JULY 2, 2018
Repost : Pressure on SSPX priests to say Dismas is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
APRIL 6, 2014
Pressure on SSPX priests to say Dismas is an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
There is pressure being brought on the priests of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) in Italy to say Dismas, the Good Thief, was an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?.
The SSPX leadership are in a doctrinal crisis and are clutching onto any available straw to stay afloat.They do not want to admit that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops made an objective error - and Vatican Council II is really traditional on the issue of other religions and Christian communities and churches, when the false premise is not being used.
Since they do not want to say that there are no exceptions to Feeneyism, the SSPX priests are emphasizing the case of Dismas, who went to Heaven allegedly without the baptism of water.
The SSPX priests in Rome to whom I have spoken to know there are no Dismas' in 2014 who are visible to us in real life.So 'Dismas in 2014' cannot be an exception to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
The SSPX do not want to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salusaccording to Fr.Leonard Feeney whom they have criticized in books and on the Internet.
On the official website of the SSPX, there is a section 'Feeneyism' in which the SSPX priests assume cases of the baptism of desire are visible to us for them to be exceptions and relevant to the dogma on salvation.
They do not make the distinction between implicit baptism of desire and explicit baptism of desire.It is always explicit for them.
Recently the District Superior of the SSPX, Italy on Italian television indicated that Vatican Council II contradicts the traditional teaching on other religions.He implied that LG 16 (invincible ignorance) etc was not implicit but explicit for us, to be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditional teaching on other religions.
Catholics, non SSPX members, who have affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus have often come under strong criticism from the political Left. The SSPX avoids being threatened under the Anti-Semitism and other leftist laws.
They are not affirming the dogma according to Feeneyism and are interpreting Vatican Council II in accord with the politically accepted version. Even the Left interprets Vatican Council II as a break with the past and they use the false premise in the interpretation.So these deceased-saved become exceptions to Feeneyism.
The SSPX have removed material from websites to avoid the Anti Semitism charge.They are now suggesting that there are known Dismas' in 2014 who are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Without Dismas in 2014 Vatican Council II would be traditional and they would have to admit that they were in error all these years. -Lionel Andrades
SUNDAY, MARCH 25, 2018
Fr.John Zuhlsdorf still uses the LOHO irrational reasoning to misinterpret Vatican Council II and EENS
Fr.John Zuhlsdorf interprets Vatican Council II and the dogma with the LOHO irrational reasoning and so hypothetical cases are considered known people saved outside the Church and are allegedly examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church.This was the new fantasy reasoning of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 (LOHO).
So for Fr.John Zuhlsdorf Dismas the Good Thief, who allegedly went to Heaven without the baptism of desire would be a known exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS ) in 2018. This is LOHO reasoning.
An invisible person in 2018 is an example of salvation outside the Church for him. He is an exception to all needing to enter the Church for salvation.This is the LOHO reasoning of those who do not want to affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EEN.
Whom do we know in 2018 who will be a Dismas or is a Dismas. Even if there was a person saved outside the Church, it would not be known to us. So it is irrelevant to Feeneyite EENS.
But for Fr.Zuhlsdorf invisible and hypothetical cases mentioned in Lumen Gentium, Vatican Council are concrete and known examples of salvation outside the Church and so contradict Feeneyite EENS for him. He is a liberal.
LOHO is heretical. Since its philosophy says there are invisible people who are visible and they are not Catholics. The theology says these 'visible' non Catholics are saved without Catholic faith and the baptism of water. So the conclusion is that not every one needs to be incorporated into the Catholic Church as a member.There is known salvation outside the Church.
Fr.Zuhlsdorf is a Cushingite like Pope Benedict and Cardinal Luiz Ladaria and the rest at Ecclesia Dei today.
In his report on Dismas today he does not mention EENS however Dismas is often cited as an exception to Feeneyite EENS.
In the past Fr. Zuhlsdorf has criticized Fr.Leonard Feeney for his 'hard line position' on EENS since Fr. Zuhlsdorf accepts the irrational reasoning of LOHO and also wrongly interprets Vatican Council II with this reasoning.
-Lionel Andrades
1.
25 March – Feast of the Thief who “stole heaven”: St. Dismas
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2018/03/25-march-feast-of-the-thief-who-stole-heaven-st-dismas/
_______________________________
_______________________________
FEBRUARY 9, 2015
The Letter of the Holy Office is irrational and has no magisterial precedent for this new doctrine
There have been many comments on ASK FATHER: Salvation “outside” the Church by Fr.John Zuhlsdorf (Feb.5,2015) and links have been provided by commentators to support Fr.Z.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/the-letter-of-holy-office-is-irrational.html
FEBRUARY 9, 2015
Response to Fr.John Zuhlsdorf's article on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Fr.John Zuhlsdorf interprets Vatican Council II with Marchetti's theory so the Council for him is ambigous and a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus-1
Fr.John Zuhlsdorf interprets Vatican Council II with Marchetti's theory so the Council for him is ambigous and a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus - 2
Fr.John Zuhlsdorf interprets Vatican Council II with Marchetti's theory so the Council for him is ambigous and a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus - 3
Fr.John Zuhlsdorf interprets Vatican Council II with Marchetti's theory so the Council for him is ambigous and a break with extra ecclesiam nulla salus - 3
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/frjohn-zuhlsdorf-interprets-vatican_9.htmlhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/response-to-frjohn-zuhlsdorfs-article.html
_____________________
FEBRUARY 10, 2015
Fr.John Zuhlsdorf made an objective mistake : irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/frjohn-zuhlsdorf-made-objective-mistake.html
FEBRUARY 10, 2015
What about the dogma on salvation which has 'evolved' for Fr.Zuhlsdorf ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/what-about-dogma-on-salvation-which-has.html
FEBRUARY 10, 2015
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is linked to Vatican Council II. Louie Verrechio and Fr.Zuhlsdorf have still to discover it.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus-is-linked.html
MARCH 17, 2015
Fr.John Zuhlsdorf does not believe in the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : advice on interfaith marriageshttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/frjohn-zuhlsdorf-does-not-believe-in.html
Vatican/Vicariate is not allowing priests in Rome to interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism : incardìnation prohibition
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/vaticanvicariate-is-not-allowing.html
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/06/vaticanvicariate-is-not-allowing.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment