Archbishop Lefebvre was a modernist (Graphics)

-Lionel Andrades

Repost : Repost : When an irrational premise is used I refer to it as Cushingism. When there is a rational premise, I refer to it as Feeneyism.

 JANUARY 13, 2018

Repost : When an irrational premise is used I refer to it as Cushingism. When there is a rational premise, I refer to it as Feeneyism.

 NOVEMBER 2, 2016

When an irrational premise is used I refer to it as Cushingism. When there is a rational premise, I refer to it as Feeneyism.

IRRATIONAL PREMISE

The irrational premise is that invisible things or persons are visible.

RATIONAL PREMISE

The rational premise is that invisible things or persons are visible.

_______________________

IRRATIONAL PREMISE

The irrational premise is that hypothetical cases are objectively visible in 2016.

RATIONAL PREMISE

The rational premise is that hypothetical cases are objectively invisible in 2016.

___________________________

IRRATIONAL PREMISE

The irrational premise is that the baptism of desire refers to personally known cases in 2016.

RATIONAL PREMISE

The rational premise is that the baptism of desire refers to an unknown cases in 2016.There is no personally known case.

__________________________

IRRATIONAL PREMISE

The irrational premise is assuming there are objectively seen and known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in 2016.

RATIONAL PREMISE

The rational premise is assuming others (in general) cannot see invisible cases in the present and the past.It is assuming that the baptism of desire refers to an unknown and invisible case in the present or past.

_______________________________________

When an irrational premise is used I refer to it as Cushingism.

When there is a rational premise, I refer to it as Feeneyism.

-Lionel Andrades

https://gloria.tv/video/KGTNnspuhZyG6uMAzDyAv4vvJ

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/01/repost-when-irrational-premise-is-used.html

Repost : Brother Andre Marie MICM and a priest of the Institute of Christ the King do not mention Vatican Council II being in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

NOVEMBER 17, 2017

Brother Andre Marie MICM and a priest of the Institute of Christ the King do not mention Vatican Council II being in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Brother Andre Marie MICM  has written an article onextra ecclesiam nulla salus after a very long time and again there is no mention of Vatican Council II.1

He recommends the video of a priest of the Institute of Christ the King.The priest also does not mention Vatican Council II being in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Superiors at the St. Benedict Centers, at Still River and Richmond, N.H have been recognized by the Church and they are not affirming Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. Instead they are allowing Vatican Council II to be seen as a rupture with Tradition and this is acceptable for the bishops in New England...2

Neither does the priest of the traditionalist Institute of Christ the King nor Brother Andre Marie and the St.Benedict Centers, state, that Vatican Council II is not a development with EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century. Instead they agree with Pope Benedict. Vatican Council II is a rupture with EENS.Of course only with the use of the false premise, which Pope Benedcit encouraged in theology.

Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,St.Benedict Center, Still River which last month was given granted canonical status negate the dogma EENS( Feeneyite) with Vatican Council II interpreted with the premise.
The communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA are denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) as it was interpreted over the centuries.When they interpret Vatican Council II, with the irrational premise then the Council is a rupture with the dogam extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was known to Fr. Leonard Feeney. 3

Instead Brother Andre Marie and the traditionalist priest could have said that Vatican Council II isFeeneyite. It is in line with EENS as it wasinterpreted in the 16th century. So Pope Benedict was wrong. 

If they announce LG 16( invincible ignorance), LG 14( baptism, of desire) etc refer to hypothetical cases only their bishops will not be pleased.For then Vatican Council II will not be ' a development' .

So by omitting the subject of Vatican Council II in his article, Brother Andre Marie  is telling his bishop, the two popes, the cardinals and the Jewish Left, that he rejects the old exclusivistecclesiology of the Church just  as they do.He does not interpret LG 16 as referring to invisible people in 2017.So he supports the newecclesiology which is s rupture with the Syllabus of Errors on ecumenism and non Christian religions.

-Lionel Andrades

1

Religious Pluralism is Evil by Brother Andre Marie MICM   http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-304.html

2.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/superiors-at-st-benedict-centers-still.html

3.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/repost-communities-of-frleonard-feeney.html

Religious Pluralism is Evil by Brother Andre Marie MICM   http://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-304.html

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2017/11/brother-andre-marie-micm-and-priest-of.html

Repost : Superiors at St. Benedict Centers, Still River and Richmond, N.H do not affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS

NOVEMBER 16, 2017

Superiors at St. Benedict Centers, Still River and Richmond, N.H do not affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS

The St.Benedict Centers have simply to state the obvious. But then they will be in opposition to their liberal bishops who understand Vatican Council II like Mons.Joseph Clifford Fenton, Fr.William Most, Fr.John Hardon and Ludwig Ott.The two popes are also Cushingites.
The Superiors at the St. Benedict Centers, at Still River and Richmond, N.H have been recognized by the Church and they are not affirming Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. Instead they are allowing Vatican Council II to be seen as a rupture with Tradition and this is acceptable for the bishops in New England...

I do not condemn the traditionalists even though they use a false theology and an irrational philosophy. The error can be corrected.It is not something fixed and permanent error.However today this is also the false interpretation of the liberals and the Masons.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/11/no-citation-from-frleonard-feeney.html

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2017/11/superiors-at-st-benedict-centers-still.html

Repost : While I affirm all magisterial documents like the two popes and cardinals, our interpretation is different : they may not like my conclusion but they cannot show me an error in theology or philosophy

NOVEMBER 1, 2017

While I affirm all magisterial documents like the two popes and cardinals, our interpretation is different : they may not like my conclusion but they cannot show me an error in theology or philosophy

While I affirm all magisterial documents like the two popes and cardinals, our interpretation is different.I differ from the liberals and the traditionalists.No one can correct me or tell me that I have made a mistake.They may not like my conclusion but they cannot show me an error in theology or philosophy.

In the ecclesiology debate which can be see on YouTubeDr.Robert Fastiggi toldBishop Donald Sanbornthat he was in heresy for not affirming Vatican Council II while the bishop suggested Fastiggi was in heresy for not affirming the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation with reference to the Jews and an ecumenism of return with reference to the Protestants and Orthodox Christians.He was in a rupture with the past magisterium of the Church like the popes.Now here am I endorsing Vatican Council II(unlike the bishop) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and an ecumenism of return( unlike the professor of theology) and neither can either of the two say that I am in heresy.

Fastiggi and Sanborn were interpreting Vatican Council II when one accepted the non traditional conclusion and the other rejected it.Both inferred invisible people were visible.

Fastiggi and Sanborn are critical of Fr. Leonard Feeney. They don't know that the Fr. Leonard Feeney case decides how they interpret Vatican Council II.

For me the Holy Office was wrong and Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct.So Vatican Council II does not become a rupture with the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors.For Fastiggi,Sanborn and the two popes, it is the opposite.

I attend the Novus Ordo Mass and affirm 'the past ecclesiology of the Church with an ecumenism of return' since Vatican Council II (with Fr.Leonard Feeney being correct) is not a rupture.While the two popes also attend the Novus Ordo Mass and reject the past ecclesiology, since Vatican Council II is a rupture with Feeneyite EENS. The  baptism of desire and invincible ignorance refer to known exceptions,visible people saved outside the Church or they would not be exceptions.

Among the traditionalists Louie Verrecchio criticizes the Novus Ordo Mass and is not a Feeneyite on EENS.For him BOD,BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS.The Holy Office was correct and Fr. Leonard Feeney was 'condemned'.This is the official SSPX website explanation which is the opposite of the 2012 General Chapter Statement on EENS.

This invisible people are visible reasoning is  the foundation for the new ecclesiology.So Verrecchio attends the Tridentine Rite Mass affirming the new ecclesiology.He has also received a dispensation at a Novus Ordo Mass to marry a non Christian.This was possible with the new ecclesiology based on salvation outside the Church.There was known salvation outside the Church for the bishop and he decided his wife did not need to convert into the Church.

Now he criticizes the Novus Ordo Mass and attends the Latin Mass with an ecclesiology which is supported by the two popes, and which is a rupture with the Latin Mass in the 16th century, for example.

Since for Louie Verrecchio there is known salvation outside the Church( with visible BOD, BOB and I.I), LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc refer to known people saved outside the Church. He may say that he does not know any such person but this is what he infers with his New Theology which is magisterial and was accepted by Archbishop Lefebvre.So he rejects Feeneyite EENS and also puts aside the past ecclesiology of an ecumenism of return.He does this unknowingly.It comes with the new ecclesiology.

Then when he reads the old encyclicals the pendulum once again swings towards the past ecclesiology of an ecumenism of return.Once again he says outside the Church there is no  salvation but still understands LG 16 ( invincible ignorance) as being an exception.This is the confusion of many Catholics.It is built into the new ecclesiology.

It is the same with the traditionalist blogger David Domet.He will state that he believes in outside the Church there is no salvation and also being saved in invincible ignorance as if the two are connected.Being saved in invincible ignorance is relevant to the dogma EENS as an exception or he would not have mentioned it.This is how he also interprets the statements of popes on this issue, even when the popes,in the text, do  not state that they refer to known people saved as such.

It reminds me of Mother Angelica citing the popes on outside the Church there is no salvation and then the local bishop in the EWTN diocese calls attention to the new ecclesiology based on known exceptions of BOD, BOB and I.I.So there was a new policy at EWTN on salvation.

Mother Angelica had to remove those quotations from the popes since the  new ecclesiology based on the irrational reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 replaced it.

It is the same with traditionalist Ann Barnhardt who says she affirms outside the Church there is no salvation but is not a Feeneyite.

With the traditionalists and liberals accepting known salvation outside the Church and this being part of the Declarations with the Orthodox Christians and Lutherans for Pope Benedict, Pope Francis has issued a moto proprio which will name future saints who are not Catholics.This will be done theologically with the new ecclesiology.The 'unknown- known people' saved outside the Church.The premise is important.Even if it is false.

Remember Bishop Bruno Forte when he quipped that Pope Francis is a real Jesuit.He believes that if we can change the premise we can change the conclusion and no one will know.

So like Louie Verrecchio and David Domet the two popes believe there is known salvation outside the Church( this is their false premise), possibilities are real people for them( premise again ) and so there can be a new way of looking at Vatican Council II, the past ecclesiology, ecumenism,EENS etc- all with a new conclusion.

But how can possibilities be real people?

Where are the real people saved outside the Catholic Church in November 2017?

There are none. But this is how the liberals and traditionalists reason.

So now the two popes affirm magisterial documents and their conclusion is different from mine since their premises are different.We are all in the same Catholic Church of 2017.

-Lionel Andrades

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2017/11/while-i-affirm-all-magisterial.html

Repost : Two popes must ask Franciscans, Domincians, Jesuits, Benedictines, Carmelites and other religious organisations and lay movements to affirm Vatican Council II (premise-free) and then do it themselves

OCTOBER 30, 2017

Two popes must ask Franciscans, Domincians, Jesuits, Benedictines, Carmelites and other religious organisations and lay movements to affirm Vatican Council II (premise-free) and then do it themselves

The two popes must ask the Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, Carmelities and other religious communities to affirm Vatican Council II ( premise-free) and do it themselves.

The two popes need to ask the Franciscans, Benedictines and other religious communities, along with all lay movements, to interpret and affirm Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents without the invisible- people- are- visible- premise.

In this way we know that the two popes are affirming Catholic documents rationally and are not interpreting  them with an irrational philosophy and theology.They need to ask the religious communities, lay movements and all Catholic organizations,to announce that all non Catholics need to formally convert into the Catholic Church with faith and baptism (AG 7, LG 14)  and there are no known exceptions in the present times(2017).Invisible-for-us LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc cannot be exceptions.This is affirming Vatican Council II rationally. traditionally and non hermetically.Presently the religious communities, cardinals and bishops, and lay people in general are rejecting the Council by interpreting it as a rupture with Tradition(EENS, Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, Athanasius Creed etc), when it is not really a rupture when Vatican Council II ( premise-free)is used.

So Catholics can still be asked by Pope Francis to go to the peripheries and proclaim Jesus and the necessity of membership in the hierarchical Catholic Church of St.Ignatius of Loyola.All need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church as members since outside the Church there is no known salvation.Every one needs to be a Roman Catholic to avoid the fires of Hell.

Religious communities and lay Catholics on their own can affirm Vatican Council II (premise-free) in harmony with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.It has a continuity with the Syllabus of Errors and an ecumenism of return.

Presently it is heretical for Pope Francis and Pope Benedict to expect Catholics to interpret Vatican Council II with LG 16 etc referring to non hypothetical cases, people allegedly saved outside the Church, when no one knows of any such person.Also with this irrationality, Vatican Council II becomes a rupture with the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century, for example.

With hypothetical cases being interpreted as explicit and known people saved outside the Church, Vatican Council II
would wronly suggest that there are practical exceptions, to Jesus' teachings in John 3:5 ( the necessity of the baptism of water for salvation from Hell) and Mark 16:16( those who do not believe in Jesus,in the only Church he founded will be condemned).

-Lionel Andrades

 OCTOBER 29, 2017

The New Evangelisation of the two popes is based on the Letter of the Holy Office, lay movements must observe. It is flawed.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/the-new-evangelisation-of-two-popes-is.html