At the Angelicum University, Rome , the rector, faculty and students fake it in their understanding of Vatican Council II

At the Angelicum University, Rome , the rector, faculty and students 1) assume BOD, BOB and I.I refer to physically visible and personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church, 2) also LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to objectively seen non Catholics saved outside the Catholic Church. if they don't fake it here they would be affirming Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) like St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Dominic.

So they conclude that there is known salvation outside the Church. With personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church the dogma EENS is contradicted and becomes obsolete.It is the same with the Athanasius Creed (outside the Church no salvation), the Catechism of Pope Pius X and the Syllabus of Errors.

They they teach a new theology based upon visible cases of BOD,BOB and I.I and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc. They teach a new ecclesiology based upon known salvation outside the Church.

They teach a new ecumenism based upon known salvation outside the Church is if this is mentioned in Unitatis Redintigratio, Lumen Gentium etc.

Now there is a New Evangelisation along side Protestants who do not need to convert into the Catholic Church, since there are allegedly  personally known non Catholics, may be as Protestants, saved outside the Catholic Church in their religion. This is the new religion of the popes from Paul VI to Francis.It is enforced by the Left.

A Catholic student, or seminarian, has to accept all this irrationality to be able to study at the Angelicum. This is approved  by the Dominican Master General, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Israel-Vatican Permanent Working Commission.

There is nothing in Unitatis Redintigratio to contradict an ecumenism of return.There are no known examples of known salvation outside the Church, in personally known cases, mentioned in Unitatis Redintigratio ( Decree on Ecumenism).None - unless, one confuses  what is invisible as being visible.
There is nothing in Lumen Gentium to contradict the past ecclesiology.LG 8, LG 14 and LG 16 do not refer to personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church. They are only hypothetical cases.

So the Dominican Rector must be asked to clarify :

1.Does he believe that there are personally known and objectively seen non Catholics saved outside the Catholic church with the baptism of desire (BOD),baptism of blood( BOB)  and invincible ignorance (I.I)?  He will say,"Yes" otherwise he would be affirming the past ecclesiology with there being no known exceptions.

2. Does he believe there are objectively seen non Catholics in 1965-2000 who are physically  seen, who are saved outside the Catholic Church.as referred to in LG 8, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc.? He would probably say, "Yes" otherwise he would be saying there are no exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.

If the Rector and faculty cannot affirm these two points they are faking it

.A Rector who believes that there are visible cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church does not have a reality like every one else.

A Rector whose theology is based upon invisible people being visible he is not qualified to be a rector. It would be the same for the faculty.

We know today that there are no physically visible cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church. 

The rector and faculty would be telling a lie.

It is with this deception that they teach students at the university and they keep their teaching jobs as liberals even when they attend Mass in Latin.

The Italian government permits this.

The Ministry of Education allows it

No one challenges it legally in the country.

They allow students to be exposed to their deception in the pontifical universities.

Basically, they are all saying invisible people are visible. 

This is an issue of Canon Law but it could also come under secular law. We have an issue of professors openly telling a lie and not ending the deception among the students.-Lionel Andrades



http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/07/american-students-coming-to-angelicum.html

Fr.Thomas Weinandy's ecclesiology is flawed

As expected Fr.Thomas Weinandy wrote about the necessity of believing in Jesus, for salvation and he excluded the necessity of membership in the Church, to avoid Hell. Since for him, and also the United States Conference of Bishops( USCCB) , it is the  Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney (LOHO) which was correct.The Jesuit Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong.So he presents a Christology without the traditional ecclesio centric ecclesiology( Athanasius Creed, Catechism of Pope Pius X on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441).

For him unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) were known and practical exceptions to EENS. 

This is how it was for LOHO and Pope Pius XII.

So Fr.Weinandny can no more say like the Magisterium of the 16th century that outside the Church there is no salvation. There is salvation for him.

So he presents Jesus, without the necessity of the Church in general, for salvation. He rejects the dogma EENS, like the rest of the USCCB.He rejects the Athanasius Creed too.

For him it is salvation in Jesus without the Church, in general.There is no exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church for him is one of many Christian denominations,since there is known salvation outside the Church for him.

The following are the mistakes Fr. Weinandy support.

1.There is no need for a non Catholic to convert into the Catholic Church since he could be saved in his religion with BOD, BOB and I.I etc.LG 8 etc are exceptions to EENS for him.

This is the New Theology of Rahner and Ratzinger, based upon known exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.

2.It's also possible, for him, that most people are saved in their religion.Since in principle there is salvation outside the Church. So there is a reasonable hope for most people to be saved says Bishop Robert Barron the Head of the USCCB Evangelisation Department.For Bishop Barron and Fr. Weinandty there is known salvation outside the Church. So the past ecclesiology becomes obsolete.There is a new ecclesiology with exceptions to EENS.

3.It means that the missionaries in the 16th century were wrong on EENS. Since EENS is obsolete for Fr.Weinandy.

4.So God wills a plurality of religions, whose members do not have to convert, since LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 refer to practically known exceptions, of salvation outside the Church in the present times or the past.This is what the USCCB theologian suggests like the U.S bishops and Pope Francis and Pope Benedict.

5.Protestants, who contracep.abort and divorce, but believe in Jesus, are also going to Heaven in general since they believe in Jesus.

Even a Catholic in mortal sin believes in Jesus but at the time of death he will not be going to Heaven.

6.The Episcopalians support gay marriages and also believe in Jesus and so will be saved for the USCCB.

7.The Jehovah's witnesses also believe in Jesus. They say that Jesus is one with St. Michael the Archangel.They reject Jesus' teachings on Hell.They interpret the Bible according to their founder.They will be going to Heaven for Fr. Weinandy.

Fr.Weinandy's report in the Catholic Thing and LifeSite News 1 reminds me of the anonymous Coetus International group's comment on the Amazon Synod Working Paper. It was Christology with no traditional ecclesiology. So I know, that for them too the LOHO was correct and Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong.

The Amazon Working Paper was rejecting exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and the Coetus Anonymous group was wrong to quote Christological passages in Dominus Iesus.

Since Cardinal Hummers could simply say that the pagans in the Amazon are saved through Jesus and the Church without knowing or believing in Him. For Cardinal Hummers, and Cardinal Ratzinger, there is known salvation outside the Church. Since there is known salvation outside the Church people in other religions could be saved without knowing or believing in Jesus.Then they assume that there actually are such cases. For Bishop Barron most of the non Catholics are in the saved-category.

This New Theology is expressed in the  Catechism of the Catholic Church (846).It says all who are saved through Christ and His Church. It says ' all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body'.As if this is an exception to exclusive salvation. Yes all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church and all need to enter the Church as members, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell ( for salvation).

Coetus should have cited Ad Gentes 7 interpreted with Feeneyism ( invisible people are invisible and so are not practical exceptions to EENS).They needed to interpret Vatican Council II in general with Feeneyism.It is only then that Vatican Council II would support an ecclesiocentric ecclesiology.It would be Jesus with the necessity of faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7) and not Fr. Weinandy's vague understanding of Jesus.

When the jailer asked St. Peter what must he do to be saved. He was told he simply had to believe in Jesus. This is true. However over time the jailer and his family would have to avoid mortal sin and known the faith-teachings of the community.

But for the Coetus group and the Lefebvrists, the LOHO, with the objective error was acceptable and so there can only be a Christology without the past ecclesiology. This is the new theology of Cardinal Ratzinger/ Pope Benedict who have even corrupted Magisterial and Legislative texts.

Today the value of Legislative texts are being questioned. They are not, at least, infallible.

 Fr. Karl Rahner sh, placed the LOHO in the Denzinger. The LOHO carries an objective mistake.BOD, BOB and I.I are not practical exceptions to EENS. There are no literal cases in 2019. There were none in 1965 and neither in 1949. So LOHO has a document with a factual error.

Denzinger no more carries the same authority as in the past.

The LOHO was referenced in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are all cited today based upon the LOHO reasoning.Irrationality is the norm in the Church and Fr. Weinandy has also been affected.

This is a common mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. Vatican Council II has an error. This is not the work of the Holy Spirit.

Based upon this error Fr.Thomas Weinandy would interpret LG 8 etc as literal exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. This was the reasoning of the popes from Paul VI.

We know now LG 8 always refer to an invisible case irrespective if your view on LOHO or Fr.Leonard Feeney.

So the limitation in the article by Fr. Thomas Weinandy was expected.

He has also written an article on ecclesiology 2 and mentioned the four marks of the Church.He  does not affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS like the missionaries in the 16th century. For those Jesuit missionaries too, there were the four marks of the Church but there could not be known salvation outside the Church for them.

So Lumen Gentium 8, 14 and 16 would not contradict the ecclesiology of the Church in the Middle Ages.

 Fr. Weinandy cites passages from Lumen Gentium but does not affirm exclusive salvation in the Church. Since LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc would be practical and literal exceptions to the dogma EENS. 

He supports LOHO. 

So he uses the irrational reasoning of LOHO. 

His ecclesiology can no more compare the Church to the Ark of Noah in which all need to enter to be saved,.

He is a liberal like the present two popes.His ecclesiology is the same as that of Cardinal Walter Kasper.

Fr:Weinandy still wants to please the USCCB and the CDF and the Left. He does not want to support Feeneyite  EENS by showing Catholics the difference between Cushigism and Feeneyism, visible and invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I, EENS with or without exceptions,Vatican Council II as a rupture or continuity with EENS etc. 

It is not enough to simply refer to the four marks of the Church. Since even the liberals do the same and they interpret Magisterial documents with Cushingism; they use a false premise to create a rupture with Tradition.For them there is a new ecclesiology based upon an irrational premise and they accept the liberal conclusion. Similarly for the Lefbvrists  there is a new ecclesiology created with an irrational premise and this is their ecclesiology at the Latin Mass..-Lionel Andrades

1

The Primacy of Jesus and the Church’s Liturgical Year

Fr. Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM, Cap.

SUNDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2019

https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2019/12/08/the-primacy-of-jesus-and-the-churchs-liturgical-year/

2.

The Four Marks of the Church: The Contemporary Crisis in Ecclesiology

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2018/02/23/the-four-marks-of-the-church-the-contemporary-crisis-in-ecclesiology/

Giorgia Meloni congratulazioni a Boris Johnson

10. Giorgia Meloni 🇮🇹 ن‏Verified account @GiorgiaMeloni Dec 13

     
    

    
    

    
    

    #UKElection: stravincono i conservatori pro #Brexit. Negli anni 70 il Regno Unito entrava nella CEE perché pensava non ci fosse futuro fuori dall’Europa, oggi esce dalla UE perché pensa non ci sia futuro in Europa. Non sarebbe il caso di chiedersi cosa ha sbagliato la #UE?

    
    

    

    Boris Johnson and Fratelli d'Italia 

     https://twitter.com/giorgiameloni?lang=en

    
    
11. Giorgia Meloni
Congratulazioni a @BorisJohnson per la grande vittoria. Ancora una volta la coerenza paga, ora la volontà del popolo britannico sarà finalmente rispettata. A noi il compito di difendere gli interessi italiani in un nuovo rapporto di cooperazione con il Regno Unito #UKelection2019

Elezioni Regno Unito, esultano Salvini e Meloni: «In italia se si votasse ora ci sarebbe lo stesso risultato»

 

 https://www.ilmessaggero.it/italia/elezioni_regno_unito_brexit_ultime_notizie_salvini_meloni_italia-4923692.html#

Nigel Farage Reacts to the Brexit Party Unable to Win a Seat | Good Morn...

PM's victory speech: UK must 'find closure' on Brexit debate

Alice von Hildebrand is alive, like Mattei and Ferrara, and they must all correct the mistake in public

The Lefebvrists still do not clarify on the blog Rorate Caeili, that for 50 years they made an objective error on Vatican Council II.Roberto dei Mattei and Chris Ferrara are still writing articles on different subjects,while allowing the deception to remain.

Rorate Caeili for years has been criticizing Vatican Council II, Cushingite, without mentioning Vatican Council II, Feeneyite. Rorate also has never affirmed  the past ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in harmony with Vatican Council II.

Mattei and Ferrara wrote books on Vatican Council II not knowing about Vatican Council II, Feeneyite.

Like the late Fr. Nicholas Gruner and John Vennari, they want to expire, while committing the same mistake.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made an innocent mistake.

He was not corrected by Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Instead he was sadly excommunicated.He did not know that Vatican Council II without the false prmeise was in harmony with the concept of Church, in the 16th century.

Michael Davies, Dietrich and Alice von Hildebrand and Plinio Correa also made the same mistake.

Alice von Hildebrand is alive, like Mattei and Ferrara, and they all must correct the mistake in public.-Lionel Andrades