Tradition http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/10/until-cardinal-burke-and-bishop.html
OCTOBER 27, 2016
The difference between me and others is that I interpret Vatican Council II at face-value, according to the text,while the others interpret the text with an inference. http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/10/the-difference-between-me-and-others-is.html
DECEMBER 17, 2016
Feeneyism is the mssing link:two popes,Braz de Avez, Sabino Ardito make an objective mistake on Vatican Council II,ecclesiology : Franciscans of the Immaculate
If we go back to the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney then pastorally Vatican Council II will have the hermeneutic of continuity.If all of them would accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by Fr. Leonard Feeney then Vatican Council II would pastorally be in harmony with Tradition.
Yes we've finally found the missing link.
What causes the hermeneutic of rupture ?
When has Vatican Council II a hermeneutic of continuity?
The whole Church rejects Feeneyism and so Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.Here is the where the error lies.
This is a doctrinal issue for the Franciscans of the Immaculate (F.I). The F.I Commissioner Fr. Sabino Ardito,sdb and Cardinal Braz de Avez interpret Vatican Council II unaware of the missing link.
So if the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate priests, who offer only the Traditional Latin Mass, affirm LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc as being invisible for us, there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the old ecclesiology.
There would be nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the Feeneyite version of EENS.
So they would be affirming Vatican Council II ( as sought by the Commissar) and also the ecclesiology of the 16th century missionaries.
It's as simple as that!
Will they permit all the priests of the F.I to interpret Vatican Council II with LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc as being invisible and not visible,hypothetical and not concrete, unknown to us and known only to God ?
Presently the Commissioner of the F.I supports doctrinal ambiguity in the community.He uses a falsehood to interpret Vatican Council II.This makes the Council a break with the past.This is acceptable for Pope Francis.
The Commissioner is not asking the two popes to interpret Vatican Council II rationally and acknowledge that there is a mistake in the text of the Council.
The missing link is the irrational inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Get rid of the inference and as in a snap of the finger the Council becomes traditional, as it always was.
Without the irrational inference, Vatican Council II has a hermeneutic of continuity. With the false premise of being able to see the dead-saved,with the baptism of desire etc, the Council has the hermeneutic of rupture.We have finally found the ‘missing link’ for either of the two heremeneutics.It is so simple.
We now have found the link as to what makes the Council traditional or non traditional.Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Lefebvre did not know that an irrational premise was used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.We have found the 'missing link' as to what is the basis of 'the spirit of Vatican Council II'. We can avoid it.The fault is not there with the Council but with the inference.The inference is to assume being saved in invincible ignorance etc are visible in the flesh in 2016 and so are explicit exceptions to Tradition.Even if someone were to die without faith and baptism ( which is not de fide) we would not know of any exception today.he would be invisible and unknown to us. These persons would be dead and in Heaven.
If a pope, cardinal,bishop or magisterial document infers that there are exceptions today it is false.It has to be rejected.This is common sense.Vatican Council II mentions being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.We must not infer that these cases are exceptions to the dogma.This would be an error.Here are the errors.
1.Someone in the past is an exception to the dogma in December 2016 snce he died without faith and baptism. This was personally known to someone at that time.2.Someone living in 2016 will be an exception to the dogma today since it can be predicted that he will be saved without faith and baptism.3.Someone in Heaven is an exception to the dogma on earth since this is a known case in Heaven without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. The magisterium has made the factual error of assuming unknown cases are known in the present times.The famous case of the catechumen who dies before he receives the baptism of water and is saved is an invisible case.
We have found the missing link as to what creates a hermeneutic of rupture in the interpretation of Vatican Council II so we do not need a new Syllabus of Errors on Vatican Council II as Bishop Athansius Schneider once suggested.We do not need a Syllabus of Errors on Vatican Council II since we have found what decides the hermeneutic of continuity.It is the same factor needed to have a rational theology once again; the old ecclesiology.Now that we have identified the cause of the doctrinal change in the Catholic Church we can avoid it.The Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass can be offered with the old ecclesiology .Ecclesiology does not depend on the liturgy but on avoiding the irrational premise i.e LG 16, LG 8 etc would not refer to visible- for- us cases.MISSING LINKWe have found the missing link.Lumen Gentium 16 can be considered explicit or implicit, visible or invisble.There is a choice. It is irrational to consider LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc as referring to explicit cases.This is not common sense.It is rational instead to consider them as implicit, hypothetical and invisible for us.So the old doctrinal option, rejected by the contemporary Magisterium is available again when they reason out correctly.Ecclesiology does not depend on the Latin Mass.Pope Francis and the political Left it seems do not want the Traditional Latin Mass because of the old ecclesiology.It is being opposed by the one, world religion people.Ecclesiatical Masonry does not want Vatican Council II interpreted with Feeneyism( no exceptions). They are willing to accept the Traditional Latin Mass being offered by the FSSP priests.They like the two popes, accept Vatican Council II with Cushingism( there are known exceptions to EENS).So now we know that the Traditional Latin Mass in itself is no more an issue.
