Catholics must have religious freedom in Italy

 

Catholics must have the religious freedom in Italy to say that the Church teaches in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted rationally that all need Catholic faith and the baptism of water for salvation to avoid the fires of Hell (AG 7/LG 14).Vatican Council II is in harmony with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Catholics must have the freedom of worship and religious beliefs in Italy, according to the UN Declaration of Human Rights. They must have the fundamental right to affirm Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, interpreted rationally, which says outside the Church there is no salvation, all need faith and the baptism of water for salvation ( to avoid Hell).The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and is necessary for salvation (  1 Cor 12:12-31; Col 1:18; 2:18-20; Eph. 1:22-23; 3:19; 4:13).).- Lionel Andrades

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/teachings/catholic-church-is-the-mystical-body-of-christ-89

The UN Declaration of Human Rights guarantees freedom of religion, worship and beliefs. In Italy Catholics must have the right to affirm Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

The UN Declaration of Human Rights guarantees  freedom of religion, worship and beliefs. 

In Italy Catholics must have the right to affirm Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says all need Catholic faith and the baptism of water for salvation. All. ( AG 7, LG 14, CCC 845,846,1257 etc).- Lionel Andrades

Italy is a Catholic country and Catholics must be free to say that the Catholic Church teaches in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, interpreted rationally, that outside the Church there is no salvation

 

Italy is a Catholic country and Catholics must be free to say that the Catholic Church teaches in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, interpreted rationally, that outside the Church there is no known salvation in the present times ( 1949-2023).- Lionel Andrades

Religious communities in Italy must be free to say outside the Church there is no salvation based upon Vatican Council II (rational) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (rational).

 

Religious communities in Italy must be free to say outside the Church there is no salvation based upon Vatican Council II (rational) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (rational). The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance must be interpreted rationally. They are not exceptions for Ad Gentes 7/ Lumen Gentium 14 (all need faith and baptism for salvation).- Lionel Andrades

SSPX General Chapter Statement had the key to the correct understanding of Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Roberto Fiore needs to get the Catholics and the Church behind him. When the Church interprets Vatican Council II with the Rational Premise honest people will have to do the same. Catholics in general will become conservative. The liberal Vatican Council II will no more be there. The Conciliar Church will emerge traditionalist. Feeneyite. It would have to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus like the General Chapter Statement  of the SSPX. This will not be welcomed by the Left. But for the people this would be honest. It would be sincere.- Lionel Andrades

SEPTEMBER 27, 2019

SEPTEMBER 27, 2019

The Italian political parties are following the theology of the Lefbvrists.Matteo Salvini, Roberto Fiore, Fabrizio Lastei interpret Vatican Council II with a false premise. So Lumen Gentium ( 8, 14, 16) emerge as a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. So in catechesis Catholics are taught that Vatican Council II is a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors etc and should be rejected: the same mistake is made by Card.Raymond Burke and Steve Bannon

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-italian-political-parties-are.html

_______________________________

_________________________________________________

OCTOBER 4, 2017

Secret of SSPX General Chapter Statement unknown to bishops : there are no possibile exceptions to EENS in Vatican Council II

The secret for the solution of the SSPX Reconciliation lies in the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012, which the Vatican rejected.

The SSPX bishops still do not realize that when the General Chapter Statement affirmed outside the Church there is no salvation with no possible exceptions the Statement was saying that there are no possibile exceptions to Feeneyite EENS in Vatican Council II.

Here it is:

we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation 1

 

Here lies the SSPX's strong point, nay,clinching point in any negotiations with the Vatican, for canonical status.But the SSPX bishops do not know about this.

Probably only the prayers of the faithful will bring the grace to allow this point to 'sink in'.

The General Chapter Statement affirmed Feeneyite EENS.Bishop Fellay does not!

He affirms EENS according to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

When Bishop Fellay affirms EENS according to the General Chapter Statement 2012 he will not be affirming EENS according to the 1949 Holy Office or Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston at that time.

When Bishop Fellay affirms EENS according to the General Chapter Statement he will not be affirming Vatican Council II according to Cardinals Kasper and Koch and the two popes.

He will be obliging Cardinal Burke to affirm Vatican Council II without LG 16 etc referring to a visible and known exception to Feeneyite EENS. Presently for Cardinal Burke, LG 16,UR 3 etc are a rupture with EENS.

For him the Council is a rupture with Tradition.There is a break with EENS according to the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century.There is a rupture with the past ecclesiology which had its foundation in EENS(Feeneyite/16th century).

Now when the SSPX agrees formally that they affirm EENS according to the General Chapter Statement which says there are no possibile exceptions to salvation outside the Church they would have changed their perspective.They would be saying the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I), past or present, refer to theoretical speculation, possibilities known only to God.They are not actual people in the present times saved outside the Church.There is no rupture with Tradition.

So when the Catechism of Pope Pius X mentions invincible ignorance it is not a rupture with Feeneyite EENS.

When the Baltimore Catechism mentions the baptism of desire it is not a rupture with Feeneyite EENS. Even though for the CDF/Ecclesia Dei it is !

The Vatican(CDF/Ecclesia Dei) has rejected the SSPX General Chapter Statement and will continue to do so.But in that statement lies a secret.

The secret, I repeat, is : there are no exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II, since probabilities cannot be practical exceptions to the dogma EENS which says there is exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

So the SSPX Statement 2012 affirms outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation.There are none men mentioned in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church(19949.For liberals who understand what I am saying, this could be frightening.Those who discern would understand the implications.

It's a complete somersault on Vatican Council II.

The game has changed.The rules have changed.-Lionel Andrades

 

1.

http://archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/2012_general_chapter/2012_general_chapter_statement_7-19-2012.htm

October 3, 2017

Simple way for the SSPX to show Card.Burke that they are not in schism

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/simple-way-for-sspx-to-show-cardburke.html

 

__________________________________

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2014

Vatican Council II itself supports the SSPX General Chapter Statement- no one is discussing this point

It has been quite a few years that I have been writing on the same thing.The Jewish left would object to my interpretation of Vatican  Council II as they objected to the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews.Now they want the SSPX to sign a Doctrinal Preamble and accept Vatican Council II interpreted always with the irrational premise.

 In the SSPX General Chapter  Statement 1 it was said that the SSPX would accept extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions.

This statement would not be acceptable to the Chief Rabbi in Rome.

But it is Vatican Council II itself which affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions. No one is discussing this point.

It is Vatican Council II (AG 7) which is in agreement with the passage:

For this reason it seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation- SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012

It is important for the SSPX, to announce at the Muller-Fellay meeting, that Vatican Council II and all magisterial documents can be affirmed keeping in mind the principle that we human beings cannot see the deceased now saved in Heaven and these deceased are not living exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

 

LG 16 DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE SSPX GENERAL CHAPTER STATEMENT

So when Cardinal Muller cites Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water) as an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the SSPX must respond 'We humans cannot see the deceased saved in invincible  ignorance and these persons are not living exceptions in 2014 to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.' Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict the General Chapter Statement on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This could be clarified before signing a Doctrinal Preamble.2.

Likewise if Archbishop Augustine di Noia  says that those saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth' (LG 8) are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus  the SSPX must respond that they accept LG 8,LG 16 etc .They accept them as being invisible for us,hypothethical probabilities,known only to God. For the SSPX they are not objective, seen in the flesh cases. Hypothetical cases cannot be an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So they are not exceptions in 2014 to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.

In this way the SSPX can affirm Vatican Council II  and the General Chapter Statement  and the Vatican cannot object by saying that the SSPX muist accept Vatican Council II.

 

VATICAN COUNCIL II WITHOUT THE PREMISE IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL

This will not be acceptable to the Jewish Left but at least they cannot say  that the SSPX does not accept Vatican Council II. The SSPX can announce that they accept Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council  II  which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.

AD Gentes 7  is in agreement with the General Chapter Statement  on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. LG 8,LG 16 ,NA 2,UR 3 etc are not exceptions to Ad Gentes  7 since we cannot see the dead on earth. The deceased-saved cannot be living exceptions on earth to all needing the baptism of water  and Catholic Faith for salvation.This is common knowledge.

This has to be clarified in public preferably before the Muller-Fellay meeting.Otherwise it will be said that the SSPX is not accepting Vatican Council II and so penalties must follow.

 

SHOW MULLER A NEW INTERPRETATION

The SSPX must show Cardinal Muller that there is an interpretation of Vatican Council II compatible  with tradition and that they will always reject Cardinal  Muller and the Jewish Left interpretation  of  Vatican Council II with  the premise of the  dead in Heaven being visible exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is only with this irrationality that the Council is  a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The fundamental  issue is : are there invisible or visible for us cases mentioned in Vatcican Council II, who could be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

 

VATICAN-SSPX DOCTRINAL TALKS

 

This is something that the SSPX's  Fr.J.M Gleize and Fr. Francois Laisney never understood.So the last doctrinal talks were a failure.Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and Bishop Charles Morerod  O.P presented Vatican Council II with the irrational premise and Fr.J.M Gleize did not object.

Whatever be your position on Fr.Leonard Feeney, NA 2, LG 16,LG 8 etc do not contradict  AG 7 and extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Vatican Council II without the premise is pro-Tradition.

-Lionel Andrades

1

http://www.dici.org/en/news/society-of-st-pius-x-general-chapter-statement/

 

2.

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/06/rome-sspx-important-popes-response-to.html

 

SSPX affim Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, keeping this principle before you

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/sspx-affim-vatican-council-ii-catechism.html#links

 

MONDAY, JULY 30, 2018

Repost : SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 contradicts the Letter of the Holy Office 1949

SEPTEMBER 30, 2014

SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 contradicts the Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and those whom he represents, will not accept Vatican Council II interpreted according to the General Chapter Statement i.e Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) will not be an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, since there are no exceptions.

The SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 contradicts the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The General Chapter Statement tells us that defacto there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so this is the position of the SSPX in talks with the Vatican .The Letter of the Holy Office on the contrary says  there are exceptions and all do not need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.

'we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation', says the SSPX  in 2012  and the Holy Office in 1949 says'Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.'

So before the SSPX signs a Doctrinal Preamble what will be the position of the Bishop Bernard Fellay ? 

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and those whom he represents, will not accept Vatican Council II interpreted according to the General Chapter Statement i.e Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) will not be an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, since there are no exceptions.

-Lionel Andrades

Will the SSPX have to sign a Doctrinal Preamble contradicting the General Chapter Statement of 2012 and accept the Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J version of Vatican Council II?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/will-sspx-have-to-sign-doctrinal.html

WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 2016

SSPX contradicts the General Chapter Statement to reach an agreement with the Vatican

When Bishop Richard Williamson was still with the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General ,  called a General Chapter meeting (2012), to decide if he should sign an agreement ( doctrinal preamble) with the Vatican for full canonical status.

The General Chapter issued a final  statement 1 clarifying the SSPX doctrinal position.It specifically affirmed  the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS)  with no exceptions.This was rejected by the Masons.It was unthinkable for the CDF cardinals and bishops.

Now the SSPX is willing to sign an agreement not affirming EENS  with no exceptions.Since this would be objected to by the CDF.

Bishop Fellay is not only ignoring the doctrinal position of the General Chapter Meeting since it is 'sensitive' he also did not comment on the recent Vatican Document 2 which said Jews do not need to convert.The Document theologically  rejected Vatican Council II (Nostra Aetate 4)  which says Catholics are the new people of God, the Church is the new people of God.

Bishop Fellay not only did not proclaim the Faith to please the CDF, he actually denied the Faith with his silence. He is now willing to sign an agreement  with the Vatican rejecting the General Chapter Statement to get full canonical status and not be threathened  by the Left as being in schism, being a cult etc.

For the Left, if Bishop Fellay affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus it would be Anti semitic , criminal and illegal.It is not the theology approved by the pro-Satan lobby.

This is the dogma of the faith (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) which Our Lady of Fatima said would be lost.It  cannot be affirmed in public  by Catholics including the SSPX.

No Catholic organisation is allowed to hold a conference on extra ecclesiam nulla salus .The Vatican would come down upon them for the Jewish Left.

Similarly no priest in Rome can be incardinated who affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the 16th century missionaries. He will not be allowed  to be incardinated. The Vatican has an understanding with the chief Jewish (Left) rabbi in Rome.Auxiliary bishops in Rome to whom I have spoken to do not want to comment on this issue.

May be at some future time in Portugal the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, will be accepted as Our Lady of Fatima said. Presently even in Portugal the Catholic ecclesiastical hierarchy , controlled by the two popes,  rejects the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.

For the sake of security the Vatican and the SSPX, are not affirming extra ecclesiam nulla salus in public. Even Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider want to keep their 'full communion' status.So they  keep prudently  quiet on this doctrinal issue.

 It seems just as Pope Francis now insists that the SSPX  enter the  the Church, since the SSPX does not affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus, in future Pope Francis will welcome the evangelicals and Protestants into the Church, since they already do not affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus which the pope and the liberals call 'triumphalsim'.

 There are even organisations like LifeSites and Church Militant TV who do not affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus, like the 16th century  missionaries. Since they possibly have received 'a notice'. Even the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney in the USA do not have annual conferences or write any more on this subject.

 

Now the SSPX is officially and in public ready to deny their General Chapter Statement  of 2012.They are also irrationally gong to accept Vatican Council II as a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the  condition set for them by Archbishop Guido Pozzo and Archbishop Augustine di Noia, at Ecclesia Dei, who in public have also rejected extra ecclesiam nulla salus,to stay in office at the Vatican.-Lionel Andrades

 

 

1.

Society of St. Pius X General Chapter Statement

http://www.dici.org/en/news/society-of-st-pius-x-general-chapter-statement/

 

2.

COMMISSION FOR RELIGIOUS RELATIONS WITH THE JEWS

"THE GIFTS AND THE CALLING
OF GOD ARE IRREVOCABLE"
(Rom 11:29)

A REFLECTION ON THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS PERTAINING
TO CATHOLIC–JEWISH RELATIONS ON THE OCCASION OF THE
50TH ANNIVERSARY OF "NOSTRA AETATE" (NO.4)

 

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostra-aetate_en.html

 

THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 2014

Is the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 contradicting the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 regarding Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

The SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus and says there are no exceptions. The SSPX priests Fr.Francois Laisney and others say there are exceptions and that this is the teaching of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 relative to Fr.Leonard Feeney.The SSPX is maintaining two positions which are a contradiction.

The General Chapter Statement says there are no exceptions while Archbishop Lefebvre  considers the baptism of desire an exception.

Bishop Bernard Fellay considers Nostra Aetate an exception.

They are implying that the Letter of the Holy Office infers that we can see the dead in Heaven who are are visible on earth and they are exceptions. They all infer that the Letter of the Holy Office was teaching irrationality. It was also heresy. It rejected the defined dogma on exclusive salvation.

 

Catholic Truth,Scotland

Lionel is in error.
Lionel:
Lionel is not denying the baptism of desire. Just like you and the SSPX bishops and priests, he affirms the baptism of desire.
He only clarifies that the baptism of desire which you and the SSPX priests and the liberals refer to, is not visible for us. It is visible only to God. We can only accept it as being hypothetical. There is no other choice.So it cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.For something to be an exception it must be different and it must exist in our reality.It must be explicit. None of the readers here can name a person saved with the baptism of desire this year or last year.

Lionel:You are not on my mailing list.I sent you the few posts recently since they were related to the SSPX in Great Britain and Archbishop Lefebvre. You had no specific comment.I was waiting for you or a priest of the SSPX in Great Britain ( whom you could consult) to show me where I was wrong.No one has done so.

Catholic Truth,Scotland

Our policy is not to moderate posts unless there is a breach of our in-house rules, so I am releasing this with a warning that he is in theological error.
Lionel:
No one in the SSPX (USA or Europe) has showed me where is my theological mistake. I have been writing on this same subject for long.

Catholic Truth,Scotland

He is not a theologian – that is obvious – and he does not understand the teaching of the Church on baptism of desire.
Lionel:
The SSPX position on the baptism of desire is the same as the liberal theologians and dissenters who are otherwise criticized on this blog.

Catholic Truth,Scotland

Unless you feel that you can correct him further – I just don’t have the time – then I suggest you ignore his comments. Given his error,
Lionel:
'Given his error'- what is it precisely?. Tell it to me and I will correct.
I am saying there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is also the position of the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012.It is also the position of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, traditionalists, who affirm the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Fr.Francis Laisney, Fr.Peter Scott and Fr.Joseph Pfieffer (SSPX -Resistance) say there are exceptions and the General Chapter Statement says there are no exceptions.I too say there are no exceptions.

Is the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 contradicting the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 regarding Fr.Leonard Feeney ? Could you ask an SSPX priest in Scotland to respond here?...-Lionel Andrades

http://catholictruthblog.com/2014/06/08/will-pope-francis-inter-faith-peace-prayers-please-god-if-so-which-one/

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2014

SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 contradicts the Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and those whom he represents, will not accept Vatican Council II interpreted according to the General Chapter Statement i.e Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) will not be an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, since there are no exceptions.

The SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 contradicts the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.The General Chapter Statement tells us that defacto there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so this is the position of the SSPX in talks with the Vatican .The Letter of the Holy Office on the contrary says  there are exceptions and all do not need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation.

'we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation', says the SSPX  in 2012  and the Holy Office in 1949 says 'Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.'

So before the SSPX signs a Doctrinal Preamble what will be the position of the Bishop Bernard Fellay ? 

Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J and those whom he represents, will not accept Vatican Council II interpreted according to the General Chapter Statement i.e Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) will not be an explicit exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, since there are no exceptions.

-Lionel Andrades

Will the SSPX have to sign a Doctrinal Preamble contradicting the General Chapter Statement of 2012 and accept the Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J version of Vatican Council II?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/will-sspx-have-to-sign-doctrinal.html

_________________________________

MONDAY, MARCH 9, 2015

By the constant Magisterium the SSPX really means the Magisterium before 1949 which did not use the false premise

Comments from an earlier blog post.1

David:
Vatican Council II (without the false premise) would then be in agreement with the SSPX General Chapter Statement on extra ecclesiam nulla salus."

Huh? I thought SSPX rejected Vatican II...or am I thinking of some other SSPx group?

Lionel:The SSPX interprets Vatican Council II with the false premise. So the Council is a break with the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Council is a break with also the General Chapter Statement 2012 which affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma.

Vatican Council II interpreted without the false premise would make the Council Feeneyite. It would affirm the stict interpretation of the dogma according to the Church Councils, popes and saints.
_________________

Its also unclear who you are quoting when, or when you are speaking as yourself in this article. For instance in bold "I would like to clarify that I accept Vatican Council II...." Who is speaking there?
Lionel.I am referring to myself.
I interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise.
_________________________

And what is the point?
Lionel:The point is that we can interpret Vatican Council II with or without the premise.The result is traditional or non traditional.
There is a choice. There is an option for example before the SSPX etc.
___________________________


This article is written so haphazardly I can't figure out what you're trying to say.
Lionel:I usually am writing in a hurry. And I certainly was yesterday as I needed to get to church in time.
________________________

And I think its safe to say that you have made many errors with respect to reporting the facts.
Lionel:I don't think so.What I have said could be new for you as it is for many others.
_________________________

You also never actually defined what you are referring to as "the false premise."
Lionel:
The false premise is reasoning and inferring that persons now in Heaven saved with the baptism of desire or blood or in invincible ignorance ( and without the baptism of water) are personally known to us in the present times, 2015.

It is to infer that the dead now saved in Heaven are physically visible and known to us in the present times.

This is the false premise.

If a pope uses the irrational premise and comes to an irrational conclusion it still is an objective error, even if he is the pope.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/if-pope-uses-irrational-premise-and.html

Fr.Robert Barron in Catholicism uses an irrational proposition to reach an irrational conclusion
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/frrobert-barron-in-catholicism-uses.html

 

___________________________________________

 

Again, you need to clarify this confusion, because you say the SSPX General Statement 2012 supports Vatican II. But I looked up the said statement here and it says:
"The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium
Lionel:
By the constant Magisterium they mean the Magisterium before 1949 which did not use the false premise.
Cardinals Marchetti and Cushing brought the irrational premise into the Church and this was accepted by the post 1949 magisterium.
_______________________

of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, and also in regard to the reforms issued from it.
Lionel:
Marchetti's inference rejected the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It was also a rejection of the Syllabus of Errors and the Catechism of Pope Pius X on salvation.
Without the strict interpretation of the dogma we lost the basis for affirming the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political systems.
It also changes the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism, with extra ecclesiam nulla salus out of the way.
__________________

We find our sure guide in this uninterrupted Magisterium
Lionel:
They mean the Magisterium before 1949 which has been 'interrupted' with Marchetti's irrationality, his being able to see the dead-saved who were in 1949 'explicit' exceptions to the the traditional interpretation of the dogma.
________________________

which, by its teaching authority, transmits the revealed Deposit of Faith in perfect harmony with the truths that the entire Church has professed, always and everywhere."
Lionel:
Yes the magisterium without the Marchetti Inference, the false inference.
_____________________

So perhaps you're interpreting the SSPX General Statement 2012 with an "irrational premise"?
Lionel:
I am referring to the SSPX General Chapter Statement's reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus without exceptions.The text mentions it.

Someone or many at that General Chapter Statement understood what was the real basis for all the confusion in the Catholic Church.
_________________________

No, there's no perhaps about it; you are. So I'm still trying to figure what it is you intend to say.Lionel:
I hope what I said above is helpful.
Basically I am saying that Vatican Council II supports the SSPX traditional position on other religions and Christian communities.
Vatican Council II also contradicts the Vatican Curia's interpretation of the dogma on salvation.

Vatican Council II can only be interpreted rationally. The Vatican Curia is interpreting the Council irrationality,i.e with an irrational premise.

-Lionel Andrades

1

Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/cardinal-raymond-burke-interprets.html

______________________________

MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2018

CDF/Ecclesia Dei rejected the 2012 SSPX General Chapter Statement which affirmed Feeneyite EENS since for Cardinal Ladaria LG 8 refers to visible people saved outside the Church

The Congregation for the  Doctrine of the  Faith/Ecclesia Dei rejected the 2012 General Chapter Statement of the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) which affirmed Feeneyite EENS 1 since for Cardinal Ladaria and Pope Benedict Lumen Gentium 8 etc, refer to known people saved outside the Church in the past or present.

IRRATIONAL REASONING OF THE CDF

This is irrational and contradicts the Principle of Non Contradiction. How can someone be visible who is in Heaven. The person would have to be on earth to be an exception to Feeneyite  extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). But for Cardinal Ladaria it is an exception. So the inference is that this is a known person on earth saved outside the Church. 

When there are claims of there being practical exceptions to EENS then the inference is that there are ghosts visible on earth.

IRRATIONAL INFERENCE AT PLACUIT DEO PRESS CONFC.

This was the inference made by Cardinal Ladaria at the Press Conference on Placuit Deo when a lady journalist asked him about whatever happened to the Church's old teaching on it having the superiority and exclusiveness in salvation.

With his inference Cardinal Ladaria went into schism with the past popes. 

SSPX HAS TO AFFIRM CDF SCHISM

He now wants the  SSPX to go into schism like him and affirm EENS with exceptions.So there is EENS with exceptions of the present Magisterium and EENS without exceptions of the past Magisterium.Then the SSPX has also to accept Vatican Council II being a rupture with EENS because of known people saved outside the Church. Again we have the CDF's exceptions to EENS. This is a schismatic version of Vatican Council II even though there could be a Council with no exceptions to EENS.

So EENS with exceptions(Lumen Gentium 8)  was endorsed at the Press Conference on Placuit Deo by Cardinal Luiz Ladaria.

SSPX GENERAL CHAPTER STATEMENT REJECTED WITH IRRATIONALITY

The SSPX General Chapter Statement was doctrinally rejected with the same reasoning i.e hypothetical cases of people allegedly saved outside the Church with elements of sanctification and truth( whatever that means) were exceptions to the old exclusivist understanding of salvation.

And known people saved outside the Church where the Catholic Church subsists, are known exceptions to the Church's old teaching on it having the superiority in salvation.

VATICAN COUNCL II 'DEVELOPMENT' BASED ON IRRATIONALITY

For Cardinal Luiz Ladaria Vatican Council II is a development of EENS with visible in the flesh cases of LG 6,LG 16, LG 14, NA 2, GS which are all examples for the CDF, of personally known people saved outside the Church.

ALLEGED KNOWN SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH RESPONSIBLE FOR NEW THEOLOGY, ECUMENISM ETC

Since there is known salvation for him, of people who really would only be known to God, there is a New Theology with which Vatican Council II, EENS, Nicene Creed, Catechisms etc are interpreted. The SSPX was also expected to use this hermeneutic of rupture and interpret  Vatican Council II.They were expected to support the conclusion which was a rupture with Tradition. The new conclusion was the foundation for the New Ecclesiology.This New Ecclesiology is different from the old ecclesiology which did not postulate known people saved outside the Church. This New Ecclesiology( with exceptions to EENS) is the basis of the New Ecumenism and New Evangelization.The fundamental building block is known salvation outside the Church, seen in the flesh cases, physically visible people saved without 'faith and baptism(AG 7) in the Catholic Church.

There was no comment on the SSPX General Chapter Statement from the Vatican.
-Lionel Andrades

1.

we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation...

http://archives.sspx.org/superior_generals_news/2012_general_chapter/2012_general_chapter_statement_7-19-2012.htm

_____________________________________________________

 MARCH 12, 2018

The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j is in schism with the past popes and no one says it is a doctrinal issue.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/the-prefect-of-congregation-for.html:   

MONDAY, APRIL 4, 2016

Pope Benedict's Avvenire interview contradicts the SSPX General Chapter Statement on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II

During the pontificate of Pope Benedict when the SSPX was invited into the Church Bishop Bernard Fellay held a General Chapter Meeting 1 to discuss this issue.A statement was issued on Catholic doctrine. It said that the SSPX affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) with no exceptions.Now  however , Pope Benedict,  'broke his silence', as it as been reported, and said the dogma EENS does not exist any more as in the 16th century. It has been developed by Vatican Council II.

LG 16 REFERS TO VISIBLE CASES FOR THE MAGISTERIUM

This is the official position also of Pope Francis and the Jesuits. For them Lumen Gentium 16,Vatican Council II, 2 refers to a visible and not invisible case and that too without the baptism of water. It is an example of salvation outside the Church. So the dogma EENS has been superseded with Vatican Council II for the magisterium.

It is important to note that the Vatican has  pinned their whole new theology on LG 16 etc being explicit and not invisible for us.

WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THE SCAM

Now that we have identified their weakness, their scam,Catholics simply have to say that LG 16 refers to invisible and not visible cases. We cannot physically see or know any exceptions to EENS in 2016. This is common knowledge.

Once the ordinary lay Catholic asserts himself on this point the two popes will have to come in line with the SSPX General Chapter Statement.

The SSPX is presently divided. On their web page they have an article by Fr.Francois Laisney which infers there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS. So for him as expected, LG 16 would refer to visible and not invisible cases. Since LG 16 etc contradicts the dogma EENS he rejects Vatican Council II! 

HELP TRADITION

Catholic laymen and women associated with the SSPX can come to the help of Tradition by announcing in some way, that LG 16 refers to invisible cases for us. The baptism of desire and blood, of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 can only be invisible for us.Being saved with the 'seeds of the Word' (AG 11) and 'many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.' (LG 8) also refer to what is hypothetical, invisible, theoretical, known only to God if they exist....

NO PHYSICAL EXCEPTIONS TO EENS

LG 8, AG 11 etc cannot be examples of known salvation outside the Church in the present times, since physically there is no known salvation outside the Church for us human beings.There cannot be known salvation outside the Church for us and if there are no known cases of salvation outside the Church how can there be exceptions to the dogma EENS? Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus says the apologist John Martignoni.

VATICAN COUNCIL WILL SUPPORT TLM 'IDEOLOGY'

Once this information is out it will be the liberals who will stop citing Vatican Council II. Since there will be no text in the Council to contradict EENS and the traditional ecclesiology on Judaism and Islam.The SSPX willl not have to reject Vatican Council II on this point and be considered 'schismatic'.This Vatican Council II would support the old ecclesiology, associated with the Traditional Latin Mass and which Pope Francis considers 'ideological'.

He presently only permits the Traditional Latin Mass when it is  offered by 'non ideological groups'.They are those who do not consider LG 16 as being invisible.

THEOLOGY WOULD BE TRADITIONAL AGAIN

Making this information known would be the first important step to bring Rome back to the faith, as Archbishop Lefebvre wanted.Once important lay Catholics say LG 16 refers to invisible cases, some 70- plus years of theological sham, from long before Vatican Council II, will be exposed. It can then be corrected.Theology would once again be traditional.

-Lionel Andrades

1

This is why its seems to us opportune to reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the only Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation and no possibility of finding the means that lead to it...-SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/07/declaration-of-general-chapter-of.html  http://www.dici.org/en/news/society-of-st-pius-x-general-chapter-statement/

2.

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.-Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II

__________________________________________________________

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2014

SSPX GENERAL CHAPTER DID NOT KNOW THAT VATICAN COUNCIL II AFFIRMS EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS WITH NO EXCEPTIONS

The SSPX General Chapter 2012 (1) stated:

We have determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization. We have decided that, in that case, an extraordinary Chapter with deliberative vote will be convened beforehand.

It then states:

For this reason it seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation...'

The General Chapter Statement says :

The Society continues to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors...

Bishop Bernard Fellay and the General Chapter members did not state that it was Vatican Council II itself which says 'outside ' the Church ' there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation..'.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society of St.Pius (SSPX) made a doctrinal error by confusing implicit for us baptism of desire as being explicit for us. What is invisible for us he implies is visible in the flesh (2).  

In the Catechism of Pope Pius X 27 Q states  no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. In 29 Q it mentions that a person can be saved under certain conditions with the baptism of desire but does not state that these cases are visible for us.It does not claim or imply  that 29C contradicts  27 Q and also the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Bishop Bernard Fellay  assumed that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus implying that these cases are personally and objectively known. Only if they are objectively known can they be exceptions in the present times. 

 In 2012 he approved the SSPX General Chapter Statement in which extra ecclesiam nulla salus was affirmed and it was stated correctly that there are no exceptions.

Bishop Fellay has said that Vatican Council II contradicts the traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities. Since  like  members of the General Chapter he assumes there are explicit, visible in the flesh exceptions to  extra ecclesiam nulla salus mentioned in Vatican Council II. For him, LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are not implicit but explicit for us. So they could not see that Vatican Council II itself is referring to ' the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation..'

So when the General Chapter says 'We have determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization. We have decided that, in that case, an extraordinary Chapter with deliberative vote will be convened beforehand.' they did not realize that the conditions were already there in Vatican Council II to call that extraordinary Chapter.

Vatican Council II without the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error is traditional and in agreement with the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the saints Robert Bellarmine, Francis of Assisi, Ignatius of Loyola and Teresa of Avila. In Vatican Council II there are no exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation,unless one is using the irrational premise.

So the Catholic Church's traditional teaching on other religions and Christian communities is still the same before and after Vatican Council II.

The present confusion over Vatican Council II is due to the use of the irrational premise. With the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error  a pastoral Vatican Council II contradicts Tradition and emerges dogmatic. With the use of the false premise of being able to see the dead now in Heaven, Vatican Council II emerges as a New Revelation in the Catholic Church.

Get rid of the premise and the SSPX General Chapter is able to affirm Vatican Council II and seek canonical status.Since  Vatican Council II will have changed back to the old ecclesiology, theology and salvation doctrine.

The first step towards full canonical status is to identify the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error  and then avoid it in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. The SSPX can still continue to criticize the interpretation of Vatican Council II by the Vatican Curia and others when they use the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error.

-Lionel Andrades

Feast of the Annunciation

1

http://www.dici.org/en/news/society-of-st-pius-x-general-chapter-statement/

2.

BISHOP BERNARD FELLAY MADE A DOCTRINAL ERROR : CONTRADICTS CATECHISM OF POPE PIUS X 
 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/bishop-bernard-fellay-made-doctrinal.html#links

BISHOP FELLAY'S DOCTRINAL ERROR CONTRIBUTES TO THE TLM BEING TARGETED

ttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/bishop-fellays-doctrinal-error.html#links
______________________________