MISTAKE FOR OVER 60 YEARS
After so many years the bishops of the Society of
St.Pius X (SSPX) and Fr. Davide Pagliarani, the Superior General of the SSPX
still do not admit that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a mistake like the popes.
He did not know that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican
Council II could be interpreted rationally as being only hypothetical and
theoretical cases. So they do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla
salus (EENS) according to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).But for the SSPX
bishops and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre , LG 8,14, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc,
was a rupture with the dogma EENS and the Athanasius Creed. So they wrongly saw
LG 8, 14, 16 etc as being non hypothetical and visible and objective cases.
They became practical examples of salvation outside the Church. They were not
invisible but visible. They were visible non Catholics saved outside the
Catholic Church in their religions. They were known people saved in the present
times without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.
INVISIBLE PEOPLE CANNOT BE VISIBLE EXCEPTIONS FOR EENS
They would have to be visible for them to be exceptions
for EENS. But we now know that invisible people cannot be exceptions for EENS.
This is the false New Theology of the SSPX and the
liberals. It says outside the Church there is known salvation and that the
baptism of desire etc refer to visible people saved outside the Church.
SSPX IS NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE
The SSPX does not address this mistake. They are not
talking about this issue. Since to affirm Feeneyite EENS, i.e. EENS according to
the Fourth Lateran Council, would contradict the propaganda on Wikipedia.
FEENEYISM DOES NOT INTERPRET BOD, BOB AND I.I IRRATIONALLY
Contrary to the Leftist interpretation of Wikipedia we
now know that Feeneyism does not reject the baptism of desire, baptism of blood
and being saved in invincible ignorance. It simply does not project BOD, BOB and
I.I as exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. Since they are invisible and hypothetical
cases.
So it is unethical for the SSPX bishops and Wikipedia
and the popes, cardinals and bishops in general, to not acknowledge their
mistake and that of Archbishop Lefebvre on this issue. This is not just a
mistake it is a mortal sin of faith and an impediment for offering Holy Mass.
PRIESTS MUST AFFIRM THE CREEDS IN THEIR ORIGINAL MEANING
Canon Law demands that the priests affirm the Nicene
and Athanasius Creed according to their original, traditional understanding.
Vatican Council II must only be interpreted rationally and so also all the
Catechisms. - Lionel Andrades
__________________________________________________
JANUARY 9, 2022
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.
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
Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer makes the common mistake on Vatican Council II
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2021
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.
VATICAN COUNCIL II HAS CHANGED DOGMA ACCORDING TO POPE BENEDICT XVI
ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE WAS CORRECT TO REJECT ALL THIS
This person would have to live in our reality. We would have to know his name and surname.
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
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.
ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE'S WRITINGS DO NOT APPLY TO VATICAN COUNCIL II (FEENEYITE)
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 2The 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.
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.
WRONG TO EXCOMMUNICATE HIM
SSPX Italy is not affirming Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) for political reasons
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
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
________________________________________________________
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.
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).
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
_______________________
AUGUST 8, 2016
Catholics confused with the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre and supporters
Catholics are confused with the writings of Archbishop Lefebvre, Chris Ferrara, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, John Vennari and others.
Their version of Vatican Council II is now obsolete.Since it was done with a false premise.
Vox Cantoris, Louie Verrecchio, John Salza and others cannot think for themself or they emotionally need Christopher Ferrara to think for them.Then Ferrara will only follow the line of Lefebvre even though a false premise is the basis of his theology.1.
-Lionel Andrades
1.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment