The modernism was there
when Vatican Council II is interpreted irrationally and Pope Paul VI did not correct
it. The modernism comes from the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the
Archbishop of Boston and Pope Pius XII and Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, let it
pass.
But there is no more
modernism when we interpret LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, as being
only hypothetical cases. They are invisible cases in 1965-2024. So they do not
contradict the past exclusivist ecclesiology. We can affirm Vatican Council II (rational)
and the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the
Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and the Athanasius Creed. This is irrelevant
of the popes. Doctrine stays constant. There no more is modernism. There no more is a development of doctrine based upon Vatican Council II. - Lionel Andrades
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was correct when he said
that Vatican Council II did not have a hermeneutic of continuity with
Tradition. Obviously, when the Council is interpreted irrationally there cannot
be continuity. It is only with a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II
that emerges the hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition. The Church returns to the
Catholic Faith.
Today we can interpret Vatican Council II rationally and
with the hermeneutic of continuity. This was not known to Archbishop Lefebvre.
There is no ambiguity when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally. -Lionel Andrades
The
Doctrinal Errors of Vatican Council II come from the public mistake made in the
1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston (LOHO). So there was a New
Theology at Vatican Council II which said outside the Catholic Church there is
known salvation.The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is obsolete.
Before the 1949 LOHO, the Church taught that outside the
Church there is no salvation, there is no known salvation.
Since
Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, among others accepted the mistake
in the 1949 LOHO and at Vatican Council II.There was a break with the
infallible teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation.
So
the infallible teaching, of three Church Councils, which defined extra
ecclesiam nulla salus, was put away.
It was reasoned, with the false premise and inference, that Vatican Council II was a revolution in the Church, a new
revelation and an opportunity to change faith and morals.So
there is a ‘new magisterium’ in the Church which approves Vatican Council II
interpreted irrationally and not rationally.It interprets the Creeds,
Catechisms and Councils, irrationally and not rationally. This is often
considered ‘magisterial’ even by the SSPX, when it really is heretical and is
produced by dishonest reasoning, which is not corrected by even the SSPX. - Lionel Andrades
Henri Du Bac
and Maurice Blondel are not responsible for the Neo Modernism on the eve
of Vatican Council II since if we interpret the Council rationally, without
confusing what is invisible as being visible, the Church returns immediately to
the pre-Vatican Council II exclusivist ecclesiology. The Catholic Church
returns to traditional scholasticism.
Fr.Dominic
Bourmand in his book 100 years of modernism fails to notice the objective
error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston which was repeated at Vatican Council II. The 1949 Letter which confused
what is invisible as being visible is referenced in Lumen Gentium 16 of Vatican
Council II.
Without this
error, still accepted by the SSPX and the popes, Vatican Council II emerges rational
and traditional, when Lumen Gentium 16, for example is interpreted as a
hypothetical case.
So the New
Theology comes from the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office. At least it was made
official in the 1949 LOHO. Though traces of the error were also there at Baltimore, when
the Baltimore Catechism was issued and the baptism of desire was placed in the
baptism section.-Lionel Andrades
If a non Catholic goes or does not go to Heaven in any particular case it can only be known to God, the norm for salvation is faith and baptism (AG 7), the norm is the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), the Catechism of the Catholic Church says ‘the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude’. – Catechism of the Catholic Church, The Necessity of Baptism, 1257
If a non Catholic goes or does not go to Heaven in any particular case it can only be known to God, the norm for salvation is faith and baptism (AG 7), the norm is the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), the Catechism of the Catholic Church says ‘the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude’. – Catechism of the Catholic Church, The Necessity of Baptism, 1257
We do not know of any non Catholic in 2024 who is an exception for the dogma EENS defined by the Fourth Lateran Council of Pope Honorius III (1215) etc, which did not mention any exception. Since, the baptism of desire was always invisible and it could only be known to God. This is a given, it is a constant in the Church over the centuries.
We do not know of a St.Emerentiana, a Dismas or an Emperor Valentianan II in 1965-2024 who will be an exception for the Athanasius Creed, which says all need to be Catholic for salvation. If someone is saved in invincible ignorance, again, it would not be known to us on earth.
We cannot name a particular person who will go to Heaven with the baptism of desire or blood and without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.
‘Whosoever will be saved before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.-Athanasius Creed
There are no literal cases of the baptism of desire said Bishop Athanasius Schneider in an interview with Dr. Taylor Marshall. Marshall confirmed that there are no explicit cases of St. Thomas Aquinas’s implicit baptism of desire. This is common sense.
Where is the particular case of a baptism of desire in 2024 for Fr. Robinson? Does he know of someone saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance since 1965? The baptism of desire is not the norm for salvation.
St.Thomas Aquinas held the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.
The Holy Spirit has taught the Church over the centuries, that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. This is a de fide teaching. It is supported by Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846, the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24 Q,27Q) etc.
When I meet a non Catholic I know that the person is oriented to Hell unless he or she is baptised in the Church and has Catholic faith at the time of death and is living the Catholic faith, without mortal sin on his or her soul.
When I see a non Catholic I know he or she is oriented to Hell not because I can judge personally but because the Catholic Church teaches this in the dogma EENS, Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other Magisterial Documents, when they are interpreted rationally i.e when these Documents are interpreted without confusing what is invisible as being visible in the present times.-Lionel Andrades
For Brother Andre Marie micm, prior, at the St. Benedict Cener in New Hampshire, there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict CCC 845,846 ( Outside the Church there is no salvation) or Ad Gentes 7, which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.He does not confuse invisible cases as being visible. This is the mistake of Fr. Robinson and the SSPX bishops today.
At the time 18:21 on this video Fr. Robinson says that one of the signatories of the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston relative to Fr. Leonard Feeney was Cardinal Ottaviani.
Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani was the secretary of the Holy Office (Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith) from 1959 to 1966. He was made a cardinal by Pope Pius XII, in 1953 during whose pontificate the 1949 LOHO was issued, according to Wikipedia..
Cardinal Ottaviani, like the popes from Pius XII and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre accepted the 1949 LOHO with no correction. They all assumed that invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This was an objective and public mistake .
The same false reasoning was brought to Vatican Council II by Fr. Karl Rahner sj, Fr.Joseph Ratzinger sj, and other Council Fathers. They projected LG 8, 14, 15, 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II as being physically visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church and so practical exceptions for the past ecclesiocentrism of the Church, which had become obsolete for them.
The SSPX bishops followed this false reasoning and so for them even today, Vatican Council II is a rupture with the dogma EENS, the Athanasius Creed, the Syllabus of Errors and the rest of Tradition.
But for the St. Benedict Center in Richmond, New Hampshire, LG 8,14,15,16 etc refer to invisible and hypothetical cases only in 2024. So they are not exceptions for the dogma EENS, the Feeneyite version, the traditional version. The Council has a continuity with Tradition. Similarly the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 says outside the Church there is no salvation. For Brother Andre Marie micm, prior, at the St. Benedict Cener in New Hampshire, there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict CCC 845,846 Outside the Church there is no salvation) or Ad Gentes 7, which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.He does not confuse invisible cases as being visible. This is the mistake of Fr. Robinson and the SSPX bishops today.-Lionel Andrades
SSPX's Fr. Robinson is still saying invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which he calls de fide
At the time 17:11 on this video Fr. Robinson cites the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston which tells us that physically invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are physically visible examples of salvation outside the Catholic Church and so are practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus of the Church Councils (1215,1442 etc) , which did not mention any exceptions. This was supposed to be 'the nuanced' new teaching of the Church which contradicted the traditional Feeneyite, dogmatic version, which Fr. Robinson also says is de fide.
Why should Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Centers have said that invisible cases of the baptism of desire and being saved invincible ignorance were visible exceptions for the traditional strict interpretation of EENS, that of the Council of Florence and the Fourth Lateran Council ?
Why should they accept a new doctrine on salvation which is also irrational, heretical, non traditional and dishonest ?
If a non Catholic goes or does not go to Heaven in any particular case it can only be known to God, the norm for salvation is faith and baptism (AG 7), the norm is the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS), the Catechism of the Catholic Church says ‘the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude’. – Catechism of the Catholic Church, The Necessity of Baptism, 1257
We do not know of any non Catholic in 2024 who is an exception for the dogma EENS defined by the Fourth Lateran Council of Pope Honorius III (1215) etc, which did not mention any exception. Since, the baptism of desire was always invisible and it could only be known to God. This is a given, it is a constant in the Church over the centuries.
We do not know of a St.Emerentiana, a Dismas or an Emperor Valentianan II in 1965-2024 who will be an exception for the Athanasius Creed, which says all need to be Catholic for salvation. If someone is saved in invincible ignorance, again, it would not be known to us on earth.
We cannot name a particular person who will go to Heaven with the baptism of desire or blood and without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.
‘Whosoever will be saved before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.-Athanasius Creed
There are no literal cases of the baptism of desire said Bishop Athanasius Schneider in an interview with Dr. Taylor Marshall. Marshall confirmed that there are no explicit cases of St. Thomas Aquinas’s implicit baptism of desire. This is common sense.
Where is the particular case of a baptism of desire in 2024 for Fr. Robinson? Does he know of someone saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance since 1965? The baptism of desire is not the norm for salvation.
St.Thomas Aquinas held the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.
The Holy Spirit has taught the Church over the centuries, that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. This is a de fide teaching. It is supported by Vatican Council II ( Ad Gentes 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846, the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( 24 Q,27Q) etc.
When I meet a non Catholic I know that the person is oriented to Hell unless he or she is baptised in the Church and has Catholic faith at the time of death and is living the Catholic faith, without mortal sin on his or her soul.
When I see a non Catholic I know he or she is oriented to Hell not because I can judge personally but because the Catholic Church teaches this in the dogma EENS, Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other Magisterial Documents, when they are interpreted rationally i.e they do not confuse what is invisible as being visible in the present times. -Lionel Andrades
APRIL 1, 2024
Cindy Wooden, Fr. Georges de Laire and Brother Andre Marie micm, are all Feeneyites on extra ecclesiam nulla salus when Vatican Council II is interpreted rationally by them
Vatican Council II can only be interpreted rationally. This is the only ethical option available. So Fr. Georges de Laire is a Feeneyite on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus like Brother Andre Marie micm and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in New Hampshire , USA.
The correspondents of the National Catholic Reporter can only be 'progressive' if they interpret Vatican Council II irrationally, dishonestly and so non traditionally. There is no more support for their liberalism when Vatican Council II is interpreted honestly. There automatically is a hermeneutic of continuity with Tradition.
The line in purple is important. It decides if Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal.
When Fr. Georges de Laire interprets hypothetical cases as just being hypothetical in Vatican Council II, then there are no practical exceptions for the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, mentioned in the text of Vatican Council II.
All the religioius communities, parish priests and rectors can interpret invisible cases of LG 8,14,15,16,UR 3, NA 2 etc in Vatican Council II as not being objectively visible exceptions for the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation or Ad Gentes 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.There is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Ad Gentes 7 or the Catechism of the Catholic Church (845,846 Outside the Church there is no salvation).
- Lionel Andrades
APRIL 5, 2024
The baptism of desire was always invisible and it could only be known to God. This is a given, it is a constant in the Church over the centuries. Taylor Marshall confirmed that there are no explicit cases of St. Thomas Aquinas’s implicit baptism of desire. This is common sense.
Posts
