Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Feeneyism in a changing world

Comment on Fr.Ray Blake's blog
In a changing world would you accept a 'Feeneyite' as a Catholic who holds the traditional and literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with implicit for us baptism of desire but without explicit for us baptism of desire.
A Feeneyite is someone who accepts being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire as a possibility but not a known exception in specific cases, to the literal interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney, on the dogma.
So there are no known exceptions in 2014 to the 'rigorist', literal and traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney ?
And if you are willing to accept this CHANGE then could you concede that there is nothing in Vatican Council II to reject the 'rigorist' interpretation on extra ecclesiam nulla salus?
And if you are still with me would you be willing to say that Vatican Council II is  pro-Fr.Leonard Feeney ?

Vatican Council II in 2014 is Feeneyite?
Mama mia!
-Lionel Andrades

They are trying to crush the old Mass, and disperse a group of people who are living the traditional faith- Robert Drumm, former Fischer More College Board Member

My PhotoI’ll just close by pointing out again that this is really about the old Mass and the life that flows from it.  The diocese took no interest in the College until the Fort Worth Star Telegram feature ran and made it clear that the institution’s liturgical life is centered around the old Mass.  The old Mass has been the primary topic of its conversation with the diocese since then.  Whatever the other problems at the College, and whatever falsehoods and exaggerations they’re hearing from Dr. Marshall, the actions of Msgr. Berg and Bishop Olson (and presumably others above them in the hierarchy) leave no doubt that they are trying to crush the old Mass, and disperse a group of people who are living the traditional faith.  If the Bishop was just concerned about the speakers, he could have set parameters for future speakers.  If the Bishop was seriously concerned about the stability of the College, he would have ordered removal of the Blessed Sacrament and complete closure of the chapel, and forbidden the College from calling itself “Catholic.”  He didn’t.  What he did was attack the Mass and those of his flock attached to it. -Robert Drumm,
former Board Member, Fischer More College, Fort Worth, USA
Now, Fisher More is fighting an order from Bishop Michael Olson of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth prohibiting the traditional Latin Mass at the college.King told the Star-Telegram previously that the college has hired a canonical lawyer and is appealing the bishop’s order.If the college cannot conduct the Mass in Latin, it could end the mission and close down the school, King told the Star-Telegram.

Read more here:


Fr.John Hunwicke and participants at the Roman Forum Meeting this summer will be unaware of the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error

Always in the interpretation of Vatican Council II we have to be aware of the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error

Dr.Dudley would be saying that he could accept Vatican Council II if these passages refer to cases invisible for us

Dr.John Dudley and the schools in Dallas

Chaplains at FMC used the false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II : cause of tension with faculty
Summorum Pontificum does not say if Vatican Council II is to be interpreted with or without the false premise
Bishop Michael Olson wants faculty and students to accept a lie ?


Taboo subject in Catholic dioceses of England and Wales

CTS logo
Could the Rev.Deacon Nick Donnelly in Lancaster,England and the Catholic Truth Society say Vatican Council II is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition ? Or, does he have to accept the factual error of the popes in two theological papers of the International Theological Commission?
May be Nick Donnelly cannot discuss this issue in public and neither can Fergal Martin the Secretary of the Catholic Truth Society in England.
There is no official website in England which says those saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) are possibilities of salvation but not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They are hypothetical cases known only to God so they do not contradict Tradition (Catechism of Pius X , Syllabus of Errors etc).There are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II.
No official website in England affirms the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the Church Councils, popes, saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney.
 The Why? Course Poster
The websites of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales and those of the dioceses and Catholic organisations repeat the factual error. They allege there are known exceptions to Tradition.So with this objective error of being able to see the dead -saved, Vatican Council II is interpreted as a break with Tradition, a 'revolution', a New Revelation from God in the Catholic Church.Without the false premise the Council affirms Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
However this is a taboo subject in England. If a Deacon or priest expresses it  in public, teaches it in Catechism, he could be punished.
 The History of Salvation
The diocese of Lancaster for example, tells us through its website about what is the Church but there are such big and obvious gaps of information.
What if Nick Donnelly and his wife at  Lancaster affirm Vatican Council II in accord with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Tradition and what if a priest in the diocese supports them in public? Would this be disunity?
-Lionel Andrades


Franciscans of the Immaculate are being forced to accept the papal error

The International Theological Commission (ITC) has made a factual error in the interpretation of two theological papers and this error has to be accepted by Fr.Stefano Manneli F.I and  the Franciscans of the Immaculate, in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
The Franciscan Friars are still not allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass in Rome. They first have to accept Vatican Council II interpreted with the factual error, the Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error.
Popes have knowingly or unknowingly endorsed this error.
They should be knowing about it by now and they are not acknowledging it in public.
It is a fact that we cannot see the dead.They are visible only to God.So how can it be assumed that these deceased are an exception to Tradition ? How can they contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Catechism of Pope Pius X, the Syllabus of  Errors etc ?

If Lumen Gentium 16 ( being saved in invincible ignorance) is implicit for us then it is not an exception to Tradition.
If LG 16 is explicit for us then it is a break with Tradition.
The International Theological Commission has assumed that LG 16 is visible to us in real life, that we can see the dead who are now in Heaven. So the Council is a break with the past.It is based on this irrationality that the liberal ITC has postulated a theology of religions and a new ecclesiology.It was approved directly by Pope Benedict XVI. It also has the approval of Pope Francis who assumes LG 16 is a break with the past.This is the interpretation of the Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans etc.

Popes approved a factual error and so Vatican Council II is a break with the past

Popes approved a factual error and so Vatican Council II is a break with the past.
Without the factual error Vatican Council II supports Fr.Leonard Feeney on the dogma.
Cardinal Muller, Cardinal Ladaria, Archbishop Di Noia, Mongr.Guido Pozzo have been associated with the ITC and the factual error.
There is now a specific error in the interpretation of  Vatican Council II.
LG 16 is not an exception to AG 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation) nor to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There is no exception in Vatican Council II to Tradition ( Catechism of Pope Pius X ,Syllabus of Errors etc).
- Lionel Andrades