Latest topics
» Angelqueen.org???
Tue Oct 16, 2018 8:38 am by Paul

» SSPX cannot accept Vatican Council II because of the restrictions placed by the Jewish Left
Wed Apr 18, 2018 5:55 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


SSPX has a right to canonical status when they correct their doctrinal error in the 'chart'

Go down

SSPX has a right to canonical status when they correct their doctrinal error in the 'chart'

Post  Lionel L. Andrades on Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:25 am

The SSPX has a right to canonical status in the Catholic Church but like other religious communities they are making a theological and doctrinal error which needs to be corrected.The other religious communities in the Church are affirming Vatican Council II with the error and so have canonical status.
The SSPX can now affirm Vatican Council II by avoiding  the use of a false premise, as shown in the 'chart' below.
So they must choose to interpret Church documents with the premise-free sign in the choice below.
They must reject the interpretation of Church documents without the premise.They must choose Vatican Council II ( premise-free).They will then be in harmony with the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church and the Syllabus of Errors.

CHART FOR CORRECTING THEOLOGICAL AND DOCTRINAL ERROR BY CHOOSING THE PREMISE-FREE OPTION.[/

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.
________________________

The SSPX like Massimo Faggioli like Cardinal Raymond Burke do not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus).
“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.
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).

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

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

October 19, 2017
And Faggioli and the rest get away with it once again.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/10/and-faggioli-and-rest-get-away-with-it.html

Lionel L. Andrades

Posts : 60
Reputation : 158
Join date : 2015-05-11

Back to top Go down

Back to top


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