Franciscan University Steubenville, USA is still churning out theology degrees

Franciscan University Steubenville, USA is still churning out theology degrees. Both Eric Sammons and Scott Hahn interpret Vatican Council II and the Creeds and Catechisms with the false premise and there is no denial from them.

It is the same with Tim Gray, the President of the Augustine Institute, Denver, Co, USA. The faculty there, has not response to what I write.- Lionel Andrades

Today the division in the Catholic Church is not with Vatican Council II per se but the Council interpreted with or without the false premise.When Vatican Council II is not interpreted with the false premise the liberal popes, cardinals and bishops cannot quote the Council.Their liberalism is based on the false premise.They could actually want to reject Vatican Council II interpreted without the false premise. The Catechisms and Creeds are also today being interpreted with the same false premise. Formally Pope Francis needs to announce that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the common false premise. This of course would make him a traditionalist, or as Bishop Barron says, ' a rad trad'

 Today the division in the Catholic Church is not with Vatican Council II per se but the Council interpreted with or without the false premise.When Vatican Council II is not interpreted with the false premise the liberal popes, cardinals and bishops cannot quote the Council.Their liberalism is based on the false premise.They could actually want to reject Vatican Council II interpreted without the false premise. 

The Catechisms and Creeds are also today being interpreted with the same false premise.

Formally Pope Francis needs to announce that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without the common false premise. This of course would make him a traditionalist, or as Bishop Barron says, ' a rad trad'. -Lionel Andrades

Bishop Robert Barron interprets Lumen Gentium 16 assuming it refers to personally known, physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church. Why should I accept this irrationality which creates a rupture with the past Magisterium? Why should I be dishonest ?

 

Bishop Robert Barron interprets Lumen Gentium 16 assuming it  refers to personally known, physically visible non Catholics saved outside the Church. Why should I accept this irrationality which creates a rupture with the past Magisterium? Why should I be dishonest ?

We do not have to reject the Council but interpret it without the false premise. The Council would then be missionary again. There would no more be a doctrinal rupture with the past Magisterium. -Lionel Andrades

Bishop Barron does not mention that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict interpreted Vatican Council II with a false premise to create a false rupture with Tradition : the rad trads rightly reject the Council even though they are not aware of the fake premise

Bishop Robert Barron and the apologists of Word on Fire have been informed how the Council can be interpreted with or without the false premise : months have passed and there is no comment from them

Pope Benedict XVI speaks to priests of Rome about Vatican II which he interprets with a false premise and then calls the new doctrine ' a development'

Eduardo Echeverria, Professor of Philosophy and Systematic Theology, Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit uses a fake premise to interpret the Council . He has been informed but he wants to continue with it

Cardinal Blaise Cupich wrongly interprets Lumen Gentium with a fake premise. I avoid it.

All these speakers are interpreting Vatican Council II with the false premise so what they say is worthless. : without the fake premise the Council is in harmony with EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the ecumenism of return of the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX and the rejection of modernism with the Catechism of Pope Pius X (24 Q, 27Q)

St. Faustina and the Image of Divine Mercy

Ryan Grant interprets the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) with the false premise like the Society of St. Pius X . He has made available a Catechism in which he has not clarified that BOD and I.I refer to hypothetical cases and so do not contradict St. Robert Bellarmine's strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

 

Ryan Grant interprets the baptism of desire(BOD) and invincible ignorance(I.I) with the false premise like the Society of St. Pius X . He has made available a Catechism in which he has not clarified that BOD and I.I refer to hypothetical cases and so do not contradict St. Robert Bellarmine's strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

He also needs to clarify that BOD and I.I are not objective exceptions to Feeneyite EENS otherwise his future work will  continue to be contradictory and a rupture with the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church.. - Lionel Andrades

https://mediatrixpress.com/shop/

DECEMBER 14, 2019

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/

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2020

Archdiocese of Boston mentioning the four marks of the Church is not enough since the Church doctrines and theology can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism and the understanding of Church (ecclesiology) changes

 

WHAT IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?

The Church is marked by four signs which help to identify its true nature: one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.  An understanding of these four signs will help form a definition of the Catholic Church. 

Lionel: The Archdiocese interprets Magisterial documents with 

Cushingism while  I use Feeneyism. So mentioning the four marks  

of the Church is meaningless since our concept of Church will be 

different.They use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II 

while I avoid it. The false premise creates their liberalism.

___________________

The Church is One.  The unity of the Church is rooted in the unity of the Holy Trinity – God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit.  The Church has a common body of beliefs and is universal in doctrine.  All united under the Pope, Catholics profess one faith, creed, and set of moral teachings. 

Lionel: This is false. Doctrine and theology is changed

 when  a false premise is used. So we do not profess one

 Creed. Our interpretations of the Nicene and Athanasius

 Creed for example are different.

__________________________

The Church is Holy. God is the ultimate source of holiness in the Church and Jesus Christ is the model of holiness for the Church.  The Church is holy since it was instituted by Christ, who gave the Church the gift of the Holy Spirit to continue his mission and ministry on earth.  Through the Church, one is called to live a life which leads to the wholeness of personal development and true relationship with God, the source of life and eternal salvation. 

The Church is Catholic.  The word “Catholic” means “universal.”  The Church, from the time Jesus commissioned the Apostles until the present age, has always been centered on spreading the message of Jesus Christ.  The Church of yesterday, today, and tomorrow will always have Christ as our foundation.  Furthermore, the Church is for all people throughout the world.   The Mass and the other sacraments are celebrated throughout the world, bringing all Catholics together in a spirit of prayer and unity.  

Lionel: False. The Church is Catholic and so different 

from other Christian churches and communities. It is

 exclusivist in its ecclesiology for me.This is not the 

conclusion of teh Archdiocese which interprets Vatican

 Council II with a false premise. 

The theology of the Mass in all Rites today is different

 from that of the 16th century.

__________________

The Church is Apostolic.  The Bishops, who are the successors to the Apostles, in union with the Pope, continue to teach, sanctify, and guide the church until Christ comes again.  The doctrine and way of life of the Church is the same today as it was in the time of the Apostles.  The good news of Jesus Christ announced by the Apostles almost 2,000 years ago continues to be announced by the Church today.  Furthermore, the Church recognizes the apostolic mission – to reach out to people of all nations and preach the Good News of the Gospel. 

Lionel: The Church for centuries taught outside the Church 

there is no salvation. This was changed by Cardinal Richard 

Cushing the Archbishop of Boston. Pope Paul VI interpreted 

Vatican Council II with the Cushing false premise.So there is 

a New Theology in the Archdiocese of Boston which is not

 the same as at the time 

of the Church Fathers or the Apostles.

The Church at the time of St. Paul was opposed by the

 Jews of that time. The Archdiocese of Boston is 

approved by the Jewish Left rabbis in Boston

.-Lionel Andrades

___________________   

https://www.bostoncatholic.org/what-catholic-church-0

Archdiocese of Boston Pastoral Center

66 Brooks Drive
Braintree, MA 02184

Phone: 617-254-0100

FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 2020

Bishop Athanasius Schneider says that the baptism of water is necessary and it is important-but he does not make the Cushingite-Feeneyite distinction.

Bishop Athanasius says that the baptism of water is necessary and it is important-but he does not make the Cushingite-Feeneyite distinction. 1

Even cardinals Ratzinger and Schonborn in the Catechism of the Catholic Church say that the baptism of water is necessary for eternal salvation but they are Cushingites.So there are exceptions for them.

Bishop Robert Baron also says the same but there are exceptions for him. He is a Cushingite.He finally concludes with the exceptions, that most people come in the exceptions category and have a reasonable hope for salvation.

Bishop Schneider is also a Cushingite.So he does not tell Cushingite Taylor Marshall that all non Catholics on earth are on the way to Hell with no known exceptions. There is not a single known case of someone saved in Heaven without the baptism of water and instead with the baptism of desire.

As a Feeneyite I would say that all need the baptism of water and there are no known exceptions. LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 are not exceptions to all needing the baptism of water. 

He does not make the Feeneyite-Cushingite distinction or he would go a step further and say that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 are not exceptions to Feeneyite EENS.Vatican Council II is Feeneyite and not Cushingite.

But he does not mention EENS since his interpretation of EENS is Cushingite.For me EENS is Feneeyite.LG 8 etc are hypothetical and so are not exceptions.

Bishop Schneider says that we need to be missionaries to the non Catholics and non Christians but he does not state that they are all on the way to Hell without faith and baptism in the Catholic Church.He keeps things open and vague as do the liberals.

Since he is a Cushingite, in his comment on the Abu Declaration  was Christocentric and not also ecclesiocentric.

With Feeneyism he could be ecclesiocentric in his ecclesiology but with Cushingism, like the popes since Paul VI, he is restricted.

With Cushingism he has made Vatican Council II a rupture with Tradition( EENS, Syllabus of Errors etc).

FR.THOMAS WEINANDY OFM

Similarly when Fr. Fr. Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM., Cap mentions the four marks of the Church it is not enough.Even  liberals mention the same. He needs to also make the Feeneyite and Cushingite distinction then he becomes clear and specfic. 2

It is the modernists who brought the Cushingite error into the Church 81 years back with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. They consolidated the error 55 years back at Vatican Council II. So we cannot ignore this.For them what is invisible is visible. So we have to deal with this new reality which is part of the New Theology.

Now even Cardinal Walter Kasper can mention the four marks of the Church and say that the baptism of water is important while rejecting the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite).-Lionel Andrades

1

https://catholicism.org/bishop-athanasius-schneider-on-the-necessity-of-baptism-and-evangelism.html

 2

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

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2020

Archbishop Carlo Vigano is a Cushingite and I am a Feeneyite and so our Profession of Faith will be different. He interprets the Nicene Creed with a false premise.It is the same one used in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.I avoid that false premise. Similarly Fr. Thomas Weinandy is a Cushingite and I am a Feeneyite so our concept of the four marks of the Catholic Church would ne different. For him it is one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church outside of which there is known salvation and so he is not a Feeneyite on EENS. There is known and visible salvation outside the Church and so there are exceptions to traditional EENS for him. For me of course it is one holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church outside of which there is no salvation. I am a Feeneyite

 

Archbishop Carlo Vigano is a Cushingite and I am a Feeneyite and so our Profession of Faith will be different. He interprets the Nicene Creed with a false premise.It is the same one used in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.I avoid that false premise.

Similarly Fr. Thomas Weinandy is a Cushingite and I am a Feeneyite so our concept of the four marks of the Catholic Church would ne different. For him it is one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church outside of which there is known salvation and so he is not a Feeneyite on EENS.

There is known and visible salvation outside the Church and so there are exceptions to traditional EENS for him.

 For me of course it is one holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church outside of which there is no salvation. I am a Feeneyite. -Lionel Andrades

DEAN OF THEOLOGY AT ST. ANSELM SAYS THERE ARE NO KNOWN EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/10/dean-of-theology-at-st-anselm-says.html

CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN ROME AGREE WITH FR.LEONARD FEENEY: THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2011/08/catholic-priests-in-rome-agree-with.html#links

How can zero cases of something be considered exceptions ?- John Martigionihttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/sspx-only-way-out-now.html#links
IRRESPECTIVE IF THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE RESULTS IN JUSTIFICATION OR JUSTIFICATON AND SALVATION IT IS NOT AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/irrespective-if-baptism-of-desie.html#links
Implicit intention, invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) in Vatican Council II do not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus –John Martigionihttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/11/implicit-intention-invincible-ignorance.html#links______________________________________________________________

The Holy Office 1949(CDF) interpreted extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with a false premise and then excommunicated Fr. Leonard Feeney for not doing the same. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Vatican, interpreted the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n.847-848 on Invincible ignorance) with a false premise and then placed a 'practical excommunication' on the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire, for not doing the same

 The Holy Office 1949(CDF) interpreted extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) with a false premise and then excommunicated Fr. Leonard Feeney for not doing the same.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), Vatican, interpreted the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n.847-848  on Invincible ignorance)  with a false premise and then placed a 'practical excommunication' on the St. Benedict Center, New Hampshire, for not doing the same... - Lionel Andrades

Roberto dei Mattei like Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise, so he does not have to reject the Council. He is approved by the Left.It is the same with Bishop Athanasius Schneider. It would be different if he chose to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise

Roberto dei Mattei like Pope Francis interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise, so he does not have to reject the Council. He is approved by the Left.It is the same with Bishop Athanasius Schneider.

It would be different if he chose to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise. -Lionel Andrades

The Origin of the Miraculous Medall: Homily by Fr Linus Clovis. A Day With Mary

Fr. Mitch Pacwa, SJ and Douglas Bushman interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise in this video and then in questions and answers criticize those who do not accept the Council like them

Signore tu ci dici "Chiunque si esalta sarà umiliato e chi si umilia sarà esaltato" - Adorazione