Latest topics
» Polish traditionalists handicapped : Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake
Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:20 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in the USA when they interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational premise deny the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Bishop Robert J.McManus and Brother Thomas Augustine MICM,Superior,St.Benedict Center,Still River,MA, interpret Vatican Council II with the 'possibilites are exceptions' error
Mon Nov 06, 2017 8:47 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX must be aware of the deception of Abp.Guido Pozzo and confront it
Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Two popes must ask all Catholics to affirm Vatican Council II (premise-free) as they do
Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:16 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Still River Ma., could lose canomical status because of Feeneyism
Sat Oct 28, 2017 5:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

»  Traditionalists oppose Pope Francis on morals but give him a pass on salvation
Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Someone needs to help Cardinal Luiz Ladaria, Archbishop Pozzo and Archbishop Di Noia see how they use a false premise to interpret Vatican Council II
Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:53 pm by Lionel L. Andrades

» Robert Siscoe and John of St. Thomas Respond to Fr. Cekada
Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Still no denial from Abp.Guido Pozzo : SSPX must accept Vatican Council II with a false doctrine and the new theology based on an irrational premise Image result for Photo of Archbishop Guido Pozzo
Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:03 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Five Catholic academics accept the development of doctrine on salvation and Vatican Council II but reject it on morals and the death penalty
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:32 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Dr.Robert Fastiggi wants Bishop Donald Sanborn and Chris Ferrara to affirm a magisterium in heresy and schism like him
Sun Oct 22, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» ]Christine Niles uses the false premise to interpret magisterial documents
Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX has a right to canonical status when they correct their doctrinal error in the 'chart'
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No one shows Massimo Faggioli his precise theological and philosophical mistake
Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:07 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Rethink "Feeneyism"?
Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:02 pm by tornpage

» Brother Andre Marie MICM, the Prior at the St. Benedict Center does not correct Frs.Brian Harrison and Cekada,Bishops Sanborn,Pirvanus,Kelly and Fellay
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:24 pm by MRyan

» Revisiting Diocese/Parish Screening Policy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 4:03 pm by MRyan

» When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy
Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm by MRyan

» Doctrinal talks were conducted with Fr.Gleize on 'the other side'
Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:08 am by Lionel L. Andrades


Pope Benedict permitted Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead in doctrinal talks since he was a liberal ?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Pope Benedict permitted Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead in doctrinal talks since he was a liberal ?

Post  Lionel L. Andrades on Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:59 am

JUNE 26, 2017

Pope Benedict permitted Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead in doctrinal talks since he was a liberal ?
Comment: Division: SSPX’s French District Argues Against Agreement
He(Fr.Gleize) is part of the problem.
He represented the SSPX in doctrinal talks with the Vatican which was approved by Cardinal Ratzinger.He was interpreting Vatican Council II and other documents with Cushingism and so was the Vatican side. He did not seem to have a clue to it.

DOCTRINALLY: THE POPE'S MAN
Did Pope Benedict XVI permit Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead the SSPX side in doctrinal talks with the Vatican since he knew that he was a liberal who held there was known salvation outside the Church and so interpreted Vatican Council II with irrational Cushingism instead of the traditional Feeneyism, which the pope also rejected?
The SSPX-Vatican doctrinal talks were a failure. Both sides were interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism. The Vatican would accept the non traditional conclusion and the SSPX would reject the rupture with Tradition, in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus).
So the talks became a simple formality. Neither of the two sides could say precisely what was the specific change in doctrine, other than it was visible that Vatican Council II( Cushngiite) was a rupture with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, the Syllabus of Errors etc.
Fr.Jean Marie Gleize who teaches Ecclesiology at Econe and was the leader of the SSPX group of theologians was 'Pope Benedict's man'.The talks were not going to get any where.
Since for Gleize too Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century since there was a 'development' with Vatican Council II ( Cushingite).Neither would Pope Benedict or Fr. Gleize would say in March 2016 that Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) however would not be a development with the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus as it was known to the magisterium in the 16th century.The pope through this interview in Avvenire publically announced the heresy and no one from the SSPX raised an objection.
Fr.Gleize and Pope Benedict were both liberals, knowing or unknowingly, I do not know.
Gleize had a golden moment to put things correct at the time of the doctrinal talks during the pontificate of Pope Benedict.

x-big/public/news/_win2679.jpg
DOCTRINAL ANNOUNCEMENT NEEDED FROM THE SSPX
He could have called a press conference and announced :
1.Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism and the Vatican Curia is using irrational Cushingism and so the conclusion is a rupture with Tradition.This is unacceptable.Rome must come back to the Faith.,
2.The SSPX chooses to interpret Vatican Council II with Feeneyism and so there is no 'development' with reference to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
3.The CDF/Ecclesia Dei is interpreting all the Catechisms with irrational Cushingism and this is unacceptable.
4.The SSPX chooses to interpret the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Catechism of Pope Pius X, Baltimore Catechism and the Cathechism of the Catholic Church with rati
onal Feeneyite philosophy and theology.5.The references to invincible ignorance and the catechumen who dies before he received the baptism of water which he sought and is yet saved, refers to physically invisible cases, hypothetical cases, people not personally known.So there is nothing in Mystici Corporis , Quanta Cura etc to contradict the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
6.There is no doctrinal change in the pre and post Vatican Council II ecclesiology which is in harmony with the interpretation of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus according to the missionaries in the 16th century. This must be accepted by all Catholics in including the CDF/Ecclesia Dei.There is continuity with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus(Feeneyite), Vatican Council II( Feeneyite), Catechisms interpreted with Feeneyism.

-Lionel Andrades

June 24, 2017
Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong
eucharistandmission.blogspot.ro/…/frjean-marie-gl…

NOVEMBER 15, 2013
Fr.Jean Marie Gleize who made an objective error in ecclesiology protests the beatification
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/11/frjean-marie-gleize-who-made-objective.html

Lionel L. Andrades

Posts : 46
Reputation : 118
Join date : 2015-05-11

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum