Friday, January 2, 2015

St.Benedict Centers - misleading

How can the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary say that they accept the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and that they also accept Vatican Council II ? 
This is providing misinformation.
Since you are either accepting one and rejecting the other.You can't have it both ways.So they should say that they are in reality rejecting Vatican Council II since they affirm the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus-or vice versa.
Tantamblogo writes on the Blog for Dallas Area Catholics that he met a religious sister  of the St.Benedict Center, Still River,MA.He was impressed. She did not seem to affirm the 'the rigorist interpretation' of extra eclesiam nulla salus. He would also be impressed with the community at Richmond N.H Since they accept Vatican Council II and reject the dogma.
When I refer to Vatican Council II above it is the Council interpreted with the false proposition and false conclusion. This is their understanding of Vatican Council II.This is approved by their respective  bishops in the diocese of Worcester and Manchester,USA. The false premise and conclusion in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, allows the bishops to reject the traditional interpretation of the dogma according to Church Councils, the popes, Vatican Council II (AG 7) and Fr.Leonard Feeney.
So in reality the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, like their bishops, reject the dogma since for them  Vatican Council is interpreted as a break with the dogma i.e with the false premise and false conclusion.
They do not know that there is an option.They could still affirm the traditional dogma and Vatican Council II if they do not use the irrational premise /proposition in the interpretation.
So for the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to say presently that they accept the traditional interpretation of the dogma- is misleading.
In theory yes, in practise no. Yes to the doctrine, no to the 'praxis'. Yes in principle, in reality, though , there is a 'development of doctrine'.Vatican Council II is the evidence.
1.I ask them to answer the two simple questions which express their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. They will not.
2.I ask them to comment on Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson, Rev. Fr.P. Stefano Visintin OSB, Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the Pontifical University St.Anselm, Rome and  the apologist John Martigioni  saying that there are no known cases of the baptism of desire..They will not respond.I mention that they agree with me. There is no comment.
3.I ask them if their theology is based on an empirical vision  of the dead -saved with the baptism of desire.There is no answer.
4.I mention that novices at the St.Benedict Center have to use an irrational premise and conclusion in the interpretation of Vatican Council II approved by the bishop. They will not deny it.
5.I tell them that I interpret Vatican Council II in agreement with the dogma and they don't ask me to explain myself and neither do they disagree with me, with specifics.
6.They say the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance must be followed by the baptism of water and I agree with them. Can they interpret LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2 in the same way? Any one who is saved according to LG 16,UR 3 etc would also be saved with the baptism of water?
With so much confusion they are unintentionally misleading people on Vatican Council II relative to the dogma.-Lionel Andrades


It is a fact of life that we cannot see or know exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is not just my opinion
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/it-is-fact-of-life-that-we-cannot-see_1.html



4 comments:

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Mr. Andrades. MY has two posts dedicated to you. MJ prays you will come to see that it is a serious sin to succor and promote the feeney heresy


http://imamanamateurbrainsurgeon.blogspot.com/2014/12/mr-andrades-and-eens-1.html

George Brenner said...

Those at St. Benedict's Center needs to go back and re visit the position, history and interaction of Cardinal Cushing with father Feeney with an open mind and the pray and meditate on what they discover. The Church did not start to go into the current tailspin and crisis until this time in history.

Catholic Mission said...

JANUARY 3, 2015

St.Benedict Centers USA keep affirming Vatican Council II but not like the SSPX or the liberal bishops

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/stbenedict-centers-usa-keep-affirming.html

Catholic Mission said...

http://imamanamateurbrainsurgeon.blogspot.com/2014/12/mr-andrades-and-eens-1.html

Mighty Joe Young,
Thank you for your interest and comments.This is a very important subject.It is necessary that the Catholic Church issue a clarification on this subject.

I respect Monsignor Fenton, Fr.William Most and others, who as good Catholics and with good intentions, accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

However the principal error that the Letter made was factual and not theological.
The Letter used a false premise, a false proposition. Then it built a new theology upon this objective error.
The Letter assumed that exceptions to the dogma were known and visible to us in real life.In other words they assumed that the dead who are now in Heaven, saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance, were exceptions to all needing the baptism of water on earth. So for the Letter these invisible cases became explicit exceptions to the traditional teaching of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.
It is a fact of life that we cannot see the dead on earth. It is a fact of life that we cannot see or know any exceptions to the dogma.
This was not noticed by Mons. Fenton or Fr.William Most, otherwise, good apologists.
Even when the confusion was carried over into Vatican Council II,(LG 16 etc) the error from the Letter of the Holy Office, was not detected and corrected.