Now we have two new important facts about Vatican Council II which were developed over the last 15 years.

Now we have two new important facts about Vatican Council II which were developed over the last 15 years. This changes Vatican Council II which now has a continuity with Tradition, especially with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.

I

IF WE CHOOSE TO INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II AND OTHER MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS AS NOT HAVING EXCEPTIONS FOR THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS, VATICAN COUNCIL II HAS THE HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY WITH TRADITION.

It is said why have Traditional Mission, why should non-Catholics convert into the Catholic Church, when there is salvation outside the Church i.e. known salvation in particular cases in the present times.

So LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2 GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II are projected as ‘known people’ physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church in 1949-2023. They are exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)

But LG 8,14,15,16, UR 3, NA, 2 GS 22 etc are always physically invisible cases in 1949-2023.They are always only hypothetical cases. They exist only in our mind. They are theoretical. They are not practical exceptions for the dogma EENS and the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church.

So in 2023-2024 outside the Catholic Church there is no known salvation.

The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston made a mistake and that mistake is repeated in Vatican Council II. It is also repeated in the Creeds when the baptism of desire is mentioned. It is repeated in the interpretation of the old Church Councils and the Catechisms when the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are mentioned.  We interpret these Magisterial Documents, with or without exceptions. So there are two different conclusions. If we choose to interpret them with exceptions then there is a break with Tradition (EENS etc). There is a development of doctrine and unlimited liberalism. If we choose to interpret these Magisterial Documents without exceptions, there is the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition (Athanasius Creed, EENS, and Syllabus of Errors etc).

II

THE BLUE PASSAGES HAVE A HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY WITH TRADITION AND THE RED PASSAGES ARE NOT EXCEPTIONS.

LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR3, NA 2, GS 22 etc can now be referred to as the hypothetical cases or the red passages. They are not objective exceptions for the orthodox (blue) passages in Vatican Council II. The red passages refer to physically invisible cases in the present times (1949 to 1965 or 2023 -2024). 

The orthodox (blue) passages are usually accompanied by the hypothetical (red) passages in Vatican Council II. 

In principle, the concept of the red passages in Vatican Council II emerges from the mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston. The 1949 LOHO confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS or EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council ( 1215), which did not mention any exceptions.

So when the Council Fathers ( 1965) inserted LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA ,2 GS 22 etc, in the text of Vatican Council II, they were inserting 'invisible cases', which did not really contradict EENS ( with no exceptions). There could only be invisible cases. They really had no choice. But they interpreted these invisible cases as being physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church. This was their error.

The popes from Paul VI interpreted the red hypothetical passages as being exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. In other words, they were not hypothetical and invisible only. How could they be invisible for them ?  Since only physically visible cases can be practical exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. They needed exceptions. They did not want to support Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So they created their artifical exceptions. Theyimplied that what was invisible was visible and then they concluded that there were practical exceptions for EENS, mentioned in Vatican Council II.

 So they made a mistake. They interpreted 'the red passages' incorrectly. So for them, Vatican Council II made the dogma EENS and the past ecclesiocentrism, obsolete. This was how Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger reasoned-wrongly.

This was how Michael Voris and Louie Verrecchio reasoned wrongly on a Church Militant TV program. For them, Ad Gentes 7 contradicted itself since they interpreted 'the red passages' as being exceptions for the blue orthodox passages, which support EENS, in Ad Gentes 7.

So now, when we read Vatican Council II, we must note carefully that the red passages do not contradict Feeneyite EENS and the rest of Tradition. They are not exceptions for Traditional Mission.

So 'the blue passages' have a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition and the 'the red passages ' are not exceptions.

CONCLUSION:

We can have Traditional Mission based upon there being exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church, since Vatican Council II does not have any exceptions. Everyone needs to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation, with no known exceptions, mentioned in the Council-text.

A Catholic State is necessary, to save souls, since the Council is saying outside the Catholic Church there is no  salvation ( AG 7, LG 14).We need  to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, since outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation ( AG 7, LG 14).

Vatican Council II has the hermeneutic of continuity with the Magisterium over the centuries, including the missionaries in the 16th century.

-Lionel Andrades

Who gives Pope Francis the right to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally? How can a pope choose to interpret the Council unethically? How can a dishonest interpretation of Vatican Council II be Magisterial? Pope Francis must choose to interpret Vatican Council II rationally i.e. invisible cases of LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, are always invisible in 2023-2024.

 

Who gives Pope Francis the right to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally? How can a pope choose to interpret the Council unethically? How can a dishonest interpretation of Vatican Council II be Magisterial? Pope Francis must choose to interpret Vatican Council II rationally i.e. invisible cases of LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, are always invisible in 2023-2024.

He must not project LG 8,14,15,16,UR3,NA2, GS 22 etc as being visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditional ecclesiocentism of the Catholic Church.

A pope cannot choose to interpret LG 8, 14, 15 etc as being a non-hypothetical and objective cases, when they always are hypothetical and physically invisible in the present times.

Lay people must know that an invisible case of LG 16 (being saved in invincible ignorance) does not make the dogma EENS of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), obsolete. Someone who is not there, an invisible person cannot be an exception for the Athanasius Creed which says all need the Catholic Faith for salvation. Someone who is not there cannot be an exception.

Why does Pope Francis not affirm the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Catechism of Pope Pius X and that of Trent, which are not contradicted by the speculative and invisible cases, referred to in LG 8,14,15,16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc?

Who gives Pope Francis the right to project LG 8, 14, 15, 16 etc as being exceptions for the ecclesiology of the Roman Missal? There are no exceptions in our human reality.

How can there be a pope who is not ‘normal’ on Vatican Council II? So now there are two versions of Vatican Council II, two versions of the Nicene Creed (invisible and visible baptism of desire etc), two versions of the Athanasius Creed (with and without exceptions) and two versions of the Catechisms.

The confusion in Vatican Council II comes from the mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office (CDF) to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney. Invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were assumed to be visible exceptions for traditional EENS. So the past ecclesiocentrism was made obsolete with this ruse. It was said that since there was known salvation outside the Catholic Church in the present time, why have Traditional Mission ? Why do people need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation when there were known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church in 1949-1965 and later ? Why must there be a Catholic State when non Catholics are being saved outside the Church and they are known in particular cases ?

Now we need to ask : Why should Catholics accept the 1949 LOHO which was referenced by the liberals in Vatican Council II (LG 16) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and placed in the Denzinger ? The objective mistake in the 1949 LOHO does not make it Magisterial and so it should not have been inserted in the Denzinger.

Cardinals, bishops, priests and religious communities can today choose to interpret all Magisterial Documents (Creed, Councils and Catechisms) rationally-only! 

-Lionel Andrades

The videos of Brother Michael Dimond of the MHFM are heretical when he interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism and produces a fake break with Tradition

 

I wanted to give our supporters an update on our apostolate and some of our plans for the near future…

Lionel: Michael Dimond and the Most Holy Family Monastery, NY, USA continue to interpret Vatican Council II irrationally. They choose to interpret the 'red passages' like Pope Francis.

________________

Over the past 30 years (among all “conservative Catholic” organizations in the world), we are probably in the top six in terms of the total amount of Catholic materials distributed…  

Lionel: The interpretation of Vatican Council II and other Magisterial Documents of the MHFM is the same as that of the liberals. So the still have a tax exempt status.

____________________

 We also have the largest sedevacantist outreach in history by far, and our material has (by God’s grace) convinced the most people of the true position concerning the current state of the Church.

Lionel: The sedevacantists are politically correct with the Left on Vatican Council II. They interpret the red passages irrationally and produce a break with Tradition and then put the blame on the Council.

We have YouTube channels in 10 different languages with over 354,000 subscribers and over 106 million video views.  Over 14.9 million people have visited our English website since 2012.

 

…Working on these new video projects takes up a considerable amount of our time.  The fact is that our videos, websites, and materials are the most important information available to help people see the truth and save their souls.

Lionel: Their videos are heretical when they choose to interpret the Council with Cushingism and not Feeneyism. Vatican Council II becomes a  break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Sincerely in Jesus Christ,

Bro. Michael Dimond, O.S.B.
Superior, Most Holy Family Monastery

An important letter on our apostolate and some of our plans for the near future

https://vaticancatholic.com/mhfm-apostolate-update-2023/

For me the Council has the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition. For the main line Catholic Church Vatican Council II can only be in harmony with the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century. There is no other rational choice.

When I say that the Catholic Church teaches today that outside the Church there is no salvation I am citing Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I am affirming the blue orthodox passages which are in harmony with the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and I am affirming the red hypothetical passages which do not contradict the blue passages and neither the Council of Florence on EENS.

This is rational, traditional and magisterial.

So Vatican Council II is still officially saying in its text that outside the Church there is no salvation. This is the main line Catholic Church which uses Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Why should I interpret Vatican Council II, the Creeds and Catechisms irrationally and dishonestly like the popes, cardinals and bishops?

For me the Council has the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition. For the main line Catholic Church Vatican Council II can only be in harmony with the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16^th century. There is no other rational choice.

So my approach is to first 1) affirm the blue passages which are in harmony with the past exclusivist ecclesiology and then 2) affirm the red hypothetical passages, which do not contradict the blue passages and neither Tradition.- Lionel Andrades

Archbishop Guido Pozzo at Ecclesia Dei and Pope Benedict would say that Vatican Council II had the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition and they would also say that it had the development of doctrine, or hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition. They would speak in two ways.

 

Archbishop Guido Pozzo at Ecclesia Dei and Pope Benedict would say that Vatican Council II had the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition and they would also say that it had the development of doctrine, or hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition. They would speak in two ways.

Of course the blue orthodox passages in Vatican Council II could be cited to say that the Council had a continuity with Tradition. This was useful when they were talking to the traditionalists.

But when they wanted to please the Left and the liberals they could interpret the red passages irrationally and so Vatican Council II would have a rupture with the blue orthodox passages –and also Tradition in general, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus  EENS, etc.

Pope Benedict clarified once, that EENS today was no more like it was for the missionaries of the 16^th century. There was a development of doctrine he said, with Vatican Council II. He meant the Council was a break with Tradition, when he would interpret invisible cases of LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being visible exceptions for the dogma EENS.

Of course, he was repeating the error of Pope Pius XII in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston. It confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for EENS according to the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence.

Now in 2023 we can choose to interpret Vatican Council II only rationally and so in harmony with Tradition. We can always choose the hermeneutic of continuity with the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechisms of Trent and Pius X. We do not have to interpret the Council like Pope Francis and the cardinals and bishops.

The recent document on homosexual, like Amoris Laetitia and Traditionis Custode,  is based upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. The red passages are knowingly interpreted irrationally. This cannot be Magisterial. The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake. Lionel Andrades

Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus of Pope John Paul II were issued with the irrational interpretation of the red passages in Vatican Council II. The public error is there for all to see.

 

Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus of Pope John Paul II were issued with the irrational interpretation of the red passages in Vatican Council II. The public error is there for all to see.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, interpreted the invisible and hypothetical cases in the red passages as being objective exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), the Athanasius Creed and the past exclusivist ecclesiology. So he assumed that invisible cases were physically visible. Only visible cases, objective examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church, can be exceptions for Feeneyite EENS.If someone does not exist in our reality, he cannot be an exception for the past ecclesiocentrism.He does not contradict the dogma EENS.

For example, if there is an apple in a box of oranges then then apple is an exception since it is different but also becuase it is there in that box. If it was not there in that box it would not be an exception.

Cardinal Ratzinger interpreted LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22, as being exceptions for the dogma EENS. So he implied that these were non-hypothetical, objective cases, known in the present times.

This is irrational but with this reasoning he created exceptions for Tradition and then issued Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus etc.

When what is invisible is seen as being visible I call it Cushingism.

When what is invisible is seen as being invisible only, I call it Feeneyism.

Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus are Cushingite. The Athanasius Creed, for example. which says all need Catholic faith for salvation, is Feeneyite, for me. I interpret it without exceptions. Probably a Cushingite could interpreted it differently, with exceptions.

Similarly Vatican Council II is Feeneyite for me. I interpret it without it having exceptions for the dogma EENS etc.In general Vatican Council II is Cushingite, for just about everyone.

Cushingism is liberalism.Pope Paul VI brought this liberalism into the Church by interpreting the red hypothetical passages irrationally. He confused what is invisible as being visible and no one corrected him. Then it was claimed that Vatican Council II was a break with Tradition, it was a revolution in the Church, it was a new revelation, when all they were really doing was mixing up what is invisible as being visible and so producing a non traditional conclusion.-Lionel Andrades

SEPTEMBER 11, 2014

Two Catholic Conferences this week end: how would they interpret Redemptoris Missio?

Members of both conferences will use the irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and also  Redemptoris Missio. The result is that at one conference they will accept Vatican Council II as a break with the past and at the other Conference they will reject Vatican Council II as a break with the infallible teaching.Both  Conferences will be unaware that they are using an irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, Dominus Iesus, Redemptois Missio etc.

 

Redemptois Missio

Salvation in Christ Is Offered to All

10. The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church.

Lionel:

Salvation is open to all, in potential.

 

 Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all.

Lionel:

It is God who decides to whom it has been made available and who is in invincible ignorance. All have an obligation to convert.(John 3:6,Mk.16:16)

Those who are saved or will be saved in invincible ignorance etc are not known to us in 2014.So it must not be inferred that these cases are exceptions to all needing to formally convert into the Church for salvation.

 

 But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church.

Lionel:

These people are not known to us. We cannot judge who they are and who among them will be saved or not.

 

 The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation.

Lionel:

Theoretically, hypothethically, yes. De facto, in real life, in 2014 we do not know any such case. So it must not be inferred that these cases are explcit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 

 This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.-Redemptoris Missio

Lionel:

In potential, as a possibility, yes.However to receive salvation all need to respond and enter the Catholic Church, with 'faith and baptism ( Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II).

 

Redemptoris Missio

28. The Spirit manifests himself in a special way in the Church and in her members. Nevertheless, his presence and activity are universal, limited neither by space nor time.³⁵ The Second Vatican Council recalls that the Spirit is at work in the heart of every person, through the "seeds of the Word," to be found in human initiatives-including religious ones-and in mankind's efforts to attain truth, goodness and God himself.

Lionel:

We must be careful here.We must not infer that those saved with the 'seeds of the Word' are visible and known to us. They are unknown to us in 2014.They are invisible cases. So they cannot be exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Church , with faith and baptism, for salvation.

 

The Call to Holiness Conference members will assume that those saved with the 'seeds of the Word(AG 11) are visible to us in real life. This will be the false premise.

Then they will conclude that these 'visible in the flesh' cases are explicit exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church in the present times.

So they conclude that Vatican Council II is a break with the past dogma.They will accept this.

At the Catholic Identity Conference they will use the same reasoning. They will reject Vatican Council II ( with the premise) and affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 

They do not know that there is a third option. If they do not use the false premise they can accept Vatican Council II  and also extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 

They can accept a baptism of desire which is a hypothethical probability alongwith the Feeneyite interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 

-Lionel Andrades

Two Catholic Conferences this week end : how would they interpret Dominus Iesus ?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/two-catholic-conferences-this-week-end.html

___________________________

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2014

What a mess !

This objective error from 1949 would now be repeated in many other magisterial documents including Vatican Council II, where the Archbishop and the Jesuits were active. The error would be repeated in Redemptoris Missio(N.10 is contradicted by 28 etc.Issued in 1990). It is there in the Balamand Declaration(N.30, June 1993). It would then be reproduced in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257.Issued in 1994 in English), Dominus Iesus(1 is contradicted by 2 etc.Issued in 2000),  Christianity and the World Religions (N.10 and 67.(1997)International Theological Commission) and The Hope of Infants who die without being baptised (N.59 etc (April 20.2007) International Theological Commission ) and other magisterial documents.

 

Here starts trouble for the Catholic Church.
1949:

Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of
Christ on earth.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel:

We do not know any case of someone 'knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff,...'.The Letter implies that we do know. So these cases, are inferred to be exceptions to all needing to enter the Church with faith and baptism. They are in Heaven so how could they be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water.

It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead. This is a factual error in the Letter of the Holy Office.

In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. -Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel:

Again the Letter of the Holy Office assumes that those saved with 'only desire and longing' are physically visible on earth to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. Objectively in 1949 , they could not see these alleged replacements for the baptism of water.They did not exist. So the baptism of desire was never an exception or relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God. -Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel:

If a person is saved in invincible ignorance it will be known only to God. This is something theoretical for us, hypothetical. The Letter assumes that a hypothetical  case is a de facto exception.A theoretical case is a subsititute for all needing the baptism of water for salvation in 1949?.

 The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were never exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. An injustice was done to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Centers.

 

1949

Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston – Decree Regarding Leonard Feeney, April 18, 1949

Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J., because of grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion.

Any Catholics who frequent St. Benedict’s Center, or who in any way take part in or assist its activities forfeit the right to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Eucharist.

Given at Boston on the 18th day of April, 1949.

Lionel:

'has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion.' Note we now have an Archbishop who is teaching that there is known salvation outside the Church. He infers that there are physically visible cases of non Catholics saved without the baptism of water.This is objectively wrong. We caanot see or know cases in Heaven for them to be exceptions on earth to the necessity of the baptism of water for all, for salvation.

This objective error from 1949 would now be repeated in many other magisterial documents including Vatican Council II, where  Archbishop Richard Cushing  and the Jesuits were active. It would then be reproduced in  the Catechism of the Catholic Church(N.1257.English edition issued in 1994), Dominus  Iesus(N.1 is contradicted by N.2 etc), Redemptois Missio(N.10 is contradicted by N.28 etc), Balamand Declaration(N.30, June 1993), Christianity and the World Religions (N.10 and 67 (1997),International Theological Commission) and  The Hope of Infants who die without being baptised(N.59. (April 20.2007) International Theological Commission ) and other magisterial documents.

-Lionel Andrades

___________________________________________________

 FACTUAL ERRORS IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949

http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t1247-factual-errors-in-the-letter-of-the-holy-office-1949

http://catholicism.org/father-feeney-fact-sheet.html

Bishop Charles Morerod in a doctrinal error says the SSPX cannot use Catholic Churches because of a doctrinal issue

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/search/label/Internatonal%20Theological%20Commission

The Call to Holiness and Catholic Identity Conference speakers will use a false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, Redemptoris Missio, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Dominus Iesus... http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/the-call-to-holiness-and-catholic.html

Two Catholic Conferences this week end - how would they interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church ?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/two-catholic-conferences-this-week-end_54.html

Two Catholic Conferences this week end: how would they interpret Redemptoris Missio? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/two-catholic-conferences-this-week-end_11.html

Two Catholic Conferences this week end : how would they interpret Dominus Iesus ? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/two-catholic-conferences-this-week

Both Conferences being held this week end don't have a Catholic Identity

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/both-conferences-being-held-this-week.html

SSPX get smart!

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/sspx-get-smart.html
 

 

FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 2014

Most Catholic priests are using the irrational, right-hand side column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II

The International Theological Commission,Vatican is using the irrational column

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/the-international-theological.html#links

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Bernard Fellay have used the irrational column http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/archbishop-marcel-lefebvre-and-bishop.html#links

Roman Forum Summer Conference this month will use the right hand side column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/roman-forum-summer-conference-this.html#links

There are Catholic religious and lay persons who use the the left hand side column in the interpretation of magisterial text http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/there-are-catholic-religious-and-lay.html#links

Magisterium: it all depends on how you look at it!

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/magisterium-it-all-depends-on-how-you.html#links

First they assume those saved with ‘a ray of the Truth’ are explicit. Then they criticize NA 2 for inferring there is salvation outside the Church

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/first-they-assume-those-saved-with-ray.html#links

-Lionel Andrades

 

LEFT HAND SIDE COLUMN or RIGHT HAND SIDE COLUMN


All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) etc are either:

implicit                      or explicit for us.

hypothetical              or known in reality.

invisible                     or visible in the flesh.

dejure ( in principle) or defacto ( in fact ).

subjective                  or objective

So one can choose from the left hand side or the right hand side column.

If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general on other religions and Christian communities and churches. There are known exceptions in 2014 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Cathlic Church. The dead- saved are visible.

If the left hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor Tradition on other religions and Christian communities and churches.

Most people interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.

So the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was never ever an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless one is using the right hand side column.There were and are no known exceptions.

In 2014 the Padre Pio Prayer groups, the Neo Catechumenal Way, Charismatic Renewal, all the religious communities and most of the Diocesan priests, the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX), Archbishop Gerhard Muller, Archbishop Augustine Di Noi, Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J, Monsignor Guido Pozzo and the Vatican Council for the Clergy are using the irrational column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church,Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949,Redemptois Missio, Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura ...-Lionel Andrades

_________________________________

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Bernard Fellay have used the irrational column

You have often heard it said, “Outside the Church there is no salvation”--a dictum which offends contemporary minds... The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church.The error consists in thinking that they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their religion but not by it. There is no Buddhist church in heaven, no Protestant church. This is perhaps hard to accept, but it is the truth. I did not found the Church, but rather Our Lord the Son of God. As priests we must state the truth.-Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre 1

(Lionel: Archbishop Lefebvre is implying here that the baptism of desire is visible for us.He is using the right hand column.) 

Evidently, certain distinctions must be made. Souls can be saved in a religion other than the Catholic religion (Protestantism,Islam,Buddhism etc) ,but not by this religion. There may be souls who, not knowing Our Lord, have by the grace of the good Lord, good interior dispositions, who submirt to God...But some of these persons make an act of love which implcitly is equivalent to baptism of desire .-Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre 2

(Lionel: Archbishop Lefebvre is implying here that the baptism of desire is visible for us.He is using the right hand column.If it was invisible for him he would not even have to mention it.)

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...

The declaration Nostra aetate says that non-Christian religions “often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men,” although such men must find in Christ “the fullness of religious life;” it also “regards with sincere respect those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and doctrines.” (NA, 2) Such a claim must be criticized just as the preceding one... -Bishop Bernard Fellay 3 

(Lionel: Bishop Bernard Fellay infers here that LG 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth), UR 3 ( imperfect communion with the Church) and NA 2 ( ray of the Truth) are visible for us.He is using the right hand column).

 

LEFT HAND SIDE COLUMN or   RIGHT HAND SIDE COLUMN


All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) etc are either:

implicit                     or explicit for us.

hypothetical             or known in reality.

invisible                    or visible in the flesh.

dejure ( in principle) or defacto ( in fact ).

subjective                  or objective  

 

So one can choose from the left hand side or the right hand side column.

If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general on other religions and Christian communities and churches. There are known exceptions in 2014 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Cathlic Church. The dead- saved are visible.

If the left hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor Tradition on other religions and Christian communities and churches.

Most people interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.

So the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was never ever an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless one is using the right hand side column.There were and are no known exceptions.

