The Holy Office - Is It Infallible? (Geocentrism & Fr. Feeney)

Lefebvrists misunderstand Vatican Council II like the liberals

 

The priest here a Lefebvrist, interprets Lumen Gentium with the false premise. This is the way Archbishop Carlo Vigano interprets the Council too. It is also the way Pope Francis and Bishop interprets the Council. They see LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 as exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. So there is a rupture with Tradition for them.

But LG 8,LG 14 and LG do not refer to known people in 2020 saved outside the Church. They do not refer to practical exceptions to EENS. Since in reality there cannot be an exception to EENS for us human beings.

Only God can know if someone' could be saved ' outside the Church. 

So to posit LG 8, LG 14 and LG 16 as exceptions to EENS is an error for the speakers above. It is the same error being made in what they call the 'Novus Ordo' church.

They need to look at LG 8, LG 14 and LG 16 differently and accept that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a mistake.

Similarly Pope Pius XII made an error when he did not correct the same mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. It assumed the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance were visible non Catholics, saved outside the Church. So it says that it is not always necessary for someone to enter the Church.

The same must be said of the Church, as a general means of salvation. That is why for a person to obtain his salvation, it is not always required that he be de facto incorporated into the Church as a member, but he must at least be united to the Church through desire or hope.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

This same error was accepted by the Lefebvrists and Council Fathers (Cushing, Rahner and Ratzinger) at Vatican Council II.

LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR3, NA 2, etc refer to hypothetical and invisible cases always and so cannot be an excepton to Feeneyite EENS. They do not contradict according to the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church. 

This error has to be acknowledged by the present two popes and then corrected -Lionel Andrades

SSPX and liberals interpret Pope Pius X with an irrationality and repeat the error at Vatican Council II

The Society of St. Pius X interprets the Catechism of Pope Pius X with confusion. For example invincible ignorance mentioned in this Catechism, would contradict 24Q and 27 Q in this catechism which supports exclusive salvation. This is modernism.

Similarly both groups, SSPX and liberals, interpret the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being exceptions to 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is irrational. It implies that there are known cases of non Catholics saved outside the Church with the baptism of desire etc.

So the issue is not only Vatican Council II. The issue is the use of the false premise to create a rupture with the Creeds and Catechisms.

So even if Vatican Council II is annuled the doctrinal problem remains since the false premise is being used to interpret other Magisterial documents.

The speakers above do not interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise.They  make the same error as Pope Paul VI and the liberals.-Lionel Andrades

Those who do not use the irrationality in the interpretation of Vatican Council II are dubbed rad trads in a pejorative sense by Bishop Robert Barron

 

Bishop Robert Barron in this video still does not address the issue of the false premise used by Pope Paul VI to interpret Vatican Council II when he could have avoided this error . He also does not speak about his own interpretation of the Council by confusing what is unknown as being known and then creating an artificial rupture with the past ecclesiology which supported exclusive salvation in the Church.

In principle, Bishop Barron's organisation, Word on Fire, interprets hypothetical cases as being non hypothetical and then produces a non traditional conclusion which they attibute to Vatican Council II.

I accept Vatican Council II without this irrationality and so there is no hermeneutic of rupture with Tradition.

For Bishop Barron I could be a rad trad who accepts Vatican Council II and interprets Lumen Gentium 16 as not being an exception to 16 th century EENS.

For me there is no rupture with the Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church who affirmed the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance and did not project them as exceptions to Tradition. 

Pope Francis and Pope Benedict  evangelize with Jesus as the centre and without the necessity of the Church for salvation. It is Jesus without the Catholic Church.

They also evangelise with a doctrinal development created with a false premise.

So we are now a tension free Church which is politically correct with the Left, which represents Satan.

There is no proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all politics, since there are alleged examples of salvation outside the Church.

There is no traditional mission, which says all need to accept Jesus in the Catholic Church for salvation with no exceptions, since there is alleged known salvation outside the Church.

How can LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to known salvation outside the Church when there are no such cases in our reality(2020)?

Then those who do not use the irrationality in the interpretation of Vatican Council II are dubbed rad trads in a pejorative sense by Bishop Robert Barron. - Lionel Andrades

But by confusing what is implicit as being explicit, subjective as being objective and unknown as known, Pope Francis and Bishop Barron are not traditionalists who affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. They avoid the label.

  

Pope Francis would be a traditionalist if he did not make the mistakes of Bishop Robert Barron in these videos.The same mistake is there in all the books on Vatican Council II.

If Pope Francis interpreted Lumen Gentium 16 like me, as referring to only hypothetical, theoretical and speculative cases, which exist only in our mind, then Lumen Gentium 16 would not be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.

Since there would be no exceptions to EENS there would be no more a New Theology, New Ecclesiology, New Ecumenism and New Evangelisation supported by a revised Canon Law.

But for Pope Francis and Bishop Barron, Lumen Gentium 16, is not hypothetical, theoretical and speculative only.They are real, known non Catholic saved without faith and baptism in 1965-2020,otherwise how could there be exceptions to EENS.

For them there is an objective exception to EENS, the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24Q,27Q ) and the rest of Tradition.

This is a rupture with the Church Fathers and the Doctors of the Church who did not interpret the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and invincible ignorance, as referring to objective people.Common sense in any age tells us that these are references to invisible people. Hypothetical cases.

But by confusing what is implicit as being explicit, subjective as being objective  and unknown as known, Pope Francis and Bishop Barron are not traditionalists who affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.They avoid the label.-Lionel Andrades

Ultimo saluto a don Roberto Malgesini - Omelia di Mons. Oscar Cantoni

La lingua è una cosa piccolina ma ti porta dove vuole lei se non la sai ...

Pope Francis and Pope Benedict would be traditionalists, rigid and fundamentalists, but they avoid these labels, when they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and inference, like Bishop Barron in this video.

  

In this video Bishop Robert Barron had to pretend that Lumen Gentium 16 referred to a known person, someone visible, saved outside the Catholic Church, without faith and the baptism of water.So he could reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and not be considered a traditionalist.

He had to pretend that a theoretical possibility of being saved outside the Church, ehich exists only in our mind, was a real case of salvation outside the Church.So he was not proclaiming exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church, like the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire, USA and telling the Protestant that he was going to Hell.

For  him, ' a could be saved ' outside the Church and ' a can be saved' becomes 'is saved' and 'was saved'.

With his calculated confusion he inteprets Gaudium et Specs 22 ( saved with good will) as a rupture with the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology  and so pleases the Left.

He does not tell Cameron Bertuzzi, his Protestant interviewer, that he is going to Hell, outside the Church.

Cameron believes in Jesus he is baptised and perhaps approves of contraception and divorce.

Bishop Barron was careful to present Cameron Bertuzzi with the politically correct interpretation of Vatican Council II.It sees invisible cases as being visible. With this irrationality the hermeneutic of rupture is created with Tradition ( EENS, Syllabus of rrors,Athanasius Creed etc).

This is also a common mistake of the Lefebvrists and Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ecclesiastics.

If Archbishops Morandi and Di Noia, Secretaries of the CDF did not use Bishop Barron's approach, they too would be affirming EENS like Brother Andre Marie MICM at the St.Benedict Center and the community Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Pope Francis and Pope Benedict would be traditionalists, rigid and fundamentalists, but they avoid these labels now, when they interpret Vatican Council II with the false premise and inference, like Bishop Barron in this video. -Lionel Andrades