Repost : Bishop Fellay does not realize that he is confused between Feeneyism and Cushingism

 APRIL 28, 2017

Bishop Fellay does not realize that he is confused between Feeneyism and Cushingism

The dogma “Outside the Church there is no salvation” has been changed surreptitiously by confused ideas wrote Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX).(Letters to Friends and Benefactors N.87)1 He does not realize that it is he, who is confused between Cushingism and Feeneyism in the interpretation of the dogma. That same confusion he extends to Vatican Council II.He then makes the same error in the interpretation of the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1995).

Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reaoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma EENS.There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.

Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.

 

 So when he interprets invincible ignorance in the Catechism of Pope Pius X he assumes it refers to a visible case and so is an exception to outside the Church no salvation ( Feeneyite).

When I interpret invincible ignorance for example, in the Catechism of Pope Pius X it refers to an invisible case.

For Father Pier Paulo Petrucci, Superior, SSPX, Italy the baptism of desire refers to a visible case. So Vatican Council II has a rupture with the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation( Feeneyite).He is a Cushingite like Bishop Bernard Fellay.

For me Lionel, the baptism of desire and blood with or without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church refers to a physically invisible case. So it cannot be relevant or an exception to the dogma EENS, as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.2 

Bishop Bernard Fellay could also clarify that I Lionel Andrades interpret Vatican Council II without an irrational premise and so my conclusion is different from his and the SSPX bishops and priests.It is the same with the dogma EENS.

 This is Vatican Council II Feeneyite for me with these diagrams.

-Lionel Andrades

1.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/04/the-dogma-outside-church-there-is-no.html

2.

January 12, 2016

If the SSPX bishops and Fr.Pierpaulo Petrucci would admit that the baptism of desire refers to invisible cases in 2016, the entire interpretation of Vatican Council changes : error in the article

Fr. Pier Paolo Petrucci, Superior General,SSPX ,Italy makes the familiar SSPX error http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/01/fr-pier-paolo-petrucci-superior.html

JULY 20, 2015

No response from Fraternita Sacerdotale San Pio X (SSPX Italy) : doctrinal messhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/no-response-from-fraternita-sacerdotale.html

 ________________________________________________________

October 18, 2012

FATHER NIKLAUS PFLUGER IN FIRST CLASS HERESY ? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/father-niklaus-pfluger-in-first-class.html

 

 

October 19, 2012

RAMPANT HERESY IN THE SSPX

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/rampant-heresy-in-sspx.html

SSPX DISTRICT ITALY CONFERENCE ON VATICAN COUNCIL II TO USE THE FALSE PREMISE

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/sspc-district-italy-conference-


October 17, 2012

Will Bishop Bernard Fellay give up Church teachings to protect the SSPX?

Vatican Council II can be accepted by the SSPX in accord with the dogma extra eccleesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.This will be a Vatican Council without  the visible dead theory. It will be the Jewish Left who will oppose this interpretation of Vatican Council. Vatican Council II would be anti Semitic.

At Akita,  Our Lady told the seer that there will come a time when bishops will be against bishops and cardinals against cardinals. At Fatima she said the Faith will be lost (except in Portugal). Rome will lose the Faith, she said, at La Salle.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/will-bishop-bernard-fellay-give-up.html

_________________________

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2017/04/bishop-fellay-does-not-realize-that-he.html

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-dogma-outside-church-there-is-no.html

___________________________________________________________________

April 2, 2017

Fr. Alessandro M.Minutella critical of Vatican Council II (Cushingite) suspended : Fellay condones Cushingism in exchange for status the popular Palermo priest lost

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/04/fr-alessandro-mminutella-critical-of.html

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

September 25, 2016

Bishop Fellay's understanding and interpretation of Vatican Council II is heretical.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/the-letter-of-holy-office-1949-has_25.html

September 11, 2016

Cardinal Muller, Archbishop Di Noia and Bishop Fellay's theology is based on invisible cases being visible, what is not seen as being seen

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/cardinal-muller-archbishop-di-noia-and.html

June 14, 2016

SSPX doctrinal position is politically correct and heretical : Bishop Fellay interprets EENS and Vatican Council II assuming hypothetical cases are objectively known in the present times.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/sspx-doctrinal-position-is-politically.html

June 11, 2016

Apologists Mons. Clifford Fenton, Fr.William Most and Fr. John Hardon considered implicit cases as being explicit: traditionalists agree any one who does this is wronghttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/apologists-mons-clifford-fenton.html

____________________________________________

CARDINAL GERHARD MULLER : MISTAKES HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES AS BEING EXPLICIT IN THE PRESENT TIMES.

That has been discussed, but here, too, there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the third century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the third century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly — and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.

But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason. We must hope that those who do not belong to the Church through no fault of their own, but who follow the dictates of their God-given conscience, will be saved by Jesus Christ whom they do not yet know. Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience. - Cardinal Gerhard Muller (10/02/2012 ). Archbishop Gerhard Müller: 'The Church Is Not a Fortress', National Catholic Register  http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-the-church-is-not-a-fortress/#ixzz3pwkg3Mur

ARCHBISHOP AUGUSTINE DO NOIA : ASSUMES WHAT IS KNOWN ONLY TO GOD CAN BE KNOWN AND JUDGED BY US HUMAN BEINGS.

I don’t know if you can blame this on the Council so much as the emergence of a theological trend that emphasized the possibility of salvation of non-Christians. But the Church has always affirmed this, and it has never denied it. …The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.' - Archbishop Augustine di Noia ( 07/01/2012 ), Archbishop Di Noia, Ecclesia Dei and the Society of St. Pius X, National Catholic Register.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-dinoia-ecclesia-dei-and-the-society-of-st.-pius-x/#ixzz3Q1Vx3byR

___________________________

 BISHOP BERNARD FELLAY  ASSUMES THEORETICAL POSSIBILITIES KNOWN ONLY TO GOD ARE EXPLICIT IN THE PRESENT TIMES AND RELEVANT TO EENS

 

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

http://www.dici.org/en/documents/letter-to-friends-and-benefactors-no-82/

________________________________________________________

Here are the controversial passages again

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/here-are-controversial-passages-again.html

___________________________________________________________

Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/archbishop-thomas-egullickson-says.html#links

 CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN ROME AGREE WITH FR.LEONARD FEENEY: THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/08/catholic-priests-in-rome-agree-with.html#links

How can zero cases of something be considered exceptions ?- John Martignoni http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/sspx-only-way-out-now.html#links 

Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigioni http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/implicit-intention-invincible-ignorance.html 

OCTOBER 16, 2013

DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/10/dean-of-theology-at-st-anselm-says.html

________________________________________________

Bishop Bernard Fellay made a factual mistake in Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82 : we cannot see the dead http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/bishop-bernard-fellay-has-made-factual.html#links

____________________________________

April 26, 2017

Diocese of Madison needs to choose Feeneyism instead of Cushingism in the interpretation of magisterial documentshttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/04/diocese-of-madison-needs-to-choose.html

Diocese of Madison must let school children know that they can interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church with Feeneyism or Cushingism

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/04/diocese-of-madison-must-let-school.html

____________________________________

http://sspx.org/en/publications/letters/april-2017-letter-friends-and-benefactors-87-29356

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

SSPX Mass has an impediment : rupture with EENS, Nicene Creed and Catechisms as they were interpreted in the 16th century at Mass is sacrilege

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.

I mentioned in a previous blog post that on the  SSPX offical website BOD, BOB and I.I being explicit, become exceptions to the dogma EENS ( Feeneyite).They become objective examples of non Catholics saved outside the Church. For me BOD,BOB and I.I being implicit are not an exception or relevant to EENS ( Feeneyite).

Since BOD, BOB and I.I are implicit, as are LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) is not a rupture with EENS ( Feeneyite) for me.The SSPX does not seem to have any concept of Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).

Since BOD, BOB and I.I refer to explicit non Catholics saved outside the Church, without the baptism of water, there are now two interpretations of the Nicene Creed.There's and mine. One is Cushingite and the other Feeneyite. For them 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'. Their understanding of the Creed is heretical.

They interpret all the Catechisms with Cushingism and I do so with Feeneyism. So the Catechisms must be an exception to EENS ( Feeneyite) and the past exclusivist ecclesiology for them. Not for me.

So when the Catechism of Pope Pius X mentions invincible ignorance, for example,  the SSPX bishop and priest reads it with Cushingism.. 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. Yet their will offer Holy Mass tomorrow in this condition.

Since BOD, BOB and I.I and UR 3 refer to objective non Catholics saved outside the Church, Vatican Council II becomes a rupture with an ecumenism of return. Also BOD, BOB and I.I becomes a rupture with Feeneyite EENS on ecumenism.

In general the SSPX interprets Magisterial documents as a rupture with Tradition( EENS, Syllabus of Errors) unlike me and yet they keep saying that they follow Tradition.This is false.

Is not the Mass which they offer sacrilegious ?

It is a rupture with EENS as it was known in the 16th century at Mass.

It is a rupture with the Nicene Creed as it was known in the 16th century.

It is a rupture with the Catechisms as they were known in the 16th century....

--Lionel Andrades