 

In 2014 the Padre Pio Prayer groups, the Neo Catechumenal Way, Charismatic Renewal, all the religious communities and most of the Diocesan priests, the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX), Archbishop Gerhard Muller, Archbishop Augustine Di Noi, Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J, Monsignor Guido Pozzo and the Vatican Council for the Clergy are using the irrational column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church,Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949,Redemptois Missio, Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura ...-Lionel Andrades

1.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-10.htm

2

Against the Heresies, p.216.

3

http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/we-vigorously-protest-these-canonizations-3956

SUNDAY, JUNE 15, 2014

SSPX considers Nostra Aetate an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Catechism of Pope Pius X-this is heresy and irrationality

Bishop Bernard Fellay the Superior General for the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX)  has supposed that Nostra Aetate is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition.In his last Letter to Friends and Benefactors he made a mistake. It's a common msitake of the SSPX. It is there in most of their books-pubished.He is infers that those saved with a 'ray of Truth'(NA 2) is 'an explicit exception'. This is a negation of Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Catechism of Pope Pius X. He infers  that salvation in Heaven is visible on earth. This is fantasy.It is  irrationality.

 

The Superior General is using the right hand column in the interpretation of  some of the documents of Vatican Council II, including Nostra Aetate.He negates Nostra Aetate 2 with this irrationality. Since he considers Nostra Aetate 2, 'a ray of the Truth 'as visible and so an exception to all needing the baptism of water ,he also negates the Catechism  of Pope Pius XII. 

27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?

A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.-Catechism of Pope Pius X 1905,Rome. 

For Bishop Fellay ' a ray of the Truth' refers to an explicit, visible case and so Vatican Council II is saying,for him, that  a person can be saved, and is saved, outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church in 2014.De facto there can be an exception and de facto there is an exception for him.

 

If Bishop Fellay would use the left hand column then NA 2 would not contradict  extra ecclesiam nulla salus nor the Catechism of Pope Pius XII.  Bishop Fellay an the SSPX use the right hand column. This is heresy.

I would not receive the Eucharist from SSPX priests.There doctrinal position here is confusing, irrational and heretical.Heresy is a sin.

None of them will comment on these posts. Neither will they admit that I am correct.

Bishop Fellay is using the irrational inference. He infers that the dead who are saved are visible to us. Then he concludes that these cases are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

It is using or omitting the inference, which decides, if Vatican Council II is traditional or a break with the past.This is the missing link. He is unaware of the missing link, which decides if Vatican Council II is heretical or traditional.

-Lionel Andrades

 

Even if a non Catholic was saved in his religion or by his religion the case is implicit for us: Bishop Fellay uses the right hand column

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/even-if-non-catholic-was-saved-in-his.html#links

Implicit desire ( baptism of desire) does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus unless you assume it is explicit for ushttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/implicit-desire-baptism-of-desire-does.html#links

 

 

 

LEFT HAND SIDE COLUMN or RIGHT HAND SIDE COLUMN

All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) etc are either:

implicit                      or     explicit for us.

hypothetical              or     known in reality.

invisible                     or    visible in the flesh.

dejure ( in principle) or    defacto ( in fact ).

subjective                 or    objective

 So one can choose from the left hand side or the right hand side column.

If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general on other religions and Christian communities and churches. There are known exceptions in 2014 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Cathlic Church. The dead- saved are visible.

If the left hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor Tradition on other religions and Christian communities and churches.

Most people interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.

So the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was never ever an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless one is using the right hand side column.There were and are no known exceptions.

In 2014 the Padre Pio Prayer groups, the Neo Catechumenal Way, Charismatic Renewal, all the religious communities and most of the Diocesan priests, the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX), Archbishop Gerhard Muller, Archbishop Augustine Di Noi, Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J, Monsignor Guido Pozzo and the Vatican Council for the Clergy are using the irrational column in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church,Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949,Redemptois Missio, Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura ...-L.A