Latest topics
» SSPX cannot accept Vatican Council II because of the restrictions placed by the Jewish Left
Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:36 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Vatican (CDF/Ecclesia Dei) has no objection if the SSPX and all religious communities affirm Vatican Council II (without the premise)
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:29 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Piazza Spagna - mission
Sun Dec 10, 2017 8:06 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Fund,Catholic organisation needed to help Catholic priests in Italy like Fr. Alessandro Minutella
Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:52 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Catholic theocracy- Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite) essential
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:57 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» The Social Reign of Christ the King can be seen based on Cushingite or Feeneyite theology, Vatican Council II with the false premise or without it
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:52 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» When Card. Ladaria and Bp Fellay meet a non Catholic they know he or she is oriented to Hell because the Church lic Church inspired by the Holy Spirit teaches this
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:49 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No denial from Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Fellay : two interpretations of Vatican Council II and theirs is the irrational one
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:44 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Ask Cardinal Ladaria a few questions when you meet him
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:42 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Now it is the time for cardinals Kasper and Marx to reject Vatican Council II
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:37 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» No denial from Cardinal Ladaria, CDF : schism from the Left over Vatican Council II
Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:35 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» Schism over Vatican Council II ?
Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:30 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» SSPX recognises that Abp.Lefebvre's writings are obsolete : seminaries have to make the correction
Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:25 am by Lionel L. Andrades

» 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


When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy

Go down

When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy

Post  Lionel L. Andrades on Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:40 am

JUNE 27, 2017
When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy

When the sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake since theoretical and hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II cannot be explicit exceptions to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) they will have a traditional interpretation of Vatican Council.It is a different Vatican Council II then the one they knew over the last 50 years.


Vatican Council II becomes traditional on Feeneyite Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the old ecclesiology. There would be no exceptions to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus mentioned in Vatican Council II. Invisible cases cannot be exceptions to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.



Of course the whole world will still be interpreting the Council with the false premise, with Cushingism but they have a choice.


The sedes and trads  at least can no more say that for them personally the popes since John XXIII are in heresy. Since now Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) would not contradict the old ecclesiology of the Church.

Catholics could then interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and the Syllabus of Errors.Pope John XXIII would not be in heresy since Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) is not heretical.



k]]The problem with Vatican Council II for the sedes and trads really began with their error in 1949. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, like Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, did not notice the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Invisible baptism of desire was assumed to be visible. It brought a new way of thinking into the Church.
l
This new theory, resulted in a new theology. It wrongly accepted hypothetical cases as being concrete exceptions to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. This was the irrational thinking at Vatican Council II.

This was the irrational philosophy of Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits. It was not opposed by Rahner and Ratzinger.Instead they incorporated the error into the Church.

Fr.Rahner placed the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the Denzinger and Cardinal Ratzinger supported the error as the Prefect of the CDF.
Image result for Photos of bad Theology

It is still possible to re-interpret the hypothetical cases as just being hypothetical and then there are no exceptions to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in Vatican Council II.Even though a bad theology was used at Vatican Council we can interpret the Council text without using that theology, the new theology.

When there is no change in ecclesiology, since there is no known salvation outside the Church; there are no practical cases, which would contradict Feeneyite Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, Vatican Council II becomes traditional because of the new interpretation without the bad theology. The ecclesiology of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II would be the same.

So if Bishop Donald Sanborn accepts that a mistake was made during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII; the pope overlooked the error in the Letter of the Holy Office, then Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI were not in heresy. This contradicts the position he held in the debate with the professor of theology at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, Robert Fastiggi.

So there would be a continuity in the ecclesiology of the Church over the centuries. The Council would not be a rupture with Tradition.
Image result for Photo wager
Bishop Sanborn can now  contact the Chancery.Report to the local bishop as he promised he would do. Since his challenge during the debate with Fastiggi has been met .

He wagered that if any one could show him how Vatican Council II was not heretical and a rupture with the past he would leave his sedevacantism.
He has now before him a Vatican Council II which can be interpreted without an irrational premise.So it has a continuity with the popes over the centuries
.-Lionel Andrades

June 26, 2017
Sedes and trads have chosen the interpretation of the Masons and liberals : they deny Jesus as He was known before Pius XII
eucharistandmission.blogspot.ro/…/sedes-and-trads…[/b]

Lionel L. Andrades

Posts : 59
Reputation : 157
Join date : 2015-05-11

Back to top Go down

Re: When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy

Post  MRyan on Wed Jun 28, 2017 3:08 pm

Lionel L. Andrades wrote:JUNE 27, 2017
When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy


The problem with Vatican Council II for the sedes and trads really began with their error in 1949. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, like Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, did not notice the objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. Invisible baptism of desire was assumed to be visible. It brought a new way of thinking into the Church.
Lionel,

No, the problem is with your faulty analysis which is perfectly captured in your erroneous statement above, a fact which has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, which you have never actually addressed except to avoid the issue by repeating the same faulty mantra.  And so we go in circles.

Let’s try this again.

The 1949 Letter of the Holy Office did not, in point of fact, assume that the invisible sanctification made possible through the bonds of supernatural faith and charity (known as the baptisms of desire and of blood) was actually visible in the person thus sanctified; no, the Letter was stating an objective truth, to wit, that when the proper conditions/dispositions are present, a soul, even prior to and/or without actual sacramental ablution, may attain a state of sanctification (the grace of salvation) and internal spiritual unity with Christ and His Church even if lacking visible corporate external membership.  The Letter further acknowledges that a state of sanctification is intrinsic to one’s salvation, while external incorporation (membership in the Church) is extrinsically necessary (as a necessity of means).  

In other words, in no way did the subject Letter assume that the grace of sanctification/salvation becomes “visible” in the person who may obtain such a state, no more than a state of grace becomes “visible” in a baptized adult. To reaffirm the dispositions necessary to obtain the grace of sanctification in adults, and to declare that anyone who obtains the state of grace through the bonds of supernatural faith and charity may be saved is not the same thing as a justified person becoming a “visible” manifestation of justification/salvation. The only visible “walking” and non-walking sanctified souls who can be said to be absolutely assured of their salvation are baptized infants.  

The challenge for you is to cite the passage(s) in the 1949 Holy Office Letter where it is explicitly states or unambiguously infers that the “Invisible baptism of desire was assumed to be visible”. Nonsense.

Case in point, the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches: “should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”

Nowhere does the Catechism suggest that what is assured (grace/salvation) provided the proper dispositions are present becomes visibly manifest in the person who is invisibly sanctified in such a manner. The Catechism, like the 1949 Letter, is simply stating an objective truth.

All of your subsequent errors and unjust accusations against the Church, popes, saints and theologians who hold and teach the same universal doctrine are born of this one fundamental and egregious error.

The fact that you are the only person on planet earth who makes such a fundamental error in logic should tell you something.
avatar
MRyan

Posts : 2276
Reputation : 2448
Join date : 2010-12-18

Back to top Go down

Back to top


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