ONLY ONE RATIONAL OPTION Even the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass have only one rational option in the interpretation of Vatican Council II - and it is in harmony with the old ecclesiology.They could ask the two popes to affirm the dogma EENS according to the 16th century missionaries using citations of support- from Vatican Council II ( AG 7, LG 14- all need faith and baptism).Vatican Council II is traditional and supports the old ecclesiology.Cardinal Vraz de Avez and Fr.Sabino Ardito must acknowledge this.-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2016/12/feeneyism-is-mssing-linktwo-popesbraz.html________________________________
We now have found the link as to what makes the Council traditional or non traditional.
Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Lefebvre did not know that an irrational premise was used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
We have found the 'missing link' as to what is the basis of 'the spirit of Vatican Council II'. We can avoid it.
The fault is not there with the Council but with the inference.The inference is to assume being saved in invincible ignorance etc are visible in the flesh in 2016 and so are explicit exceptions to Tradition.
Even if someone were to die without faith and baptism ( which is not de fide) we would not know of any exception today.he would be invisible and unknown to us. These persons would be dead and in Heaven.
If a pope, cardinal,bishop or magisterial document infers that there are exceptions today it is false.It has to be rejected.This is common sense.
Vatican Council II mentions being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.We must not infer that these cases are exceptions to the dogma.This would be an error.
Here are the errors.
1.Someone in the past is an exception to the dogma in December 2016 snce he died without faith and baptism. This was personally known to someone at that time.
2.Someone living in 2016 will be an exception to the dogma today since it can be predicted that he will be saved without faith and baptism.
3.Someone in Heaven is an exception to the dogma on earth since this is a known case in Heaven without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
The magisterium has made the factual error of assuming unknown cases are known in the present times.The famous case of the catechumen who dies before he receives the baptism of water and is saved is an invisible case.
We have found the missing link as to what creates a hermeneutic of rupture in the interpretation of Vatican Council II so we do not need a new Syllabus of Errors on Vatican Council II as Bishop Athansius Schneider once suggested.
We do not need a Syllabus of Errors on Vatican Council II since we have found what decides the hermeneutic of continuity.It is the same factor needed to have a rational theology once again; the old ecclesiology.
Now that we have identified the cause of the doctrinal change in the Catholic Church we can avoid it.The Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass can be offered with the old ecclesiology .Ecclesiology does not depend on the liturgy but on avoiding the irrational premise i.e LG 16, LG 8 etc would not refer to visible- for- us cases.
MISSING LINK
We have found the missing link.Lumen Gentium 16 can be considered explicit or implicit, visible or invisble.There is a choice. It is irrational to consider LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc as referring to explicit cases.This is not common sense.It is rational instead to consider them as implicit, hypothetical and invisible for us.
So the old doctrinal option, rejected by the contemporary Magisterium is available again when they reason out correctly.Ecclesiology does not depend on the Latin Mass.
Pope Francis and the political Left it seems do not want the Traditional Latin Mass because of the old ecclesiology.It is being opposed by the one, world religion people.Ecclesiatical Masonry does not want Vatican Council II interpreted with Feeneyism( no exceptions). They are willing to accept the Traditional Latin Mass being offered by the FSSP priests.They like the two popes, accept Vatican Council II with Cushingism( there are known exceptions to EENS).
So now we know that the Traditional Latin Mass in itself is no more an issue.
ONLY ONE RATIONAL OPTION
Even the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate priests who offer the Novus Ordo Mass have only one rational option in the interpretation of Vatican Council II - and it is in harmony with the old ecclesiology.
They could ask the two popes to affirm the dogma EENS according to the 16th century missionaries using citations of support- from Vatican Council II ( AG 7, LG 14- all need faith and baptism).Vatican Council II is traditional and supports the old ecclesiology.Cardinal Vraz de Avez and Fr.Sabino Ardito must acknowledge this.
-Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2016/12/feeneyism-is-mssing-linktwo-popesbraz.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment