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


No one shows Massimo Faggioli his precise theological and philosophical mistake

View previous topic View next topic Go down

No one shows Massimo Faggioli his precise theological and philosophical mistake

Post  Lionel L. Andrades on Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:07 am

October 19, 2017
And Faggioli and the rest get away with it once again.

Still no one has shown Massimo Faggioli his mistake. They have wondered at this audacity in saying the old theology and ecclesiology, like the Syllabus of Errors exists no more.Yet no one has shown him his precise theological and philosophical mistake.He cites Vatican Council II and no has told him how there can be two interpretations of the Council  and his version is irrational since he uses an irrational premise.So Vatican Council II emerges as a rupture with Tradition for him.It is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
The Voice of the Family and Catholic Identity Conference speakers and participants this month, are in the dark and all they would do is wrongly agree with Faggioli and condemn Vatican Council II, as break with Tradition-when it is not.
To show Massimo Faggioli where he is wrong they would first have to know that the Holy Office 1949 used the false premise and made an objective mistake in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.It was the Archbishop of Boston,Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits who were in heresy.It was the magisterium at that time which was irrational and in heresy.
Secondly they must be aware of the link between the Fr. Leonard Feeney case and the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The link is there with the new theology created with a false premise.
Thirdly the rupture with traditional Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in 1949 and Vatican Council II being a rupture with traditional Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus in 1965  by Faggioli was with the false premise.
The same false premise is used by Catholic traditionalists and conservatives to interpret Vatican Council II today.They are following Archbishop Lefebvre and the apologists of his time.
Until today they still do not know how to interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise.
If they knew about it they could show Massimo Faggioli how he and the present magisterium and most Catholics, have made a mistake primarily, with their irrational philosophy.
Recently Maika Hickson on the blog 1Peter5 asked her sources , how could Pope Benedict say in March 2016, that Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century.She got no answers.
This was expected.
Since even for Pope Benedict Vatican Council II has to be interpreted with the false premise. Dr.Maika Hickson did not know about the false premise and there was no one to explain it to her.
Pope Benedict is not going to do it.
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J is not going to do it.They have a stake in this. They would be covering up their error by keeping quiet.If the false premise is discovered all their false theology and manipulations, whatever their motive, would be exposed.
Pope Francis and Cardinal Muller are not gong to explain to her exactly what is the false premise.
The traditionalists do not seem to know otherwise they would have responded forthright against Faggioli.
So we wait.
And Faggioli and the rest get away with it once again.

-Lionel Andrades.


OCTOBER 8, 2017
Massimo Faggioli and Cardinal Burke have to be shown their theological mistake : rejection of the Syllabus of Errors with a false premise
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/massimo-faggioli-and-cardinal-burke.html
___________________________________________________

OCTOBER 15, 2017
Dr.Maike Hickson does not get answers at the Vatican
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/drmaike-hickson-does-not-get-answers-at.html

OCTOBER 16, 2017
Apologetics for Maike Hickson when she is at the Vatican
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/apologetics-for-maike-hickson-when-she.html

OCTOBER 17, 2017
There are two interpretations of Vatican Council II today and the magisterial one is a scandal : Catholic writers are not asking the Vatican the right questions
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/there-are-two-interpretations-of.html

OCTOBER 18, 2017
Maike Hickson could ask for a clarification from Cardinal Muller on the SSPX canonical status :objective error in interview with Pentin
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/maike-hickson-needs-clarification-from.html

___________________________________________

October 13,2017
Maike Hickson could ask Abp.Guido Pozzo and the SSPX the relevant questions : right to canonical status http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/maike-hickson-could-ask-abpguido-pozzo.html
_____________________________________________________

OCTOBER 9, 2017
Abp. Pozzo wanted Bishop Fellay to interpret the doctrinal preamble with an irrational premise : ignorance or scandal ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/abp-pozzo-wanted-bishop-fellay-to.html

OCTOBER 9, 2017
Abp.Pozzo wanted the SSPX to sign the doctrinal preamble with an irrational premise : it's unethical
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/abppozzo-wanted-sspx-to-sign-doctrinal_9.html

OCTOBER 4, 2017
SSPX must continue to reject Vatican Council II (Cushingite) : do not compromise like Card. Raymond Burke, Michael Voris and others
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/sspx-must-continue-to-reject-vatican.html

OCTOBER 2, 2017
Cardinal Burke has made an in principle mistake in faith and morals since we cannot judge exceptions to the general rule on mortal sin and exclusive salvation
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/cardinal-burke-has-made-in-principle.html

OCTOBER 2, 2017
The issue is Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and they don't know: Cardinal Burke on SSPX schism
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/the-issue-is-vatican-council-ii.html

SEPTEMBER 29, 2017
There is no denial from 62-plus scholars who issued the Filial Correction
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/09/there-is-no-denial-from-62-plus.html

SEPTEMBER 23, 2017
The Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit teaches that all non Catholics in 2017 need to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation.This is Vatican Council II and the Catechism : present popes are denying this
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/09/the-catholic-church-guided-by-holy.html

SEPTEMBER 22, 2017
If any one says that invisible people are visible in general at the same time on earth with reference to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus he has contradicted the Principle of Non Contradiction : error of popes from Pius XII to Francis
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/09/if-any-one-says-that-invisible-people.html

____________________________________________

TERMS EXPLAINED
Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus).There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.It affirms traditional Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus like the missionaries and magisterium of the 16th century.

Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.There are exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church for salvation.It wronly assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.So it uses the false premise to reject the traditional interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

Irrational premise: It is assuming hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but instead are objective cases in the present times.

It assumes invisible and unknown people are visible and unknown in our reality.

Baptism of Desire ( premise-free): It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it, the baptism of desire, is not relevant to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

Baptism of Desire (with the false premise): It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved.A known person is assumed to be known.

Invincible Ignorance ( premise-free): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is a hypothetical case it is not an exception to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.The false premise was not used.

Invincible Ignorance (with the false premise): This refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is an exception to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.

Council of Florence: One of the three Councils which defined the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.It did not mention any exception.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was premise-free.

Liberal theologians: They re-interpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They used the false premise.

Vatican Council II (with the premise): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

Vatican Council II ( premise-free):It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II without the false premise.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( premise-free),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).

Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston:(with the false premise) It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.It used the false premise.

Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( premise-free). It means interpreting the first part of the  the Letter without the false premise.Only the first part.It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus does not mention any exceptions.However the second part of the Letter contradicts the first part since it uses the false premise.

Letter of the Holy Office ( with the false premise).The second part of the Letter rejects the traditional interpretation of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( with the premise) as being exceptions to Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (premise-free). In other words they are mistaken for being visible and known cases when they really are invisible for us.It wrongly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.

Baltimore Catechism: It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with the confusion.It can be interpreted premise-free.

Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted as being premise -free. The references to invincible ignorance etc have to be interpreted without the false premise. So it does not contradict the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus( premise-free).

Nicene Creed ( with the premise): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms when the false premise is used in the interpretation. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.This is an irrational but common understanding.

Nicene Creed ( premise-free): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.

New Theology: : (with the premise) It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.With the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.It is of course based on the false premise.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( with the false premise).It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.The baptism of desire( with the premise), baptism of blood( with the premise) and being saved in invincible ignorance( with the premise) are exceptions to dogma as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( premise-free): It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.Invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not visible exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Catholic Church for salvation.

Catechism of the Catholic Church ( with the premise): CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus( premise-free). So this is an interpretation of the Catechism with the false premise.

Catechism of the Catholic Church ( premise-free): CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known cases in the present times of God not being not limited to the Sacraments(CCC1257).

When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needing to formally enter the Church.It is a reference to a hypothetical case and not somebody known. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.

________________________


Massimo Faggioli like Cardinal Raymond Burke does not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus).[/

b]

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Instead they assume  hypothetical references in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 are non hypothetical and are examples of objective cases, known people saved outside the Church.So these documents become a rupture with Tradition when they really are not.


EXAMPLES OF THE HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE CATECHISM FOR THEM WHICH ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.[/

[b]b]
1. 'God is not limited to the Sacraments'(CCC 1257)
'2.all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body'(CC(CCC 846).
3. Those 'justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians'(CCC 818).
4. They are 'joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."(CCC 838).
5. 'the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims'(CCC 841).

[/b]

EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II FOR THEM WHICH ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL

[b][b].
1. 'elements of sanctification and truth'in other religions(LG Cool,
2..'good and holy' things in other religions(NA 2),
3..'a ray of that Truth which enlightens' all men(NA 2),
4.'imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3),
5.' people of good will in other religions'(GS 22),
6.' seeds of the Word'(AG 11),
7.'invincible ignorance'(LG 16),
8.'a good conscience'(LG 16) etc.

[/b][/b][/b]

HYPOTHETICAL REFERENCES IN THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON WHICH FOR THEM ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.[/

[b][b][b]b]
1.Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.(we do not know who this person is in particular so it is a hypothetical case.)
2.In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.(we do not know any one in particular as such so this is a hypothetical case.)
3.Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.( if there is any such person he or she would only be known to God. So this passage is irrelevant to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. It cannot be an exception.Since it is a reference to an invisible person for us.)
4.However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.(it is a reference to an unknown catechumen)
5.For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.( and we do not know any in particular.So this is a theoretical and hypothetical reference) -Lionel Andrades
___________________________________
[/b][/b][/b]

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