Con prudenza mondana, vescovi e sacerdoti della SSPX non negano di essere in eresia e in sacrilegio: poiché l'alternativa è essere Feeneyite e politicamente scorretta con la sinistra

Ho menzionato in un precedente blog post sul Eucharist and Mission, che se avessi detto a un prete della Società di San Pio X (SSPX) che lei vede persone in invincibile ignoranza visibilmente e personalmente conosciuta, potrebbe negarlo. Potresti dire: "Certo.So che non possiamo vedere o incontrare qualcuno salvato nell'ignoranza invincibile fuori dalla Chiesa, è ovvio ".

Quindi, se gli chiedessi se l'invincibile ignoranza è un'eccezione alla dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), direbbe immediatamente "Sì", ignaro della connessione.

"Se c'è un'eccezione per EENS, allora significa che c'è un caso personalmente noto e visibile, che è un'eccezione", direi. Non ci sarebbe alcuna risposta.

Non c'è risposta poiché non vuole essere chiamato Feeneyite. Conosce la risposta. Lui conosce le implicazioni. Sarà avversato dagli altri nella comunità. Sarà anche segnato dalla sinistra.

Quindi rimane con l'eresia.

Li ho informati. Non ci sono smentite.

 Con prudenza mondana sono costretti a interpretare il Catechismo di Papa Pio X (invincibile ignoranza) come una rottura con il Sillabo degli Errori di Papa Pio IX (al di fuori della Chiesa non c'è salvezza). Non lo negano. Dal momento che se lo negano dovrebbero affermare Feeneyite EENS. Ne capiscono le implicazioni anche in senso mondano. Critieranno la messa in Italiano ma non negheranno di essere in eresia. Sono in eresia e offrono la Messa con sacrilegio ma è politicamente corretto.

Quando dico che hanno ereticamente cambiato il Credo di Nicea, rifiutato il Credo di Atanasio e reinterpretato il Credo degli Apostoli, fornendo esempi specifici, non lo negano. Non possono negarlo. Dal momento che se lo negano, dovrebbero ammettere che la filosofia razionale alternativa è Feeneyite. Non vogliono essere chiamati Feeneyite. Significherebbe che papa Pio XII e l'arcivescovo Marcel Lefebvre hanno commesso un errore. Ciò significa anche che oggi direbbero che tutti i cristiani sono orientati all'inferno e non ci sono eccezioni conosciute.

Così ora sostengono una teologia cristiana del pluralismo religioso e della salvezza, condannata da papa Giovanni Paolo nel caso di p. Jaques Dupuis s, j (Notificazione, CDF, 2001).

Tuttavia, se affermassero Feeneyite EENS e interpretassero EENS e il Concilio Vaticano II, senza la premessa irrazionale, avrebbero dire che tutti i non cristiani sono orientati all'Inferno, senza eccezioni note nei tempi attuali (2019). Questo sarà contrastato dal Sinistra. La FSSPX potrebbe essere legalmente definita una setta  e contrastata dal Vaticano. Avrebbero mantenuto la posizione tradizionale sulla salvezza esclusiva, senza dover rifiutare il Concilio Vaticano II e il Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica.

La responsabilità sarà sarebbe anche sulla Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede (CDF) per affermare la teologia tradizionale e razionale. Non ci sarebbe alcun cambiamento nella dottrina della salvezza e l'ecclesiologia per ragioni politiche. Il CDF dovrebbe anche supportare il SSPX.

 Interpreto il Concilio Vaticano II e il Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica senza il loro errore irrazionale e quindi non c'è rottura con EENS, ecclesiologia passata e un ecumenismo di ritorno. Mentre per loro adesso c'è una rottura completa con la Tradizione. Non lo negano. Potrebbero negare la loro posizione attuale e affermare il Concilio Vaticano II e l'EENS come me. Ma non vogliono farlo. Sono passati alcuni anni.

Dal momento che non vogliono ammettere di aver sbagliato negli ultimi 50 anni nel Concilio Vaticano II. Il Concilio Vaticano II è davvero "fondamentalista" e "rigido".

Quindi i sacerdoti della FSSPX possono criticare il Cammino Neocatecumenale, ma non negheranno che essi, come i liberali, hanno cambiato l'interpretazione del Credo di Nicea, il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus e il Concilio Vaticano II. Questo è qualcosa di serio per coloro che considerano il dogma e dottrina importante. Questa è eresia di prima classe. È un peccato mortale di fede. È uno scandalo e un impedimento per un sacerdote che offre la Santa Messa.-Lionel Andrades

MARCH 1, 2019

With worldly prudence SSPX bishops and priests do not deny that they are in heresy in sacrilege: since the alternative is being Feeneyite and politically incorrect with the Left

I mentioned in a previous blog post that if I would tell a priest of the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) here that he pictures people in invincible ignorance being visibly and personally known, he  could deny it.He could say,"Of course I know that we cannot see or meet someone saved in invincible ignorance outside the Church. This is something obvious".

Then if I would ask him if invincible ignorance is an exception to EENS he would immediately say, "Yes", unaware of the connection.

"If there is an exception to EENS then it means there is a personally known and visible case, which is an exception," I would say. There would be no reply.

There is no reply since he does not want to be called a Feeneyite.He knows the answer. He knows the implications. He will be opposed by the others in the community. He will also be marked by the Left.

So he stays with heresy.

I have informed them.There are no denials.

 Out of worldy prudence they are forced to interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( invincible ignorance) as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors ( outside the Church there is no salvation).They do not deny it. Since if they deny it they would have to affirm Feeneyite EENS.They understand the implications even in a worldly sense.They will criticize the Mass in the vernacular but not deny that they are in heresy.They are in heresy and offer Mass with sacrilege but it is politically correct.

When I say that they have heretically changed the Nicene Creed, rejected the Athanasius Creed and re-interpreted the Apostles' Creed, giving specific examples, they do not deny it. They cannot deny it. Since if they deny it they would have to admit that the rational alternative philosophy is Feeneyite.They do not want to be called Feeneyite.It would mean Pope Pius XII and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a mistake. This also means that they would be saying today that all Christians are oriented to Hell and there are no known exceptions.

So now they support a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism and Salvation condemned by Pope John Paul in the case of Fr. Jaques Dupuis s,j( Notification, CDF, 2001).

However if they affirmed Feeneyite EENS and interpreted EENS and Vatican Council II, without the irrational premise,they would  be saying that all non Christians are oriented to Hell, with no known exceptions in the present times (2019).This will be opposed by the Left.The SSPX could legally be called a sect itself and opposed by the Vatican.Though now they would hold the traditional position on exclusive salvation, without having to reject Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The onus would also be on the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) to affirm the  traditional and rational theology.There would be no change in salvation doctrine and ecclesiology for political reasons. The CDF would also have to support the SSPX.

 I interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church without their irrational error and so there is no rupture with EENS , the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.While for them there is a complete rupture with Tradition.They do not deny it.They could deny their present position and affirm Vatican Council II and EENS like me.But they do not want to do this. Quite a few years have passed.

Since they do not want to admit that they were wrong over the last 50 years on Vatican Council II.Vatican Council II is really 'fundamentalistic' and 'rigid'.

So the SSPX priests may criticize the Neo Catechumenal Way but will not deny that they, like the liberals, have changed the interpretation of the Nicene Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II.This is something serious for those who consider dogma and doctrine important.This is first class heresy.It is a mortal sin of faith. It is a scandal and an impediment to a priest offering Holy Mass.-Lionel Andrades

 FEBRUARY 28, 2019

Bishops and priests of the SSPX picture being saved in invincible ignorance, as referring to physically visible and personally known people : so the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) becomes a rupture with Tradition for them

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/02/bishops-and-priests-of-sspx-picture.html

With worldly prudence SSPX bishops and priests do not deny that they are in heresy in sacrilege: since the alternative is being Feeneyite and politically incorrect with the Left

I mentioned in a previous blog post that if I would tell a priest of the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) here that he pictures people in invincible ignorance being visibly and personally known, he  could deny it.He could say,"Of course I know that we cannot see or meet someone saved in invincible ignorance outside the Church. This is something obvious".

Then if I would ask him if invincible ignorance is an exception to EENS he would immediately say, "Yes", unaware of the connection.

"If there is an exception to EENS then it means there is a personally known and visible case, which is an exception," I would say. There would be no reply.

There is no reply since he does not want to be called a Feeneyite.He knows the answer. He knows the implications. He will be opposed by the others in the community. He will also be marked by the Left.

So he stays with heresy.

I have informed them.There are no denials.

 Out of worldy prudence they are forced to interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( invincible ignorance) as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors ( outside the Church there is no salvation).They do not deny it. Since if they deny it they would have to affirm Feeneyite EENS.They understand the implications even in a worldly sense.They will criticize the Mass in the vernacular but not deny that they are in heresy.They are in heresy and offer Mass with sacrilege but it is politically correct.

When I say that they have heretically changed the Nicene Creed, rejected the Athanasius Creed and re-interpreted the Apostles' Creed, giving specific examples, they do not deny it. They cannot deny it. Since if they deny it they would have to admit that the rational alternative philosophy is Feeneyite.They do not want to be called Feeneyite.It would mean Pope Pius XII and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a mistake. This also means that they would be saying today that all Christians are oriented to Hell and there are no known exceptions.

So now they support a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism and Salvation condemned by Pope John Paul in the case of Fr. Jaques Dupuis s,j( Notification, CDF, 2001).

However if they affirmed Feeneyite EENS and interpreted EENS and Vatican Council II, without the irrational premise,they would  be saying that all non Christians are oriented to Hell, with no known exceptions in the present times (2019).This will be opposed by the Left.The SSPX could legally be called a sect itself and opposed by the Vatican.Though now they would hold the traditional position on exclusive salvation, without having to reject Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The onus would also be on the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) to affirm the  traditional and rational theology.There would be no change in salvation doctrine and ecclesiology for political reasons. The CDF would also have to support the SSPX.

 I interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church without their irrational error and so there is no rupture with EENS , the past ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.While for them there is a complete rupture with Tradition.They do not deny it.They could deny their present position and affirm Vatican Council II and EENS like me.But they do not want to do this. Quite a few years have passed.

Since they do not want to admit that they were wrong over the last 50 years on Vatican Council II.Vatican Council II is really 'fundamentalistic' and 'rigid'.

So the SSPX priests may criticize the Neo Catechumenal Way but will not deny that they, like the liberals, have changed the interpretation of the Nicene Creed, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II.This is something serious for those who consider dogma and doctrine important.This is first class heresy.It is a mortal sin of faith. It is a scandal and an impediment to a priest offering Holy Mass.-Lionel Andrades

 FEBRUARY 28, 2019

Bishops and priests of the SSPX picture being saved in invincible ignorance, as referring to physically visible and personally known people : so the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) becomes a rupture with Tradition for them

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/02/bishops-and-priests-of-sspx-picture.html

Catechism of the Catholic Church supports Fr. Leonard Feeney on EENS: Magisterial texts including Vatican Council II say there are only Catholics in Heaven

Since the Catechism of the Catholic Church(CCC) supports Fr. Leonard Feeney on extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) we have magisterial documents including Vatican Council II saying there are only Catholics in Heaven and outside the Catholic Church there is no personally known salvation.So we are back to traditional Mission and salvation as it was known to St.Robert Bellarmine, St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Francis Xavier and  St. Peter Faber.This was how it was with St.Francis of Assisi, St.Bonaventure and St. Athony of Padua.The Carmelites Saints Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross also supported exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

There are only Catholics in Heaven is the teaching of the Catholic Church ( CCC 846, 1257 etc) when we look at being saved in invincible ignorance, 'through no fault of one's own', as referring to only a theoretical case in 2019,for us humans on earth.

It is Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church which tell us that there are only Catholics in Heaven.It is not only the saints.

This would not be acceptable for Bishop Peter Libasci, the bishop of Manchester, USA and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj, Prefect of the CDF.They look at being saved in invincible ignorance as referring to known non Catholics saved outside the Church ; practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.If they were not know there would not be exceptions to EENS.

With political pressure from the Left who often represents Satan, the cardinal and bishop sustains division in the Catholic Church.

We now have identified their theology which divides and can correct it.To use a false premise to create a non traditional, heretical and irrational conclusion, would not be the work of the Holy Spirit.So in this sense they are not magisterial.We simply avoid the false premise when we interpret magisterial documents.The Church would then still say that there are only Catholics in Heaven.-Lionel Andrades

Michael Matt needs to change and not Brother Andre Marie MICM : Remnant News is as obsolete as CDF's Morandi and Di Noia

I had browsed through an Angelus Press article  supporting extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) but criticizing Fr. Leonard Feeney.There concept of EENS was that there were exceptions. They would also cite Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton. Michael Matt   ridiculed Fr. Leonard Feeney in that report.We now know that the Catechism of the Catholic Church supports Fr. Leonard Feeney and so does Vatican Council II.

When I read references to being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) , in magisterial documents, I see a theoretical and hypothetical case.But for Michael Matt at Remnant News, it is different.He would picture a personally known non Catholic saved outside the Catholic Church.So invincible ignnorance becomes an exception to EENS for him.

Michael Matt's father and the traditionalists of that time also made the same mistake.

This is a wrong way of reading Vatican Council II even for the St. Benedict Center at Still River,MA, USA.The prior is Brother Thomas Augustine MICM in the Diocese of Worcester.

However the traditionalist Brother Andre Marie MICM, Prior at the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire, USA, has made the change.

In his communication with the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith(CDF) he  clarified  that there are no personally known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance etc.

So there are no exceptions to the Feeneyite passages on Vatican Council II, the orthodox passages,  which support exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. Brother Andre Marie quoted Ad Gentes 7 in bold italic letters  saying  all need faith and baptism for salvation.He does not make the mistake of Michael Matt and other traditionalists. The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St.Benedict Center in the Diocese of Manchester, USA, are simply looking at hypothetical cases as just being only hypothetical, in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church.

 The Catechism of the Catholic Church supports EENS according to the founders of the St. Benedict Center - Fr. Leonard Feeney, Sr.Catherine Clarke Goddard and Brother Francis Malus MICM.But Bishop Athanasius Schneider  and Fr. Davide Pagliarani are still make a mistake in observation.This was indicated in their statements  last month.

Since invincible ignorance referred to known cases of salvation outside the Catholic Church, they  ended up with a fake Christian theology of religious pluralism and salvation, an ecumenical Christ of the liberals and the New Agers.They had no choice . They had to move into this theological position since they did not want to be Feeneyite on EENS.

Vatican Council II and the Catechism(1994) had to be a rupture with Tradition for Bishop Schneider and the Superior General of the SSPX, Fr.Davide Pagliarani.But it is not so for Brother Andre Marie and the religious community Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Bishop Schneider needs to call for a Syllabus of Errors on Vatican Council II but Brother Andre Marie does not.

Fr. Pagliarani has to reject Vatican Council II and choose Tradition but the traditionalists at the St. Benedict Center do not have to make his choice.The  Council does not contradict EENS.

Since the Catechism(1994) does not contradict Fr. Leonard Feeney on EENS, there still is an ecumenism of return and the old ecclesiology for them and they do not have to reject Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).

It is Michael Matt at the Remnant News who has to make the transition. Since his way of looking at magisterial documents is as obsolete as that of Archbishops' Morandi and Di Noia,Secretaries, at the CDF.

So the issue is not the liturgy and Holy Mass. Here we have the traditionalists supporting the new and old ecclesiology at Holy Mass.

Michael Matt at Mass in Latin holds the same new ecclesiology as the liberals as at Mass in the vernacular.

-Lionel Andrades