eucharistandmission: The Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II(Feeneyite-without the premise) support the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Peter and Michael Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery, USA

Monday, August 27, 2018

The Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II(Feeneyite-without the premise) support the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Peter and Michael Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery, USA

Image result for pHOTOS OF EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY

The Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II support the interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) by the sedevacantists Peter and Michael Dimond at the Most Holy Family Monastery, USA.Even the past catechisms (Trent, Pius X etc) support their rigorist interpretation on 'outside the Catholic Church there is absolutely no salvation'.

However the Catechisms would have to be interpreted without the false premise, without Cushingism philosophy and theology.It is only then that they will be in harmony with the traditional interpretation of EENS.

VATICAN COUNCIL II (FEENEYITE) WOULD BE A RUPTURE WITH JIMMY AKIN AND CATHOLIC ANSWERS

The Catechisms and Vatican Council II would then be in a rupture with Jimmy Akin and Catholic Answers and also the present ecclesiastics at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Church.

But though they are correct on EENS ( Feeneyite) and have rejected EENS( Cushingite) the Dimond Brothers, made a mistake on Vatican Council II as did the St. Benedict Centers and the Society of St. Pius X.They all interpreted Vatican Council II with the false premise, with Cushingism. So there was a rupture with Tradition and then they rejected Vatican Council II.

None of them affirmed Vatican Council III, Feeneyite, the Council interpreted without assuming hypothetical cases are objective examples of salvation outside the Church in the present times.

THE POPES THEY CRITICIZE ALSO USED THE FALSE PREMISE

But even the popes whom they criticize, were interpreting Vatican Council II and the Catechisms, with Cushingism.So the popes John XXIII to Pope Francis used the the invisible people are visible premise. There was known salvation outside the Church for them and this became the new theology in the Catholic Church.

Peter and Michael Dimond also overlooked the subtle mistake in theor interpretation of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I).

Image result for pHOTOS OF Peter and Michael Dimond Mostholy Family Monastery

BOD, BOB and I.I refer to unknown and physically invisible people and so they are not exceptions to the dogma EENS.They can be accepted as hypothetical cases along with the centuries-old interpretation of EENS.

FOR MHFM BOD IS AN EXCEPTION TO EENS AND SO IT IS REJECTED : TROUBLE WITH SYLLABUS

But for the Dimond brothers BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS and so they are rejected by them. This indicates that the reference to invincible ignorance, for example, in the Catechism of Pius X would be an exception to the Syllabus of Errors when it mentions an ecumenism of return and no salvation outside the Church for non Christians.

CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X A RUPTURE WITH COUNCIL OF TRENT FOR MHFM
Similarly when the Catechism of Pope Pius X mentions invincible ignorance, which refers to a known person saved outside the Church for Peter and Michael Dimond, would be an exception to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church, according to the Council of Trent.

THEY INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH CUSHINGISM

Then, unlike me, they would be interpreting Lumen Gentium 16(invincible ignorance) and Lumen Gentium 14( theoretical cases of the unknown catechumen) as examples of known salvation outside the Church.So these are references to known people, physically visible, saved outside the Church for them.

It is only because these are references to known people for them, that LG 14, LG 16 etc , like BOD, BOB and I.I become examples of salvation outside the Church.

So hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II(UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc) would be wrongly interpreted by them as being exceptions to the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
Image result for pHOTOS OF MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY

MHFM HAD IT WRONG ON VATICAN COUNCIL II ALL THESE YEARS.

So they had it wrong on Vatican Council II all these years, like the other traditionalists but were correct on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

'VATICAN COUNCIL II SECT' ALSO USES THE FALSE PREMISE LIKE THE MHFM

The false church, or the 'Vatican Council II sect' to which they refer to, is also using the false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, EENS and the Catechisms.This creates a rupture with Tradition. Once they eliminate this error, Rome will come back to the Faith and there will be no false church along with the True Church within the Catholic Church. This false church created with the New Theology based on the false premise and which was used in the Fr. Leonard Feenet case, is not part of the Mystical Body of Jesus.

The New Theology is not Magisterial since the Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake and then create a rupture with traditional de fide teachings of the Church.

THEIR FALSE PREMISE COMES FROM THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949

The false premise in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 was adopted by the Council Fathers at Vatican Council II, with the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney still not lifted.

With the false premise LG 14 in Vatican Council II is Cushingite.Lumen Gentium 14 suggests not every one needs to enter the Church but only 'those who know': since those who are in invincible ignorance are considered to be known people saved outside the Church.So they are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.Even the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 refers to those 'who know'.

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

LUMEN GENTIUM 14 IS NOT AN EXCEPTIONS TO MHFM EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

However since we humans cannot judge who knows or does not know and will be saved or not saved, LG 14 is not a practical exception to the dogma EENS. It is also not relevant to EENS as it is intepreted by Peter and Michael Dimond.

Similarly UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc do not contradict Peter and Michael Dimond's interpretation of no salvation outside the Church.

1.Peter and Michael Dimond could clarify that BOD, BOB and I.I always refer to hypothetical cases. They refer to invisible people in the present times.2.It is the same with LG 8,LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2 , AG 11 ( seeds of the Word) etc.

Once they do this they can point out the error being made by the two popes, cardinals and bishops and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.Their interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS is heretical.
Image result for pHOTOS OF MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY

Image result for pHOTOS OF MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY

CUF COULD THEOLOGICAL NOT CORRECT MHFM
Catholics United for the Faith and Eternal News Television Network(EWTN) could not theologically refute the MHFM's interpretation of EENS. All they could say is that they are sedevacantists and so they should be avoided.

CUF and EWTN could not criticize them theologically, since obviously they are interpreting EENS with the false premise and this creates a schism with the past popes, whom the MHFM agree with. So invisible for us BOD, BOB and I.I become a visible exception to the Dimonds interpretation of EENS, for the CUF and EWTN. This is irrational.They have used a false premise to create a non traditional conclusion.

SSPX ACCEPTS HERETICAL LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949

Similarly the SSPX was using Cushingism to interpret EENS since they overlooked the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which was irrational and heretical.

That one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

The dogma says every one needs to enter the Church and the Letter(1949) says no, not every one. The dogma assumes invisible cases of the BOD,BOB and I.I are not relevant or practical exceptions to EENS while the Letter assumes they are.

The liberal theologians placed the Letter in the Denzinger and then carried it over into the text of Vatican Council II.

PETER AND MICHAEL DIMOND NEED TO SWITCH TO FEENEYISM IN THE INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II

With the Catchisms and Vatican Council II, interpreted with Feeneyism, supporting Peter and Michael Dimond on no salvation outside the Church, the next step for them to do is to interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism instead of their present Cushingite approach.-Lionel Andrades

AUGUST 26, 2018

Jimmy Akin (Catholic Answers) and sedevacantists Peter and Michael Dimond, interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X, as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors : no denial from the SSPX or Bishops Sanborn and Pivarunas on the same error

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/jimmy-akins-like-sedevacantists-peter.html

FEENEYISM ( SEE LABELS / TAGS FROM THE RIGHT HAND SIDE BAR. CLICK TO ACCESS)