Latest topics
» 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 ?
Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:59 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Padre Pio told Fr.Gabriel Amorth," It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church" -Bishop Richard Williamson
Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Mons. Brunero Gherardini misled the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and many traditionalists
Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong
Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Andre Marie MICM too is teaching error : Bishop Sanborn cannot report at the Chancery office
Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:50 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magsiterial Heresy ?
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre
Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:34 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Brother Francis MICM made a mistake on Vatican Council II
Sat Sep 26, 2015 5:14 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Legion of Christ universities in Rome adapt to leftist laws
Fri May 22, 2015 7:53 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» CM, SSPX, MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Thu May 21, 2015 4:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX and Church Militant are using the same liberal theology and are unaware of it
Wed May 20, 2015 9:54 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
Tue May 19, 2015 10:10 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fr.John Zuhlsdorf condones Mass for suicide
Tue May 19, 2015 9:18 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican Council II is traditional or liberal depending on how you interpret the Letter of the Holy Office
Mon May 18, 2015 5:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Church Militant unable to answer questions on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Sun May 17, 2015 5:55 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 : 30
Reputation : 74
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