Every Catholic parish can be missionary and learn from the Sant Agapito Experience

 

Every Catholic parish can be missionary and learn from the Sant Agapito Experience.

It all began with a message I placed on the front of my coat and walked with it to church and every where else.

I knew that Vatican Council II supports the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So I do not have to reject the Council or the dogma EENS. I could smile.

It is the parish priest who must stop interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with EENS. It is he who should really make the parish missionary.

When you interpret the Council rationally you have to return, automatically,to Traditional Mission Doctrine which is ecclesiocentric.

So now we can have groups or individuals going on street mission on the streets of Italy and other parts of the world.

The Catholic Bishops Conferences have an obligation to re-interpret Vatican Council II rationally, honestly and so Magisterially, in harmony with the past Magisterium over the centuries. There is no more a theological or philosophical rupture with the Jesuit missionaries of the Middle Ages.

-Lionel Andrades

FEBRUARY 7, 2024

Every Catholic in the parish of San Agapito, Largo Preneste near Termini, Rome can affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), in harmony with Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted rationally. The lay Catholics could also go out on street-mission in groups or alone.

Every Catholic in the parish of San Agapito, Largo Preneste near Termini, Rome can affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), in harmony with Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church interpreted rationally. The lay Catholics could also go out on street-mission in groups or alone.

There have been no theological objections from the Parish Priest Fr. Paolo Boumis.

Members of the Scouts, choirs, altar servers and sacristans would be affirming the traditional teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation. It would be based upon Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14 etc). This is the Conciliar teaching, the Conciliar Church, the post 1965  teaching of the Catholic Church which is not contradicted by hypothetical cases of LG 8,14,1,5,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc.

The laity  would draw on centuries-old mission manuals and the writings of the saints, which are not contradicted by Vatican Council II, when it is interpreted rationally.

They would be saying like the saints, that membership in the Catholic Church is necessary, the Church is necessary for salvation ( LG 14 etc). It is not enough to have a vague belief in Jesus, without the Sacraments and the faith, moral and traditional mission teachings of the Catholic Church. -Lionel Andrades

FEBRUARY 5, 2024

Every Catholic can affirm ‘the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus based upon the rational interpretation of Vatican Council II

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/02/every-catholic-can-affirm-strict.html

FEBRUARY 4, 2024

So when I say that I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Athanasius Creed, it is based upon the only permissable option available for the auxiliary bishops and the Vicar General in Rome i,e when they interpret Vatican Council II rationally

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/02/so-when-i-say-that-i-affirm-dogma-extra.html

FEBRUARY 3, 2024

We have a discovery in the Catholic Church, a tremendous discovery. It has turned things around

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/02/incomplete-we-have-discovery-in.html

FEBRUARY 2, 2024

I met the bishop in whose diocese Sant Agapito is situated. He’s a Feeneyite. Not because he said so but because Vatican Council II interpreted rationally makes him one. If the bishop would say invisible cases are invisible only, he would be a Feeneyite

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/02/i-met-bishop-in-whose-diocese-sant.html

 FEBRUARY 1, 2024

So really they are all affirming the past ecclesiocentrism of the Catholic Church, since morally, they must choose only the rational interpretation of the Council and not the Alberto Melloni (Bologna School), irrational version, which is political and not Catholic

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-entire-parish-of-sant-agapito-largo.html

FEBRUARY 1, 2024

So when the pope and the parish priest interpret Vatican Council II rationally they are Feeneyite whether they know it or not, whether they like it or not. When anyone interprets Vatican Council II rationally the Council emerges exclusivist it says outside the Church there is no salvation

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/02/pope-francis-like-fr.html

JANUARY 30, 2024

Morally we only have the rational option. So this would be the only interpretation of the Auxiliary Bishops of Rome and the religious communities. Annual, renewal of vows will have its foundation only on Vatican Council II interpreted ethically

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/01/morally-we-only-have-rational-option-so.html

 JANUARY 31, 2024

Pope Francis is forced to interpret Vatican Council II rationally, for it to be Magisterial

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/01/pope-francis-is-forced-to-interpret.html

 JANUARY 30, 2024

The Parish Priest has to tell his assistant priests, altar servers, sacristans, choirs, scouts and general congregation to rationally, interpret LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, in Vatican Council II and then his parish will return to Tradition.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-parish-priest-has-to-tell-his.html

 JANUARY 29, 2024

For about 50 or more Scouts in the parish LG 8, 14, 15,16 etc refer to hypothetical cases only.So the Scouts, Catholic and non Catholic, would have to interpret Vatican Council II, as being orthodox and traditional. They have a moral obligation to be rational and not irrational.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/01/for-about-50-or-more-scouts-in-parish.html

JANUARY 28, 2024

No denial from the Parish Priest : he agrees with me and everyone else.LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc refer to physically invisible cases .So VC II is not a break with EENS for him

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/01/when-i-say-that-my-parish-priest-says.html

JANUARY 27, 2024

No clarification from Parish Priest

 https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/01/my-parish-priest-fr.html

 JANUARY 26, 2024

Repost : There is no denial from Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernandez, the journalists in Rome and now the Faculty of Theology at the University of St. Thomas Aquinas, Rome. They agree with me. For them too LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3,NA 2,GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II refer to only hypothetical cases , physically invisible people in 2024.This is a given. It is common sense

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/01/repost-there-is-no-denial-from-cardinal.html

 JANUARY 25, 2024

Why should the priests in Covington interpret Vatican Council II dishonestly? Why is it obligatory? They have a choice whose conclusion is traditional

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/01/covington-ky.html

JANUARY 29, 2024

The Synod Synthesis is based upon Vatican Council II interpreted irrationally. We now know that the Council can be interpreted rationally and the conclusion is ecclesiocentric and orthodox.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-synod-synthesis-is-based-upon.html

JANUARY 25, 2024

The Second Vatican Council II when interpreted rationally only supports an ecumenism of return to the Catholic Church

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/01/rome-celebrates-christian-unity-week.html

JANUARY 31, 2024

The Parish Priest at San Agapito, Rome can no more say that he does not affirm ‘the strict interpretation ‘ of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). He cannot say that he does not accept Unam Sanctum of Pope Boniface VIII (founder of La Sapienza University, Rome). Since he is obliged to interpret Vatican Council II rationally and then the Council is Feeneyite. The orthodox passages in Vatican Council II support the past ecclesiocentrism. While the hypothetical passages are not exceptions. It is the same for Feeneyite Pope Francis.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-parish-priest-at-san-agapito-rome.html

FEBRUARY 6, 2024

We have to go back and nullify Pope Paul VI’s innovation on marriage, annulments, divorce etc when he interpreted Vatican Council II irrationally and no one corrected him. Pope Francis’ ‘quick divorce’ also comes with a fake interpretation. There was a change of governance too in 1965. The Papal States were allowed to secede with a bogus interpretation of Vatican Council II.

https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2024/02/we-have-to-go-back-and-nullify-pope.html

___

ROBERT KENNEDY ASKED RICHARD CUSHING TO SUPPRESS FR.LEONARD FEENEY

 

 JULY 2, 2010

ROBERT KENNEDY ASKED RICHARD CUSHING TO SUPPRESS FR.LEONARD FEENEY

According to the memoirs of Edward Kennedy it was his brother Robert who asked Archbishop Richard Cushing to suppress Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Monday, September 14, 2009

Augustine. Aquinas. Luther. Bobby Kennedy?! [Mike Potemra]

Yes, it looks like all four played historic roles in the shaping of Christian theology. Reading Teddy Kennedy’s memoir, True Compass, just published today and already No. 2 on Amazon, I discovered a remarkable anecdote about how Bobby Kennedy may have been a crucial figure in the suppression of the controversial Boston Jesuit, Fr. Leonard Feeney. In Senator Ted’s account, Bobby, while a student at Harvard, was outraged at hearing Feeney declare that no non-Catholic can be saved:

[Bobby] discussed it with our father one weekend at the Cape house. I well remember the conversation.

Dad could not believe that Bobby had heard Father Feeney correctly. “But,” he said, “if you feel strongly that you did, I’m going to go into the other room and call Richard. Maybe he’ll want you to go up to Boston and see him.”

“Richard” was Richard Cardinal Cushing. Dad and the cardinal enjoyed a long and profound friendship. . . .

Bobby said he felt strongly indeed. Bang! Dad called up “Richard” and arranged for Bobby to visit him. The cardinal, as nonplussed as Dad, sent some of his people over to hear Father Feeney’s Thursday evening lecture. When he found that my brother was right, Cushing banned Feeney from speaking there; Feeney refused to obey the order, and in September 1949 the archdiocese formally condemned the priest’s teaching. . . . In February 1952, Father Feeney was excommunicated.

I knew someone a few years ago who was a close friend of Father Feeney; I have it on his authority that Feeney was a very decent fellow. But Feeney was, in fact, teaching a crudely literalistic understanding of the doctrine of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (outside the church, no salvation) in which “ecclesiam” meant the visible, hierarchical Roman Catholic Church, and “extra” meant outside of it in the most visible sense. No Rahnerian “anonymous Christians” here — or, for that matter, Ratzingerian “as many [ways to God] as there are people.” The excommunication of Feeney was a public declaration by Pius XII’s Vatican that Feeney’s interpretation was impermissible in Catholic theology. How important was Bobby Kennedy’s intervention? Teddy doesn’t exactly underemphasize it: "I believe, though I cannot be certain, that Bobby's concern resulted, over time, in . . . a major shift in Catholic teaching regarding the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics. . . . Bobby wasn’t the only critic of Father Feeney, of course, but he was among the first to achieve results. Nor did his principled gesture end with the banishment of Feeney. Reinforced by Cardinal Cushing’s discussions with the papal hierarchy in Rome, it became an animating impulse of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, which opened under Pope John XXIII in 1962."

(I need to confess, yet again, my weakness for Irish blarney.) A confrontation between Father Feeney and the young Bobby Kennedy has been written about already; but I have never seen it alleged that Bobby and his father played an active role in the downfall of Feeney and his doctrine. This incident would go a long way toward explaining the later attitude of the Kennedys (most of them) to the Catholic Church: that it’s basically an ecclesiastical counterpart to the U.S. Senate, a place where reasonable people — who know whom to lean on, and how — can get mistakes in the law corrected.

N.B. Unlike certain other Massachusetts senators who shall remain nameless, Teddy got the Pope’s name right.

09/14 09 The Corner, National Review. (National Review, 215 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10016,USA Tel: 212-679-7330)

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDE4MGJhOGJlZWFiMzEzNjM2ODNkY2EyMzM4OGJlYWQ=

Posted by DeSelby 06/25/10 Pascendi Catholic Forum,CUSHING DOCTRINE SAYS LETTER OF HOLY OFFICE (1949) VIOLATES PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION_________________________________________________________________________________

John H. Fenton article in the New York Times titled "Cardinal Cushing: Symbol of 'New Boston'". Feb. 6, 1964. Page 31. Start at the third paragraph under a section appropriately titled "Ties to the Kennedys."

The whole article is quite... interesting. Unfortunately, there is some bad fading in this photocopy which is completely unreadable. But the section in question is readable. I gave the date so someone could look it up on microfilm, or perhaps someone has a paid subscription for an online transcription. (note: I originally posted a link, but it won't work because it was tied into my library card account from an online free newspaper archive.)

Here is a section (three short consecutive paragraphs) from the Feb. 6 1964 New York Times article by John H. Fenton with the well known denial of dogma:

Turning to differences in dogma among Christians, Cardinal Cushing said, "We must recognize the obstacles, but we must not quarrel over them."

"We are told there is no salvation outside the church—nonsense!" the prelate said. "Nobody can tell me Christ died on Calvary for any select group."

Then, with a twinkle, he went on. "As the feller says, 'It is great to live with the saints in heaven, but it is hell to live with them on earth."

DeSelby 06/28/10 Pascendi Catholic Forum

________________________________________________________________________________

1.The Archbishop closed down  St.Benedict Center  and the issue was doctrinal, specifically the ex cathedra dogma.

2.He never in public affirmed the dogma.

3.He allowed Fr.Feeney to be criticized for affirming the dogma correctly.

4.He never discouraged the Jesuits in his archdiocese when they removed Fr.Feeney from their community because the issue was the interpretation of the dogma.

5.He never corrected the errors in the Boston newspapers regarding the dogma and this would spread throughout the world.

6.He delayed making public the Letter from the Holy Office 1949.

7.Even after it was issued there was no apology from him.

8.Even years after the excommunication was issued there was no move to remove the excommunication on Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Richard J. Cushing, Archbishop of Boston – Decree Regarding Leonard Feeney, April 18, 1949

Rev. Leonard Feeney, S.J., because of grave offense against the laws of the Catholic Church has lost the right to perform any priestly function, including preaching and teaching of religion...

Any Catholics who frequent St. Benedict’s Center, or who in any way take part in or assist its activities forfeit the right to receive the Sacrament of Penance and Holy Eucharist. (Emphasis added)

 

The ex cathedra dogma shows us that  that Fr. Leonard Feeney was not in heresy and instead it was the Archbishop Cushing who was in heresy, he gave Catholics a new doctrine. He was tacitly saying implicit baptism of desire was explicit like the baptism of water. This is heretical since he  contradicted an infallible teaching extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says everyone needs to be an explicit(visible) member of the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2010/07/robert-kennedy-asked-richard-cushing-to.html

Veneration of the Holy Cross - Medugorje 09.02.2024

 

https://marytv.tv/marytv-latest-videos/

Boston College has still not apologized for expelling four Catholic professors and Fr. Leonard Feeney for their Catholic religious beliefs including the traditional teaching on there being no salvation outside the Church which we now know is supported by Vatican Council II interpreted rationally

Boston College talk analyzes religious nationalism and religious liberty

https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/ncr-voices/boston-college-talk-analyzes-religious-nationalism-and-religious-liberty

https://www.ncronline.org/

The four Catholic professors dismissed by Boston College since they held the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) according to the three Church Councils which defined EENS. The Councils ( Fourth Lateran Council 1215 etc) did not mention any exceptions as held by Boston College, the American Jesuits and Pope Pius XII.

Boston College has still not apologized for expelling four Catholic professors and Fr. Leonard Feeney for their Catholic religious beliefs including the traditional teaching on there being no salvation outside the Church which we now know is supported by Vatican Council II interpreted rationally.

Boston College and the Americanists with the assistance of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican and the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing, rejected the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They did this when they interpreted invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as being visible examples of salvation outside the Church and so practical exceptions for the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation.

Caption: The sign says Closed for the Public. It was the order given by Cardinal Richard Cushing the Archbishop of Boston. The archbishop interpreted invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was also the error in the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (1949) during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith ( Holy Office) made an objective mistake in public.The mistake was repeated at Vatican Council II ( 1965) by Pope Paul VI.

They then asked Fr. Leonard Feeney to go to Rome to defend himself when he was not saying anything new. He correctly refused to do so. The innovation was being made by the American Jesuits and the Vatican, at the time of Pope Pius XII, who did not defend the Jesuit priest, perhaps, for political reasons. This was after World War II and the creation of the state of Israel.

Today Vatican Council II is being interpreted irrationally by Boston College and the USCCB. So the Council is wrongly projected as a break with Tradition when it really is in harmony with the past ecclesiocentrism. So there is no change in the Church's teaching on Religious Libety, the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the non separation of Church and State.

The Vatican needs to apologize for the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney. The excommunication was lifted some 19 years, right through Vatican Council II it was maintained, by Pope Paul VI. He also accepted the error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office as did Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviano and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

-Lionel Andrades

The Final Thought: Why Should I Become Catholic? - SSPX - Apologetics Series - 42