Wednesday, April 3, 2019
Fr. Shenan Boquet,President of Human Life International supports the confusion and scandal
I have e-mailed Fr. Francesco Giordano, the Director of the Human Life International, Rome telling him that there are no personally known cases of the baptism of desire (BOD9, baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) .He does not and cannot know of anyone saved with BOD, BOB and I.I.Yet he teaches students at the University of St. Thonas Aquinas(Angelicum) in Rome, that BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS.
This is not fair to the priest Fr. Leonard Feeney or his religious communities the St. Benedict Centers(SBC) in the USA.
In the Diocese of Worcester, USA the SBC has been granted canonical recognition. They have resident priests for whom BOD, BOB and I.I cannot be practical exceptions to EENS.
As a Catholic priest and Director of HLI how can he still teach that EENS has exceptions, when he does not know of any?To persist in this error even after being informed is a scandal.Perhaps it is possible since the President of HLI, Fr, Shenan Boquet also supports the same confusion in Florida, USA.
-Lionel AndradesBishop Donald Sanborn still interprets Vatican Council II and EENS with an irrationality : then he slanders Fr.Leonard Feeney instead of apologizing
There are no known cases of the baptism of desire(BOD) and Bishop Donald Sanborn assumes BOD is an exception to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).He does not know any one saved with BOD, baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance (I.I) in 2019.Yet he is discussing the conditions of BOD.This is the same error made by the liberals.
BOD can only be a hypothetical possibility for us, since it would only be known to God.But it could also be a possibility that there were no BOD, cases since 1949.
In his Anti Feeneyite Catechism Bishop Sanborn assumes that the references to the BOD are to visible and not invisible cases, explicit and not implicit cases, real people and not hypothetical and theoretical possibilities.
For Fr. Leonard Feeney there were no literal cases of BOD in our human reality.He did not confuse things.
So with this irrational reasoning, Bishop Donald Sanborn slanders Fr. Leonard Feeney.The sedevacantist bishop would not know of any case of BOD yet he considers BOD and exception to the dogma EENS according to Tradition.He uses the same irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a rupture with Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc) and then goes into sedevacantism.
So why does he claim that Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong not to accept BOD as an exception to EENS ? He does not know of any visible case of BOD and the popes and saints do not state that BOD refers to known exceptions to EENS.Even the popes and saints who mentioned BOD knew it could only be a hypothetical case.
He needs to be honest and say that there are no known cases of BOD and so literally there are no exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.
The Holy Office 1949 made the same objective mistake.
He has been informed that there are no BOD cases in real life yet he suggests that Fr. Leonard Feeney was a heretic and not a Catholic, since he did not accept BOD as an exception.
In his book The Bread of Life , Fr. Leonard Feeney mentioned the hypothetical case of the catechumen who sought the baptism of water and died before he received it. So hypothetically Fr. Leonard Feeney did not reject BOD.
He only did not postulate BOD as an exception to EENS.This is an error made by the liberal theologians and Bishop Sanborn.
Even after being informed is it legal to knowingly suggest that there are exceptions to EENS and so BOD, BOB and I.i refer to personally known people in the present times. Then the bishop concludes that there are exceptions to EENS, the past exclusive ecclesiology of the Church and an ecumenism of return. The Syllabus of Errors has become obsolete fo him theologically because of the irrational reasoning.The Creeds and Catechisnms are changed with this irrationality and the result is wide spread heresy.-Lionel AndradesNovember 29, 2018
Sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr.Anthony Cekada at the Most Holy Trinity Seminary, in Florida, USA offer Holy Mass in sacrilege
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/bishop-donald-sanborn-and-franthony.html
February 27, 2018
So the charge of schism can now be made against the liberal Catholic faculty in Detroit .It can be made by Bishop Donald Sanborn against Dr.Robert Fastiggi.The tables have turned
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/02/so-charge-of-schism-can-be-made-against.html
March 29, 2019
Franciscan and sedevacantist communities could inform Bishop Peter Libasci that there are no exceptions to Feeneyite EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II.He supports a lie and slander
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/03/franciscan-and-sedevacantist.html
FEBRUARY 9, 2019
The red is not an exception to the blue' : new extraordinary understanding of Vatican Council IIhttps://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-red-is-not-exception-to-blue-new.html
June 30, 2018
From the Most Holy Trinity Seminary
Our Approach
Most Holy Trinity Seminary was
founded in order to provide priestly training for young men who
thoroughly reject Vatican II,(Cushingite) its reforms, and the Modernist hierarchy
which promulgates them.(He is referring to Vatican Council II Cushingite. He does not know about Vatican Council II Feeneyite) This position is in contrast to the seminaries
of traditionalist groups that operate with the approval of the Modernist
hierarchy, or who seek this approval.(They also only are aware of Vatican Council II Cushingite).
The Seminary trains priests
according to pre-Vatican II standards.(This was when all magisterial documents were interpreted with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism) Its rule, discipline, spiritual
formation, and academic curriculum imitate faithfully those which were
in effect in seminaries before the Second Vatican Council. By training
priests in this manner, the seminary hopes to contribute to the solution
to the problem of the nearly universal disintegration of Catholic
faith, morals, discipline, and liturgy which the Second Vatican Council
has caused.
The seminary sees that the only
solution to the problem of Vatican II, however, is to condemn it as a
false council which was dominated by heretics, and to discard and ignore
its decrees and enactments.(He does
not comment upon Vatican Council II Feeneyite and how all magisterial
documents can be interpreted with Feeneyism. The red is not an exception
to the blue.) Consequently, the Seminary does not seek to
be recognized by the heretical hierarchy which promulgates Vatican II,
nor does it seek to work with the Novus Ordo clergy, as if in a single
church or religion.(But their interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS is still irrational, non traditional and heretical).
The Seminary therefore repudiates
the idea of the Motu Proprio Mass, or that of a fraternity of priests
which has received permission or seeks permission from the Novus Ordo
hierarchy to function in communion with the Modernist heretics.(They
still offer Holy Mass with the New Theology, the New Ecclesiology while
also claiming to support the old ecclesiology of the Catholic Church).
The Catholic Church, in the
outlook of the Seminary, will not be cured of its current problems until
the hierarchical sees, particularly the papacy, are once again occupied
by Catholics. For as long as Modernist heretics possess the mere
appearance of authority which they now possess, the problem of Vatican
II will continue. In the meantime the Seminary, as well as the priests
who emanate from it, shall abhor even the suggestion of an official
recognition from the Novus Ordo hierarchy, or of a compromise with the
Modernists, whom St. Pius X called the “most pernicious of all the
enemies of the Church,” who are striving “utterly to subvert the very
Kingdom of Christ.”(Cushingism creates modernism. This seminary is not free of it. This can clearly be seen in their interpretation of Vatican Council II).
Faculty
Our Seminary provides future priests with
a thorough intellectual training based on the Church’s Magisterium and
the Teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas.(They
are a rupture with St. Thomas Aquinas on EENS. Aquinas affirmed
Feeneyite EENS and invincible ignorance referred to hypothetical cases
for him. Invincible ignorance is an exception to EENS for Bishop
Sanborn. So it is not a theoretical and hypothetical case for him and
the seminary faculty) In both philosophy and theology it
insists on adherence to classical Thomism.(In
philosophy and theology they adhere to Cushingism.Cushingism is the
basis for the New Theology and New Ecclesiology, which is modernism and
heresy).
-Lionel Andrades
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
