Kennedy Hall receives the Eucharist at the Latin Mass while reciting the Nicene Creed but changing its meaning with the common Boston Heresy

 

.

• Questions for Kennedy Hall: When the SSPX bishops and priests choose the False Premise to interpret Vatican Council II is this schism?  The result is schism?
• When they accept the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, as did the popes from Pius XII to Francis, is this heresy?

____________________________________

Kennedy Hall receives the Eucharist at the Latin Mass while reciting the Nicene Creed but changing its meaning with the common Boston Heresy

 In church at Mass he says, ‘I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins’ and means ‘I believe in three or more known and visible baptisms for the forgiveness of sins and they exclude the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. They are the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, which contradict Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.’

At Mass he affirms the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston which implies that there are visible cases of the baptism of desire (BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I), for them to be practical exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. So he is not a Feeneyite on EENS.

For Bishop Athanasius Schneider there are no literal cases of the baptism of desire but for Kennedy Hall there are, since Archbishop Lefebvre and all the SSPX bishops accepted the 1949 LOHO of Pius XII.

I have mentioned all this before to Kennedy Hall on Twitter and there was no comment or denial from him.

I affirm the ecumenism of return of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. I accept the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24Q, 27Q) on outside the Church there being no known salvation.For me there are no exceptions. Since I reject the second part of the 1949 LOHO and accept the first part. Vatican Council II (LG 14, LG 16 etc) does not contradict, for me, any of the Catechisms or the Syllabus of Errors.Kennedy Hall cannot say the same. So for me even the SSPX has made a mistake but there is no comment from Hall.

The SSPX and Hall have made an error: the error of the 1949 LOHO. They wrongly interpret the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, with an irrational premise ( invisible cases are visible) and irrational inference ( visible cases of BOD and I.I are practical exceptions for EENS etc). So the non-traditional conclusion is that EENS is obsolete after the 1949 LOHO and Vatican Council II (irrational).LOHO states every one does not need to enter the Church for salvation. This is heresy. It contradicts the dogma EENS, rejects the Athanasius Creed, makes the Syllabus of Errors obsolete and creates confusion with all the Catechisms, wherever, invincible ignorance is seen as an exception for the Council of Florence on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So in the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 29 Q -invincible ignorance, would contradict 24Q,27Q- no salvation outside the Church).

Kennedy Hall writes for Life Site News and Crisis Magazine, where the editor and correspondents, make the same mistake on the Nicene Creed etc. -Lionel Andrades

MARCH 26, 2023

I go for the SSPX Mass in Latin and I don't interpret Vatican Council II like Bishop Bernard Fellay and Fr. Davide Pagliarani

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/i-go-for-sspx-mass-in-latin-and-dont.html

MARCH 25, 2023

Kasper and Bequart chose the same irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/kasper-and-bequart-chose-same.html

MARCH 24, 2023

Biblicum

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/biblicum.html

MARCH 24, 2023

The Boston Heresy is like the Arian heresy of past times

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/thos-boston-heresy-is-like-arian-heresy.html

MARCH 23, 2023

The Boston Heresy is an objective error which can be verified in public.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-boston-heresy-is-objective-error.html

 MARCH 23, 2023

Pope Francis supports the Boston Heresy of Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Rector of Boston College and the American Jesuits. This is not Magisterial. Heresy and schism are not Magisterial.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/pope-francis-supports-boston-heresy-of.html

 MARCH 23, 2023

A pope cannot be Magisterial who supports the Boston Heresy. He must correct the error.There are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/a-pope-cannot-be-magisterial-who.html

MARCH 22, 2023

I have not written books on this subject and I have no intention of writing books in future. But one thing of which I am sure is that - there are no physically visible cases of LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in the present times.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/i-have-not-written-books-on-this.html

MARCH 22, 2023

Michael Voris and Michael Lofton are not Magisterial when they do not affirm the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1442) on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as do the priests of the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX). So why do they say the SSPX is not Magisterial?

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/michael-voris-and-michael-lofton-are.html

MARCH 21, 2023

Faculty of Theology, University of Munich is legally dishonest

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/faculty-of-theology-university-of.html

 MARCH 20, 2023

An Augustinian Recollect priest at the church Sant Ildefonso e Tomasso Villanova, via Sistina, Rome, yesterday agreed with me. He said Vatican Council II has a continuity with the past.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/an-augustinian-recollect-priest-at.html

MARCH 19, 2023

This is interpreting Church Documents with the Boston Heresy of Pope Pius XII.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/this-is-interpreting-church-documents.html

MARCH 19, 2023

Without the Boston Heresy of Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits - the Franciscans of the Immaculate and the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) could interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2023/03/without-boston-heresy-of-pope-pius-xii.html

_________________________________________________

APRIL 28, 2018

Why should Catholics affirm the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which has made an objective error and created a schism with the past popes on EENS?

______________________________________

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2018

Like Vatican Council II, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 can be interpreted with the for and against EENS method or the for and neutral to EENS method , with or without the Ladaria Error, with or without the false premise and the conclusion will be different.

Like Vatican Council II, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston can be interpreted with the for and against EENS method or the for and neutral to EENS method , with the Ladaria Error or without it, with the false premise or without it.The conclusion would be different.

So when the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) is mentioned in the Letter(1949) there are two ways to interpret it.1) We can assume that they refer to hypothetical cases known only to God or 2) we can infer, as is commonly done, that it refers to known people saved outside the Church, saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.Or we can assume that we humans can know of people who will be saved outside the Church, without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.

We can assume that they refer to invisible people in 2018 and this would be the obvious choice or we can wrongly assume that they refer to visible people in 2018. Either way our conclusion would be different since the premise is different.

The Holy Office 1949 during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII chose the irrational option. It assumed that BOD, BOB and I.I referred to known people saved outside the Church, in other words, there were personally known people saved in 1949 without the baptism of water.So BOD, BOB and I.I became an exception to Feeneyite EENS.

Similarly at Vatican Council II , Lumen Gentium 16( invincible ignorance), Lumen Gentium 14( case of the catechumen) etc is read by the Magisterium today as exceptions to traditional, Feeneyite EENS.

So on March 1,2018 Cardinal Luiz Ladaria at the Press Conference on Placuit Deo in answer to a question, said Lumen Gentium 8 was an exception to the old exclusivist understanding of salvation.

This indicates that he interprets the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II with the for and against EENS method, with the false premise and with the Ladaria Error.

So the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 heretically said that it was not necessary that everyone be a member of the Catholic Church for salvation, while the dogma EENS defined by three Church Councils says, it is necessary.

The Letter of the Holy Office was an innovation in the Church with  a new theology(outside the Church there is salvation) based on an irrational philosophical premise(invisible people are visible in the present times).It was accepted by the Magisteriium of the Church.-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/03/like-vatican-council-ii-letter-of-holy.html