Il Papa e i CDF stanno insegnando gli stessi errori di fatto.

Questo stesso errore è stato fatto dall’ Arcivescovo di Boston,USA quando Don Leonard Feeney era vivo. Non c’era apologia fatta a Don Leonard Feeney.In effeti ò stato penalizzato per parlare della verità della Fede.

E’ un fatto che noi non consciamo la gente che ha ricevuto la salvezza nel 2012 nell’ ignoranza invincible, ecc.

Cosi non c’e contraddizione all’interpretazione letterale del dogma ed alla interpretazione di Don Leonard Feeney.

E’un fatto obiettivo che noi non possiamo incontrare i non cattolici che hanno ricevuto la salvezza con il battesimo di desiderio.

Cosi il battesimo di desiderio non può fare mai un’ eccezione.Nessun documento del Magistero ha queste pretese ma i CDF fa questio presupposto errato.

Non neghiamo la possibilità di qualcuno che sia salvato nell’ ignoranza invincible, ecc.noi non reclamiamo che sono eccezioni dell’interpretazione letterale del Extra ecclesiam nulla salus ed al Concilio Vaticano II (AG 7).

Il peccato mortale, l’eresia ed il sacrilegio sono relativi inoltre per i Papi, i Cardinali ed i Vescovi.Anche loro possono andare all’inferno.

Come può qualcuno nella Professione di Fede recitate la dottrina religiosa di Nicene e dire “Credo in un Battesimo per il perdono dei peccati” e realmente intendere tre battesimi.

Rispetto il Papa ed i Cardinali William Levada,Gerhard Muller e Luiz Ladaria.Sto precisando un erroe di buonsenso che può essere identificato ed immediatamente essere corretto.

Il CDF potrebbe dire che non sappiamo che qualche caso particolare nei tempi attuali di ignoranza invincible e nel Battesimo di desiderio sia salvato, e cosi non ci possono essere eccezioni di facto ed esplicite al dogma ed al Concilio Vaticano II.

Questo argomento è stato conosciuto a lung da molti cattolici.Molti sacerdoti ai quali ho parlato su questa questione non vogliono essere citati. Per rispetto per Santo Padre probabilmente mantengono il silenzio, o per proteggere i loro privilegi e posizioni.Molti di loro per parlare della verità nell’interesse della Chiesa sono denominati, in senso peggiorativo “Feeneyities” dai mezzi secolari e dai liberali.Stanno spiegando che cosa sto dicendo in modi diversi.

La questione è inoltre l’Eucarestio.Come può qualcuno nell’ eresia pubblica, un’eresia di prima categoria, con il rifiuto della dottrina religiosa di Credo Niceno,offrire la Santa Messa o ricevere l’Eucarestia?

-Lionel Andrades

LA COMUNITÀ DI DON LEONARD FEENEY A WORCESTER,USA PUÒ AFFERMARE L'INTERPRETAZIONE LETTERALE DEL DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS SECONDO LA DIOCESI

Decisione storica per Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Secondo la diocesi di Worcester,USA,non ci sono casi conosciuti di persone salvate nell'ignoranza invincibile e nel battesimo di desiderio. Così non ci sono eccezioni conosciute dell’ interpretazione letterale del dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Nessuno fa eccezione per Ad Gentes 7, Concilio Vaticano II. Così le comunità di Don Leonard Feeney a Worcester, a cui sono state assegnate la condizione canonica, possono affermare il dogma come Don.Leonard Feeney.

Le communità Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, compresa una comunità monastica a Worcester, sono liberi di affermare del l’interpretazione del dogma,vecchia di secoli,d’accordo con il Concilio Vaticano II (AG 7).

Anche altre comunità religiose nella diocesi sono libere di affermare (AG 7) che tutti hanno bisogno della Fede Cattolica e del battesimo di aqua per la salvezza (per evitare l’inferno) e non c’è eccezione conosciuta di ignoranza invincibile e di buona coscienza (LG 16).

Accettano la possibilità di gente salvata nell'ignoranza, ecc.ma riconoscono che in realtà questi casi sono conosciuti soltanto a Dio e sono sconosciuti a noi. Così non c’e niente nel Concilio Vaticano, per esempio ‘seme della Parola’ ecc, che contraddice il dogma come sa Don.Leonard Feeney, Suor Catherine Goddard Clarke, Fra.Francis MICM ed altri fondatori degli Slaves of the Immaculate heart of Mary.- Lionel Andrades

Translation:
 

COMMUNITY OF FR. LEONARD FEENEY IN WORCESTER CAN AFFIRM THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS ACCORDING TO THE DIOCESE

Historic decision for the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

According to the diocese of Worcester,USA there are no known cases of persons saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

So there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Neither are there exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.

So the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney in Worcester who have been granted canonical status, can affirm the dogma just as Fr.Leonard Feeney.

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, including a monastic community in Worcester, are free to proclaim the centuries old interpretation of the dogma in accord with Vatican Council II (AG 7).

Even other religious communities in the diocese are free to proclaim (AG 7) that all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (to avoid Hell) and there are no known exceptions of invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16).

They accept the possibility of people being saved in invinciblle ignorance etc but acknowledge that in reality these cases are known only to God and are unknown to us.

So there is nothing in Vatican Council II e.g seeds of the Word etc, which contradict the dogma as understood by Fr.Leonard Feeney,Sister Catherine Goddard Clarke, Bro.Francis MICM and other founders of the Slaves of the Immmaculate Heart of Mary.-Lionel Andrades

SSPX Priest Urges Bishop Williamson to Come to General Chapter

Father feared even that the two other Bishops, Msgr Bernard Tissier de Mallerais and Msgr Alfonso de Gallareta, will stay away from the General Chapter out of solidarity.

  

He recalled then that Msgr Fellay as a seminarian was one of the most acute listeners of the "masterful lectures" of Bishop Williamson at the seminary in Econe.

from The Eponymous Flower

Edit: Now the pieces have to be picked up and the men have to be rallied for other battles in the future against the spirit of Modernism. I found a translation of the letter at the Bellarmine forum, here.

A unification did not take place --- but perhaps it will produce at least a division?

(kreuz.net) On the 29th of June Father Charles Moulin -- the prior of the Society of Saint Pius X in the 340,000 population city of Nice in the southernmost part of France -- has written an open letter to Bishop Richard Williamson.

The letter is a reaction to the exclusion of the Bishop's appearance from the next General Chapter in Econe.

Good wishes only for the enemy?

Father Moulin is a fellow student of Bishop Fellay.

He notes on this that the "enemies of yesterday" have been treated with enormous friendliness:

For that reason it is also the case that his old "brothers in arms" who have, after so many years, could be excused a certain lack of obedience.

The freedom to defend the true Doctrine

Father Moulin stresses that the freedom to speak of Bishop Richard Williamson would be an enormous benefit to the General Superior.

Finally, he was very concerned about future prospect of independence of the Society in Apostolate and speech during the negotiations with the Vatican.

This freedom, to defend the true doctrine, is a "true and traditional privilege of every Catholic Bishop".

Attack on unity

Father Moulin can also not imagine that the General Superior by the next chapter would bypass the wisdom and insight of Msgr. Williamson.

He recalled then that Msgr Fellay as a seminarian was one of the most acute listeners of the "masterful lectures" of Bishop Williamson at the seminary in Econe.

The Father can also not imagine that the General Superior would want to shut a Bishop out from the Chapter, whom Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (+1991) himself chose.

That would break the close unity of the Society which the Archbishop desired.

He knows the enemy.

For Father Moulin, Msgr Williamson is an effective bulwark as a convert from Anglicanism, to prevent the "ever possible" protestantization of the Society.

He described Msgr Williamson as one of the greatest students of the subversive tactics of the Modernists, Old Liberals and enemies of the Church.

Solidarity of the Other SSPX Bishops?

Finally, Father feared even that the two other Bishops, Msgr Bernard Tissier de Mallerais and Msgr Alfonso de Gallareta, will stay away from the General Chapter out of solidarity.

The Father wishes that the participants of the General Chapter will find time to observe the words of St. John Chrysostom:

"There are more reasons to trust the wounds inflicted by a friend, than the kisses bestowed by an enemy."

_________________________________________

Ironies: The SSPX Now Faces the Same Force as Father Feeney in 1945

from the Eponymous Flower

Edit: It's unclear what took place in the curia that now presents such a hostile and irrational position to the Society of St. Pius X. It recalls Father Malachi Martin's chilling description of a superforce ruling in the Vatican.

Indeed, few of those Catholics who now hold the Pope explicitly responsible [e.g., Mundabor, CFN etc...] for the volt face that has returned us to the "point of departure" as Bishop Fellay describes it, would deny that there have been forces in the Vatican, predating the Council, who have often worked behind the scenes to the confusion of the faithful.

We go now from the encouraging words of Msgr Nicola Bux and others, to this cold, uncompromising and anti-rational insistence that 2 + 2 = 5 and that a document which almost no one in the clergy or the episcopacy obeys is somehow binding on the SSPX.

After reading that the new head of the CDF is like a goat to a gardener, by his own admission. I further noticed that he also likes a version of the "big tent" analogy often employed by American pro-abort politicians like Nancy Pelosi or any of their dissident confreres with collars and Sr. next to their name who refuse to leave the Church for greener, or at least more lunar, pastures spiritually speaking.

It is now an irony that the Society of St. Pius X, which was friendly to the Saint Benedict Center in better days, now finds itself at that same juncture which Father Feeney and the Saint Benedict Center found themselves in 1945, ranged against a mostly insensitive and unintelligent but effective opposition against the dogma that "there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church", so flatly denied by Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits who attempted to silence Father Feeney.

Cardinal Cushing was perhaps one of the earliest exponents of the Seamless Garment issue and continuing on in the Americanist tradition of his Irish forebears ++Gibbon and ++Ireland. He was interested primarily in satisfying the concerns of his Jewish friends, upset that Father Feeney and his band took the Apostolic Mandate to go forth and convert all nations seriously, were angry that their children were being brought under the Catholic fold. Certainly, the famous interaction of Bobby Kennedy, who was not friendly to the Center, was a significant concern to cause the "Court Chaplain of the Kennedies" to act decisively.

Bobby] discussed it with our father one weekend at the Cape house. I well remember the conversation.

Dad could not believe that Bobby had heard Father Feeney correctly. “But,” he said, “if you feel strongly that you did, I’m going to go into the other room and call Richard. Maybe he’ll want you to go up to Boston and see him.”

“Richard” was Richard Cardinal Cushing. Dad and the cardinal enjoyed a long and profound friendship. . . .

Bobby said he felt strongly indeed. Bang! Dad called up “Richard” and arranged for Bobby to visit him. The cardinal, as nonplussed as Dad, sent some of his people over to hear Father Feeney’s Thursday evening lecture. When he found that my brother was right, Cushing banned Feeney from speaking there; Feeney refused to obey the order, and in September 1949 the archdiocese formally condemned the priest’s teaching. . . . In February 1952, Father Feeney was excommunicated.

It was one of many crude misrepresentations of the Catholic Church to come.

In 1945, Father Feeney was only taking Christ at His word and hadn't yet formulated his famous opposition to the theorizing of scholastics in the form of Baptism of Desire, Blood and Invincible Ignorance. Yet this was enough to get the SBC banned or fired from Boston College and Father banished from the Jesuits who had called him in 1942 to another position.

The words of Cardinal Di Noia and Archbishop Muller should be familiar to many in this controversy, for they are essentially the same words as employed by Cardinal Cushing and many detractors of both the St. Benedict Center AND the SSPX.

He says, incredibly:

The Council did say there are elements of grace in other religions, and I don’t think that should be retracted. I’ve seen them, I know them — I’ve met Lutherans and Anglicans who are saints.

__________________________________________

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/

IN ARCHBISHOP DI NOIA’S INTERPRETATION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II, ALL THE NON CATHOLICS, INCLUDING JEWS IN THE BRONX ARE SAVED?

The Vice President of Ecclesia Dei Archbishop Augustine Di Noia assumes that LG 8 is an exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation. Then he further assumes that this is the general, ordinary means of salvation for non Catholics.

According to Vatican Council II (AG 7) all  non Catholics in the Bronx, New York need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation and LG 8 and LG 16 are not known exceptions.

We do not know those who ‘know about Jesus and the Church and yet do not enter’ (LG 14) as compared to those in invincible ignorance because ‘they have not had the Gospel preached to them through no fault of their own’. Only Jesus can judge these cases and only Jesus will know these exceptions. Vatican Council II says all need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation (to avoid Hell).

That a non Catholic can be saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience is acceptable to the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX)  in principle. That we know who these cases are personally is an irrationality .So  if we do not know them personally they do not contradict the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Archbishop told La Stampa that he lived in the Bronx and that he and his sister had many Jewish friends there.

He also told the National Catholic Register with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus that there could be people in other religions who receive the grace of salvation. He was implying that we could know who these cases are and so they are known exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma.

The  text of the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441indicates all Jews in the Bronx, and also other non Catholics there, are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church before death.This is also the message of Vatican Council II (AG 7) -Lionel Andrades

THERE ARE TWO VERSIONS OF VATICAN COUNCIL BASED ON LG 8, LG 16 AND BISHOP GERHARD MULLER'S IS THE FALSE ONE

The Holy Spirit cannot teach us that Lumen Gentium 8 and 16 are explicit exceptions to AG 7 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Magisterium is also teaching error when it says that Jews do not have to convert in the present time.

Bishop Gerhard Müller, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican it is reported, has said that the SSPX need to accept Vatican Council II.

The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) could protest that there is a big mistake in Muller, DI Noia, Koch and Ladaria's Vatican Council II and that it should be corrected before they expect the SSPX to accept it.

The SSPX’s founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre mentioned that Catholics can be saved in invincible ignorance and with implicit desire. He did not say that these cases were known to us or that they were exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Yet this exactly what Bishop Muller and the others in the Vatican Curia assume about LG 8 and LG 16.

So they have a non traditional, irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II which is a rupture from the past.

Bishop Gerhard Muller needs to make an announcement that invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) and elements of sanctification (LG 8) are always implicit and unknown to us. Then he could expect the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II. We can only accept them in principle, de jure, as possibilities, known to God. So they do not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or AG 7 which says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.

Muller’s Vatican Council II has a major error which runs through. It has to be corrected clearly and in public. Before he wants them to accept Vatican Council II he should resolve this problem. This problem is at the centre of the rejection of a liberal version of Vatican Council II by the SSPX. This version is without any supportive texts from the Council; no reference quotations can be provided from the Council.

Bishop Bernard Fellay has signed the doctrinal preamble accepting Vatican Council II as a continuation of Tradition. So the not-accepting-Vatican- Council-II charge does not apply to the SSPX. The SSPX values on other religions, including Judaism, are according to Vatican Council II which includes implicit LG 8 and LG 16.-Lionel Andrades