Monday, October 10, 2022

Feeneyites do not deny the baptism of desire. Wikipedia has got it wrong

 


The MHFM opposes the doctrines of baptism of desire and baptism of blood, and affirms that "outside the Catholic Church there is  absolutely no salvation.". The MHFM considers itself to be Feeneyite-Wikpedia

 

As Feeneyites the Most Holy Family Monastery does not have to deny the doctrines of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I). This is a mistake of Wikipedia.

 Since BOD,BOB and I.I are always physically invisible.They are always hypothetical and speculative only.So they cannot be practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).Wikipedia has got it wrong.

 The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(LOHO) was a political document. It projected unknown and invisible cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being known  and visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS. This was irrational. It was also a break with Catholic  Tradition. 

Over the centuries the popes, Councils and saints chose the Rational Premise,Inference and Conclusion to interpret BOD, BOB and I.I.-Lionel Andrades

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Holy_Family_Monastery

We can accept Vatican Council II without the political interpretation of Rorate Caeili

 The web blog Rorate Caeili and Fr.Pietro Leone are choosing the politically correct version of Vatican Council II and so there is no opposition for them, from the Left. If they interpreted the Council with the Rational Premise, Inference and Conclusion they would have to really affirm Tradition ( the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors with no known exceptions and the Athanasius Creed with no exceptions in 2022). They would be Feeneyite. 

So they continue with the interpretation of the Council according to the liberals, the Left and the popes since Paul VI to Francis.

 I have pointed it out to them before, that Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Decree on Ecumenism in Vatican Council II, refers to a hypothetical case always. We cannot meet or see someone saved outside the Church in, for example, imperfect communion with the Church. So UR 3 does not contradict the past ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church for me, as it does for them.

I am interpreting UR 3 with the Rational Premise, Inference and Conclusion. They choose the common and politically correct, Irrational Premise, Inference and Conclusion.

In the same way subsists it in Lumen Gentium 8 refers to a speculative case always. So it is not an example of known salvation outside the Church, in the present times, in this way.Leone makes a mistake here too.

We cannot meet or see someone saved with elements of sanctification and truth in other religions (LG 8)or by that ray of truth (NA 2) etc.

We can accept Vatican Council II without the political interpretation of Rorate Caeili.-Lionel Andrades

 - Lionel Andrades



60 Years of Vatican II - ‘THE COUNCIL AND THE ECLIPSE OF GOD' by Don Pietro Leone - CHAPTER 10: The Causes of Council Teaching

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-council-and-eclipse-of-god-by-don.html

Sedevacantism Debate

Trent Horn cites Lumen Gentium 15 as a practical exception for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is irrational


Lumen Gentium 8,14,15 and 16 refer to hypothetical cases in 2022. They are not practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So Trent Horn in this video is choosing the Irrational Premise, Inference and Conclusion to interpret Lumen Gentium, in particular Lumen Gentium 15.

The common False Premise of the Catholic Answers apologists is : LG 8,14,15 and 16 refer to physically visible examples of salvation outside the Church.
Their inference is : LG 8,14,15 and 16 refer to examples of non Catholics saves outside the Church, without faith and the baptism of water. So they contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There are exceptions for EENS, which over the centuries had no known exceptions.
So their conclusion is : Vatican Council II contradicts the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church. It makes the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX obsolete.
This is the irrational reasoning of Trent Horn.The apologists at Catholic Answers and EWTN for political reasons are not allowed to affirm the strict interpretation of EENS. Trent Horn and Jimmy Akins are on the staff on CA. If they affirm the past ecclesiocentrism they could lose their employment. It is the same for Raymond Arroyo at EWTN. -Lionel Andrades

The False Premise, Inference and Conclusion of Cardinal Muller and the Synods is not Apostolic.

 That’s not at all the case, the German prelate stressed:

The doctrine of the Apostles is a reflection and manifestation of the Revelation of the Word of God. We have to listen to the Word of God, but in the authority of the Holy Bible, of the Apostolic Tradition, and of the Magisterium, and all the councils said before that is not possible to substitute the Revelation given once and forever in Jesus Christ by another revelation.


Cardinal Müller says Pope Francis’ Synod is a ‘hostile takeover of the Church’ in explosive interview

 https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-mueller-says-pope-francis-synod-is-a-hostile-takeover-of-the-church-in-explosive-interview/?utm_source=popular



It is not 'the doctrine of the Apostles'. Cardinals Gerhard Muller, the Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican are not Catholic on this issue- they are are not Magisterial. They interpret Vatican Council II with the Irrational Premise, Inference and Conclusion.They do this in public. In this way they give us their political version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS. 

This was the mistake in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office(LOHO). It confused invisible cases of the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as being physically visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). The dogma EENS defined by the Church Councils did not have any exceptions.The new version is human error.

The LOHO is not Apostolic.It is not Magisterial. The Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake and contradict the past Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

The CDF and the Bishop of the Diocese of Manchester,New Hampshire, USA, Bishop Peter Libasci, accepts this. They are also forcing Brother Andre Marie micm, and the St.Benedict Center(SBC) in New Hampshire, to interpret Vatican Council II and EENS with the error. They want the SBC to accept EENS and Vatican Council II with the common False Premise, Inference and Conclusion approved by the CDF and the two popes.This is obligatory for all the religious communities in New Hampshire. They have accepted the compromised version.

The SBC are refusing to do so. So they are being persecuted severely in the present times.

Fr.Georges de Laire, Judicial Vicar, has put out a Decree of Prohibitions. It places prohibitions on the, St.Benedict Center,for saying outside the Church there is no salvation and not using the False Premise, Inference and Conclusion.

For Bishop Libasci and Fr. Laire there are physically visible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance in the present times(2022).This is irrational.But they have to go along with this political line in the diocese. This was also the official policy of the CDF when Cardinal Muller was the Prefect.

How can invisible cases of the BOD and I.I be visible exceptions for Feeneyite EENS? But if Libasci and de Laire did not choose the False Premise to interpret BOD and I.I they would be affirming the strict interpretation of EENS like the St.Benedict Center. They would be Feeneyite.

It is only with the deception that they are not Feeneyite and do not have prohibitions imposed upon them by the CDF.In this way even Cardinal Muller escapes the prohibitions.

Brother Andre Marie interprets Vatican Council II and BOD and I.I with the Rational Premise, Inference and Conclusion. So Vatican Council II does not contradict Feeneyite EENS and the Athanasius Creed which says all need Catholic faith for salvation.So there is no break with the Apostles and the Church Fathers.They did not interpret BOD and I.I irrationally.They did not have to be political.

The False Premise, Inference and Conclusion of Cardinal Muller and the Synods is not Apostolic. -Lionel Andrades




How can the cardinals and bishops accept Traditionis Custode ? It is based upon Vatican Council II interpreted with an Irrational Premise, Inference and Conclusion. They must correct the mistake.

 Referencing both Traditionis Custodes and Cdl. Roche’s subsequent responsa ad dubia, Bishop Schneider called the documents “a gross abuse of the papal office.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bp-schneider-popes-persecution-of-the-latin-mass-an-abuse-of-power-which-must-be-resisted/?utm_source=popular

How can the cardinals and bishops accept Traditionis Custode ? It is based upon Vatican Council II interpreted with an Irrational Premise, Inference and Conclusion. They must correct the mistake.

They must only interpret the Council with a Rational Premise, Inference and Conclusion.It is unethical for the popes, cardinals and bishops to interpret the Council with the Fake Premise to create a Fake Break with Tradition, in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, with no known exceptions.-Lionel Andrades



Bp. Schneider: Pope’s ‘persecution’ of the Latin Mass an ‘abuse of power’ which must be resisted

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bp-schneider-popes-persecution-of-the-latin-mass-an-abuse-of-power-which-must-be-resisted/?utm_source=popular