Bishop Bernard Felly still uses the
False Premise to interpret the baptism of desire (BOD) and invincible ignorance
(I.I) and so he rejects 15th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus,
which was a dogma which did not mention any exceptions.
1.So in all Magisterial Documents in which BOD and I.I are mentioned his inference and conclusion is non traditional and irrational.The dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors are made obsolete. The Catechism of Pope Pius IX would contradict itself ( 29Q ( ignorance) would contradict 24Q and 27Q ( outside the Church there is no salvation).
I avoid the False Premise in the interpretation
of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance which I accept theoretically.
So there are no practical exceptions for the traditional strict interpretation
of EENS which I affirm.BOD and I.I are not exceptions to EENS for me. I can
affirm BOD and I.I and also EENS. Bishop Fellay has to choose between the two
since BOD and I.I are visible exceptions for him.
2.Bishop Fellay also uses the False
Premise (hypothetical cases are practically visible n the present times) to
interpret BOD and I.I and so there are exceptions for the Athanasius Creed. It
says all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation. It does not
mention any exceptions.
I avoid the False Premise (invisible
people are visible) in the interpretation of BOD and I.I and so there are no
exceptions for the Athanasius Creed for me in 2021. Hypothetical cases of LG 14
(BOD) and LG 16 (I.I) do not contradict the Athanasius Creed for me. I can
affirm BOD and I.I and also the Athanasius Creed. I do not have to choose. But
for Bishop Bernard Fellay and the liberal popes it is either-or.
3.Bishop Fellay uses the False Premise (
people in Heaven are seen on earth) to interpret BOD and I.I and so he rejects
the original understanding of the Nicene Creed where it states, ‘I believe in
one baptism for the forgiveness of sins ‘and ‘I believe in one, holy, Catholic
and Apostolic Church’.
I avoid the False Premise (the baptism
of desire refers to visible and known people saved) in the interpretation of
BOD and I.I.So the understanding of the Nicene Creed does not change. For
me all need one, visible baptism, the baptism of water for the forgiveness of
sins and for salvation (CCC 1257 The Necessity of Baptism). For me it is not
three visible baptisms (desire, blood and ignorance) which exclude the baptism
of water (and so are made exceptions for traditional EENS).
4.For Bishop Fellay and the SSPX it has
always been three visible baptisms. Physically invisible baptisms could not be
practical exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. Yet they had to promote this irrationality for political
and other reasons.
So I believe in one physically visible
baptism for the forgiveness of sins; for Sanctifying Grace and for salvation,
while Bishop Fellay believes in the existence of three or more visible
baptisms. He confuses what is invisible as being visible, implicit as being
explicit and subjective as being objective. This is a philosophical error. An
error in observation. 5.It creates a New Theology which says outside the Church
there is salvation – since there are known exceptions. The False Premise
produces a False Inference.It is with the New Theology that he interprets Vatican Council II and then rejects the expected non traditional conclusion.He does not interpret the Council with the Rational Premise which has a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
5.Now he officially supports doctrinal chaos.
This was not the teaching of the
Apostles, the Church Fathers, the Medieval Fathers and the Magisterium before
the 1930’s since it is common sense that BOD and I.I are always unknown
and invisible for us human beings and
can only be known to God.
St. Thomas Aquinas held the strict
interpretation of EENS and said that if there was a man in the forest who in was in ignorance and was to be saved, God would send a preacher to him. He was
referring to a hypothetical case who would be saved with the baptism of
water.
St. Francis Xavier said that God had
sent back to earth people who had died without the baptism of water,only to be baptized
by him. He was referring to specific people who could not go to Heaven without
the baptism of water.
6.For Bishop Fellay and also for
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre there were exceptions for EENS since there were
exceptions for Pope Pius XII who accepted the False Premise in the Letter of
the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston(LOHO).They both accepted the LOHO with its objective error.
The same objective mistake is made with
the use of the Fake Premise, by Bishop Joseph Pfieffer and the SSPX (Resistance)
and the sedevacantist communities of Bishop Donald Sanborn and Bishop Mark
Pivarunas. -Lionel Andrades
___________________________________
APRIL 28, 2017
Bishop Fellay does not realize that he is confused between Feeneyism and Cushingism
-Lionel Andrades
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
No response from Fraternita Sacerdotale San Pio X (SSPX Italy) : doctrinal messhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/07/no-response-from-fraternita-sacerdotale.html
________________________________________________________
FATHER NIKLAUS PFLUGER IN FIRST CLASS HERESY ? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/father-niklaus-pfluger-in-first-class.html
RAMPANT HERESY IN THE SSPX
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
Bishop Fellay's understanding and interpretation of Vatican Council II is heretical.
Cardinal Muller, Archbishop Di Noia and Bishop Fellay's theology is based on invisible cases being visible, what is not seen as being seen
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.
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
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. 82http://www.dici.org/en/documents/letter-to-friends-and-benefactors-no-82/
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment