Bishop Bernard Fellay's Holy Mass has an impediment : it is a rupture with EENS, Nicene Creed and Catechisms as they were interpreted in the 16th century at Mass.He supports heresy.This is a sacrilege

Bishop Bernard Fellay the Superior General of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) in his Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82 says 'The same declaration (LG. 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities' and the SSPX bishop concludes that
'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.' 1

Bishop Fellay is referring to Lumen Gentium 8 which mentions elements of sanctification and truth in other religions.

So he is really inferring that there are known people, known non Catholics saved outside the Church with elements of sanctification and truth. Only in this way it is irreconcilable with the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.

For him LG 8 refers to visible and personally known people saved outside the Church and so it contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

BISHOP FELLAY CITES LG 8 AS AN EXCEPTON TO EENS

This is his inference.

For him Lumen Gentium 8 says there are salvific elements in other religions and this is in conflice with the dogma EENS.

But there cannot any such case for us human beings. Practically we cannot know of any non Catholic saved outside the Church with elements of sanctification  a nd truth.The text of LG 8 also does not state that there are such known people who are visible and personally known to us. It leaves it up to us to infer whether there are such cases or there are not.

HE SUPPORTS THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE WHICH IS HERETICAL

They he also refers to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The Letter assumed invisible and hypothetical cases were objective exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.A false premise was used and there was an incorrect inference. How can invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance be visible exceptions to the dogma EENS? This is irrational reasoning.

BEARING ON HOLY MASS

This has a bearing on the Holy Mass which Bishop Bernard Fellay offers.I mentioned in the last post today afternoon that the SSPX Mass has an impediment : rupture with EENS, Nicene Creed and Catechisms as they were interpreted in the 16th century at Mass is sacrilege.

I wrote :-

'Tomorrow Sunday the SSPX bishops and priests will offer the Tridentine Rite Mass while interpreting the  baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) with irrational Cushingism, instead of Feeneyism.So with this irrationality Magisterial documents will come across as being heretical.

They interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism. They reject the Council(Cushingite) but do not interpret it with Feeneyism.

I affirm BOD,BOB and I.I with Feeneyism. I also affirm Vatican Council II with Feeneyism. I follow Tradition.

The SSPX interprets the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with Cushingism. I use traditional Feeneyite philosophy.For me EENS is Feeneyite.So they reject the original interpretation of EENS. Again this is heresy. This is a mortal sin of faith.

This is an impediment to offering Holy Mass.'

HYPOTHETICAL CASE IS AN OBJECTIVE EXCEPTION TO EENS FOR HIM

In the example above from  Letters to Friends and Benefactors 82 we see Bishop Fellay assumes LG 8 is an exception to EENS.A hypothetical case is an objective exception to EENS.An unknown case of a non Catholic is a known person for him. Only in this way it can be an exception. So for him there is an exception to EENS in Vatican Council II and he does not like this.This is his inference; his way of reasoning.

So he has accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and with the false inference he has rejected the original interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is heresy. It is a mortal sin of faith. 
He interprets EENS with BOD, BOB and I.I being exceptions and I do not.

VATICAN COUNCIL II (FEENEYITE) IS UNKNOWN TO HIM

For me, since BOD, BOB and I.I are implicit, as is LG 8, Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) is not a rupture with EENS ( Feeneyite).So I do not have to reject Vatican Council II(Feneeyite). I can accept Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) and also EENS ( Feeneyite).But Bishop Fellay cannot do this because of the wrong inference with LG 8. He also has no concept of Vatican Council II( Feeneyite).To reject Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) when it is in harmony with EENS( Feeneyite) would also be heresy. But he is in innocent ignorance on this issue.So we can let it pass.

BISHOP FELLAY'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE NICENE CREED IS HERETICAL

Since BOD, BOB and I.I refer to explicit non Catholics saved outside the Church , without the baptism of water, as suggested in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949,for Bishop Bernard Fellay,  there are now two interpretations of the Nicene Creed.His  and mine. For him it is ,'I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins and they exclude the baptism of water, they are the baptisms of desire,blood, invincible ignorance etc'.For me it is 'I believe in one (known) baptism for the forgiveness of sins'.Bishop Fellay's understanding of the Creed is heretical.

CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X IS A RUPTURE WITH THE SYLLABUS FOR HIM

So when the Catechism of Pope Pius X mentions invincible ignorance, for example, for Bishop Fellay this would be a known person saved outside the Church.It would be an exception to EENS and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.It would be an exception to the past ecumenism of return. So the Catechism of Pope Pius X would then contradict Feeneyite EENS, the Syllabus of Errors( Feeneyite) and the past excluvist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

This is not Catholic doctrine and theology. But with this error Bishop Fellay will offer Holy Mass.

-Lionel Andrades

1.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Bishop%20Bernard%20Fellay

2

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/sspx-mass-has-impediment.html


________________________________________________

MARCH 24, 2018

Bishop Fellay no more has to reject Vatican Council II and the popes since John XXIII : the Council is traditional without the LOHO reasoning

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/03/bishop-fellay-no-more-has-to-reject.html

MARCH 23, 2018

So the fault does not lie with Vatican Council II but how they interpret the Council and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 : Bishop Bernard Fellay's mistake https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/03/so-fault-does-not-lie-with-vatican.html

I love Vatican Council II it has the hermeneutic of continuity with the past ecclesiology of an ecumenism of return

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/i-love-vatican-council-ii-it-has.html