Monday, April 26, 2021

FATIMA 6° e 7° Parte - “Conclusione e i Papi” - Don Ambrogio Villa - 3...

Posted by at No comments:

At the Most Holy Family Monastery, USA, Michael and Peter Dimond continue to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance (I.I)with the red passages, which they project as practical exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and then they reject BOD, BOB and I.I.

At the Most Holy Family Monastery, USA, Michael and Peter Dimond continue to interpret the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance (I.I)with the red passages, which they project as practical exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and then they reject BOD, BOB and I.I.



They are correct in rejecting BOD, BOB and I.I as exceptions to EENS.They are not exceptions. But they seem to reject BOD, BOB and I.I as hpothetical possibilities, theoretical possibilities known only to God, of BOD, BOB and I.I.So they are not relevant to EENS as exceptions.This would be clear if they choose only the blue passages. - Lionel Andrades




BAPTISM OF DESIRE, BAPTISM OF BLOOD AND INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE

Fake premise

The Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance refer to physically visible cases in 1949-2021.

Fake inference
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.They are examples of known non Catholics saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.

Fake conclusion
So they contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Athanasius Creed(outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return) were made obsolete.

BAPTISM OF DESIRE, BAPTISM OF BLOOD AND INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE

Rational Premise

The Baptism of Desire, Baptism of Blood and Invincible Ignorance refer to physically invisible cases in 1949-2021
They are only hypothetical and theoretical. They exist only in our mind and are not solid bodies at Newton's level of time, space and matter.

Rational Inference
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.They are not examples of known non Catholics saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water.

Rational Conclusion
They do not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.They do not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS of St. Thomas Aquinas( saved in invincible ignorance is invisible), St. Augustine and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
The Letter of the Holy Office(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) 1949 made an objective mistake.
__________


VATICAN COUNCIL II

Fake premise

Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Lumen Gentium 14(Baptism of Desire), Lumen Gentium 16 (Invincible ignorance) etc in Vatican Council II refer to physically visible cases in 1965-2021.

Fake inference
They are objective examples of salvation outside the Church.

Fake conclusion
Vatican Council II contradicts the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Athanasius Creed(outside the Church there is no salvation) and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX ( ecumenism of return) were made obsolete.

VATICAN COUNCIL II

Rational Premise
 Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Lumen Gentium  14 and Lumen Gentium 16  in Vatican Council II refer to physically invisible cases in 1965-2021.They are only hypothetical and theoretical. They exist only in our mind and are not solid bodies at Newton's level of time, space and matter.

Rational Inference
They are not objective examples of salvation outside the Church for us human beings.

Rational Conclusion
Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS as it was interpreted by the Jesuits in the Middle Ages.It does not contradict the strict interpretation of EENS of St. Thomas Aquinas( saved in invincible ignorance is invisible), St. Augustine and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
The Letter of the Holy Office(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) 1949 made an objective mistake.-Lionel Andrades
_____________


 NOVEMBER 21, 2018

Michael and Peter Dimond are correct in accepting the strict interpretation of EENS and rejecting BOD, BOB and I.I as exceptions while Catholics at large, including Bill Donohue and Jim Likoudis are wrong.

Image result for Photo of Michael and Peter Dimond Most Holy Family
When Michael and Peter Dimond would hold the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), citing the popes and saint, Jim Likoudis and Bill Donohue could only respond  by saying that they are sedevacantists. Theologically they were confused  and could not say that the Church Fathers, popes and saints were wrong.
Image result for Photo of Michael and Peter Dimond Most Holy Family
Now I am saying the same thing and they cannot accuse me of being a sedevacantist or traditionalist who attends only the Latin Mass. I am neither.
They cannot say that I reject the BOD,BOB and I.I 1. I accept them as being hypothetical cases only. I reject them as referring to objective non Catholics saved outside the Church. For us humans BOD, BOB and I.I can only be theoretical and hypothetical. We have no choice here.
So I am affirming the strict, traditional interpretation of EENS, like the Magisterium of the past and also hypothetical and speculative cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.It is not either-or for me.
So when I am at Holy Mass in the vernacular or in Latin, I affirm EENS, the Nicene Creed, Athansius Creed, Vatican Council II, the Catechisms,BOD,BOB and I.I, an ecumenism of return(since there is no other rational choice, theologically) based on EENS, the Social Reign of Christ the King based on EENS and the past ecclesiology, Marriages being only among Catholics.Since inter-faith marriages are adultery with the non Catholic being outside the Church.There is only the traditional faith and morals for me.
The SSPX, FSSP, CMRI and the present two popes, the cardinals, bishops, priests, religious and lay Catholics, cannot say the same.
Since with BOD, BOB and I.I being non speculative and non hypothetical, and instead being objective and personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church they have rejected EENS. They have also changed the understanding of the Nicene Creed, rejected the Athanasius Creed, interpreted Vatican Council II and the Catechisms  as a rupture with EENS, created a New Theology, New Ecumenism, New Ecclesiology, New Evangelisation and New Canon Law based upon visible-for-human beings BOD,BOB and I.I.l So with this doctrinal mess, heresy and theological innovation, based upon an irrationality, they receive the Eucharist at Mass or offer Holy Mass in sacrilege.
Some may admit their fault and others deny it.The deniers would say that for them BOD, BOB and I.I refer to invisible people in 2018. Yet it would - but if they consider BOD, BOB and I.I as being exceptions to EENS and the past ecclesiology, then they imply that BOD, BOB and I.I are not invisible but visible,otherwise how could they be exceptions.They imply this when they reject Feeneyite EENS or EENS interpreted like the Magisterium and missionaries of the 16th century.They do not want to say that they are Feeneyites.
They also refuse to say that Vatican Council II does not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. So they imply that hypothetical cases are objective exceptions to EENS.
The traditionalists and liberals have all accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which assumes personally unknown cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are known exceptions to the traditional Feeneyite interpretation of EENS. Upon this error, the New Theology is based. So Catholics at large cannot say that BOD, BOB and I.I refer to invisible people.Practically, defacto they are objective examples of outside the Church for most people.
For me they are only possibilities known to God and not exceptions to EENS. The liberal theologians in Baltimore and Boston, in pre-Vatican Council II times, made a mistake.They then repeated the error at Vatican Council II( AG 7, LG 14 etc), where BOD, BOB and I.I are superfluous but mentioned.
At Vatican Council II many believed , in principle, that hypothetical cases (BOD,BOB, I.I and LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, GS 22 etc) were relevant to EENS and the past ecclesiology, as exceptions.So this part of Vatican Council II is not the Magisterial and the work of the Holy Spirit but human error.
So to reject these Church teachings and change the meaning of the Creed is a mortal sin of faith and is an impediment to offering Holy Mass for a priest, according to Canon Law. 
The Nicene Creed and EENS are de fide teachings, I repeat, and to change their meaning is a mortal sin.
So Michael and Peter Dimond are correct in accepting the strict interpretation of EENS and rejecting BOD, BOB and I.I  as exceptions while Catholics at large, including Bill Donohue and Jim Likoudis are wrong.
Image result for Photo of Michael and Peter Dimond Most Holy Family
Image result for Photo of Michael and Peter Dimond Most Holy Family
However Michael and Peter Dimond interpret Vatican Council II with the irrationality and so they are wrong here. They make the same mistake as Catholics at large.-Lionel Andrades

Image result for Photo of Michael and Peter Dimond Most Holy Family


1.
Baptism of desire(BOD),Baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I)


Image result for Photo of Michael and Peter Dimond Most Holy Family


Image result for Photo of Michael and Peter Dimond Most Holy Family




_______________________

MONDAY, MARCH 2, 2020

Repost : Michael and Peter Dimond, sedevacantists, at the Most Holy Family Monastery , USA are still interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise, inference and conclusion and they refer to the 'anti-popes' and 'x,y and z heretics'. They do not choose to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and conclusion and instead follow the popes from Paul VI.

FEBRUARY 24, 2020

Michael and Peter Dimond, sedevacantists, at the Most Holy Family Monastery , USA are still interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise, inference and conclusion and they refer to the 'anti-popes' and 'x,y and z heretics'. They do not choose to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and conclusion and instead follow the popes from Paul VI.

Michael and Peter Dimond, sedevacantists, at the Most Holy Family Monastery , USA  are still interpreting Vatican Council II with a false premise, inference and conclusion  and they refer to the 'anti-popes' and 'x,y and z heretics'. They do not choose to interpret Vatican Council II with the rational premise, inference and conclusion and instead follow the popes from Paul VI.
I interpret Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents with the rational premise, inference and conclusion.
Image result for Photo Most Holy Family Monastery 2018 today
The MHFM need to announce the obvious i.e there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance in the present times(1965-2020). This is a beginning. This is also something obvious.
So Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( EENS) according to Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, 1441,
Vatican Council II does not contradict the Athanasius Creed( Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith. Which faith unless every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.) The Athanasius Creed is referring to the Catholic faith. There was no Lutheran and Anglican faith at that time. 
Image result for Photo Peter and Michael Dimond

The Most Holy Family Monastery(MHFM) are  correct in their interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite) while the rest of the Church is wrong to accept EENS ( Cushingite).It is no surprise that  Michael and Peter Dimond  see the rest of the Church as being members of a false new church, after 1965.Their measuing rod for authenticity and orthodoxy is EENS (Feeneyite).
The popes from Paul VI interpreted EENS and Vatican Council II with a false premise. The interpretation is Cushingite. Cushingism causes a rupture with Tradition.When it is avoided the result is orthodoxy.
Image result for pHOTOS OF EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY
So there is a Cushingite and Feeneyite EENS and Vatican Council II.The Creeds and Catechisms can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism.All papal documetns can be interpreted with Cushingim or Feeneyism.
The sedevcantists Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae (CMRI) whose Superior is Bishop Mark Pivaranus, also interprets EENS and Vatican Council II with Cushingism.
Related image
The sedevacantist community of Bishops Dolan and Sanborn in Florida, USA also interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with Cushingism. The popes from Paul VI to Francis have done the same and so no one corrects or advises the sedevacantists and traditionalists.
Related image
Michael and Peter Dimond were correct on EENS but they interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingism.This is an error they can correct.They are not yet part of the Feeneyite Conciliar Church.They have to look at the Council with a different perspective.Vatican Council II must be accepted by the MHFM as not contradicting EENS.So there would be a new version of Vatican Council II, for them. It would be Vatican Council II which does not contradict their strict interpretation of EENS.It would mean they do not have to reject the baptism of desire(LG 14) or invincible ignorance(LG 16) and still be able to affirm the strict interpretation of EENS.

Image result for pHOTOS OF EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY
They must see hypothetical cases as just being hypothetical .Then they do not become exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and the Syllabus of Errors on EENS and ecumenism.Then they can announce that there are no exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II. The Council does not contradict the past ecclesiology or an ecumenism of return. 1
Image result for Photo Peter and Michael Dimond 
Image result for Photo Peter and Michael Dimond 
Image result for Photo Peter and Michael Dimond

-Lionel Andrades


1


AUGUST 26, 2018

Jimmy Akin (Catholic Answers) and sedevacantists Peter and Michael Dimond, interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X, as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors : no denial from the SSPX or Bishops Sanborn and Pivarunas on the same error
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/08/jimmy-akins-like-sedevacantists-peter.html



FEENEYISM ( SEE LABELS / TAGS FROM THE RIGHT HAND SIDE BAR. CLICK TO ACCESS)



CUSHINGISM



MOST HOLY FAMILY MONASTERY/ PETER AND MICHAEL DIMOND


 MARCH 2, 2020

The Most Holy Family Monastery(MHFM) interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise, inference and conclusion and they complain about the popes doing the same thing. Cardinal Schonborn and Taylor Marshall also interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, just like the MHFM and the popes since Paul VI.


________________________________

Lionel Andrades
Catholic lay man in Rome,
Writer on the discovery of the two interpretations of Vatican Council II, one is rational and the other is irrational, one is interpreted with the false premise and the other without it. One is Magisterial and the other, the common one, is non Magisterial.
It is the same for the Creeds and Catechisms.There can be two interpretations.
Why should Catholics choose an irrational version which is heretical, non traditional and schismatic, when a rational option is there which is traditional ?
Blog: Eucharist and Mission
Tel:- 
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)