Monday, September 28, 2015

Script for video The Magisterial Heresy - 5

In the last video I showed how the irrational reasoning is used in Pontifical Universities and seminaries in Rome.This is done especially in Ecclesiology courses. At the  Legionaries of Christ University (UPRA) in Rome,  the Urbaniana University, the Pontifical University of St.Thomas Aquinas Rome, the St.John Lateran University and the Benedictine Pontifical university of St.Anselm in Rome. I mentioned that it was because of the old ecclesiology being linked to the Traditional Latin Mass at the Franciscans of the Immaculate Philosophy seminary in Rome, that Pope Francis closed it down.Even for Fr.Jean Marie Gleize who teaches Ecclesiology at the SSPX seminary at Econe,Switzerland, Vatican Council II is not ecclesiocentric since he assumes there are exceptions to the dogma.For him B would contradict A and he would be interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism. He uses the irrational premise and inference.It is the same error being made at the Pontifical Universities and seminaries in Rome.
Like Fr. Gleize there are many traditionalists and sedevacantists, who like the liberals, use the irrational premise and inference in the interpretation of Vatican Council II. In this video I would like to cite some of them.

Maria Guarini, Father Stefano of Radio Vobiscum also like Padre Serafino Lanzetta FFI make the same mistake on Vatican Council II

Maria Guarini intervieved by Father Stefano of the SSPX for Radio Vobiscum, also like Padre Serafino Lanzetta FFI, makes the same mistake on Vatican Council II.
Maria Guarini an Italian scholar, author and traditionalist, only understands Vatican Council II interpretated with an irrational premise. So for her Lumen Gentium would be a contradiction to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,  as it is for P.Serafino Lanzetta in his new book. For them Lumen Gentium 8,16 and 14 refer to visible in the flesh cases and so it is a  contradiction of the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition. In other words, those who are saved in 'invincible ignorance', 'elements of sanctification and truth'  or  'subsist it ' in other Christian communities,are known to us, they are physically visible to be explicit exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.They can see the dead now in Heaven?

Sui poteri del Pontefice e sul suo rapportarsi alla collegialità dunque molto influisce l’ambiguità della Lumen Gentium alla quale Paolo VI, messo sull'avviso dai Padri del Coetus Internationalis Patrum, cercò di rimediare con la Nota Praevia stesa sotto la supervisione del Cardinal Ottaviani. E tuttavia tale nota, con molta coerenza progressista posta in calce alla Costituzione, viene sistematicamente "saltata" essendo, appunto, "praevia"...



Fr.Serafino Lanzetta FFI presents book on Vatican Council II in Florence

Fr.Serafino Lanzetta FFI, former Prior of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in Florence, Italy, presented his book on Vatican Council II (Sept.25,2014) in Florence and was not be aware of the Council being interpreted with an irrational premise, this being the cause of its break with Tradition.
It is because of the premise of the dead man being visible and being exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus that a pastoral Vatican Council II  contradicts dogmatic teachings on salvation and other religions.
The title of his book is "The Second Vatican Council: a Pastoral Council" .For him Vatican Council II ( with the premise) is a break with Tradition. This is true but he will not mention that it is a break with Tradition because of the false premise .
Bishop Bernard Fellay the Superior General of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) in his last Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82 says 'The same declaration (LG. 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities' and the SSPX bishop concludes that 'Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church,” which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949.'

II. An ecumenical conception of the Church

The expression “subsistit in” (Lumen gentium, 8) means that the Church of Christ has in the separate Christian communities a presence and an action that are distinct from the Church of Christ’s subsistence in the Catholic Church.(Lionel: If there are non Catholics saved in other religions or Christian communities they are not known to us in 2014.So these invisible cases are not explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.)Taken in this sense, the expression denies the strict necessity of identifying the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church,(Lionel: It is because the SSPX assumes that these cases theoretically in Heaven are visible on earth that it seems that the Church of Christ is not the Catholic Church. The problem is with the SSPX and the not Lumen Gentium 8) which had always been taught, especially by Pius XII, both in Mystici corporis[2] and Humani generis[3]. (Lionel: In Mystici Corporis Pope Pius XII did not state that those saved in other religions or Christian communities are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus).The Church of Christ is present and active as such, that is, as the unique ark of salvation, only where the Vicar of Christ is present. The Mystical Body of which he is the visible head is strictly identical to the Roman Catholic Church.(Lionel:Yes. So how is LG 8 an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? Where does LG 8 state that these cases are physically visible to us or that they are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus?)
The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities.(Lionel: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said that there could be a Hindu saved in Tibet. He would be saved not by his religion but by Jesus and the Church.SSPX is now begins to contradict its founder) The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3) (Lionel: Is the SSPX saying that these cases are known, visible and objective for us and so they are a contradiction to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?)
Since the SSPX follows the theology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 they assume that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible, objective etc. So they are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Similarly they assume that non Christians saved in their religions are visible,objective, seen in the flesh in 2014. So they are exceptions to traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
Possibly Bishop Fellay will issue another Letter to Friends and Benefactors with the same error.There still has been no clarification on this point since April 2014.
Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church,” which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949.
 How can they irreconcilable with the dogma No salvation outside the Church, when we do not know any of these cases in real life.I can affirm implicit for us baptism of desire along with the dogma. It was the Letter of the Holy Office which made this factual mistake, being repeated by the SSPX Superior General.
 A separated community cannot cooperate with the action of God, since its separation is a resistance to the Holy Ghost. The truths and the sacraments that it may maintain can have good effects only in opposition to the erroneous principles on which these communities are founded and which separate them from the Mystical Body of the Catholic Church, whose visible head is the Vicar of Christ.
The declaration Nostra aetate says that non-Christian religions “often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men,” although such men must find in Christ “the fullness of religious life;” it also “regards with sincere respect those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and doctrines.” (NA, 2) Such a claim must be criticized just as the preceding one.(LionelSince these cases are visible to Bishop Fellay . They are explicit exceptions!!!When coupled with heresy or schism, the sacraments, the partial truths of the Faith, and Scripture are in a state of separation from the Mystical Body. That is why, even though using such means, the sect as such cannot be a mediator of grace or contribute towards salvation, for it is deprived of supernatural grace.  The same must be said for the ways of thinking, living, and acting that are found in non-Christian religions.(Lionel: It is Bishop Fellay who is denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with his alleged exceptions.He is interpreting Vatican Council II (NA 2,LG 8 etc) by assuming the dead now saved are visible to us in 2014. Then he infers that these cases are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma.)
Even if a pope claims that we can see the dead who are living exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus it is irrationality and heresy).

message incomplete

LG16,LG 14, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are not exceptions to EENS : Fr.Leonard Feeney's excommunication was a mistake

Immagine correlataWe do not know any one in 2015 saved with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood or invincible ignorance - and without the baptism of water.Not a single such case is known or can be known. Since people in Heaven are not visible and known to us. With or without the baptism of water they are invisible for us.
So the Magisterium in 1949 made an objective mistake.It was a mistake  when they assumed that being saved with the baptism of desire, baptism of blood or invincible ignorance referred to known cases.Then the Magisterium inferred that these 'known cases' were explicit exceptions to the tradtional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus  according to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center at Boston, USA.

Immagine correlataThe error was then carried over into Vatican Council II.

 Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved...
Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

Immagine correlata Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6)... -Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II

Those saved in 'inculpable ignorance' should not have been mentioned in Ad Gentes 7. Those  who 'know' or those who are in ignorance' and are saved with or without the baptism of water  are known only to God. Here in Lumen Gentium 14 it is being implied that we know these cases and can judge. They would not  be explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It was a mistake to have mentioned this in Lumen Gentium 14.We have to be aware that this is a reference to hypothetican cases followed by the baptism of water, since this is the dogmatic teaching and so they are not exceptions to the old ecclesiology.
Also it is implied that there are now three known baptisms, water, desire and invincible ignorance when the Nicene Creed mentions only one known baptism, the baptism of water.

Immagine correlata With LG 16, LG 8, NA 2, UR 3 etc it is inferred that there are still more 'baptisms' and all of them are without the baptism of water. The text does not state it but this is the Magisterial inference made.
The Magisterium during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII did not correct the error. Also for some 19 years the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was not lifted. He remained excommunicated even during Vatican Council II. The popes did nothing to defend him.In public they did not affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma.

Immagine correlataRedemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus and the Catechism of the Catholic Church were issued assuming there are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The International Theological Commission has made the same mistake in two theological papers.While the SSPX theologians and the sedevacantists CMRI, MHFM etc, have also made the same error as the liberals.
-Lionel Andrades

LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc do not contradict EENS : Abp. Lefebvre's excommunication was a mistake

Immagine correlata

Lumen Gentium 16, Lumen Gentium 8, Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Nostra Aetate 2 etc are  not explicit for us human beings.So they are not exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church in 2015, they do not contradict  extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). Vatican Council II supports the old ecclesiology and the Feeneyite version of the dogma.
This was not known to the Magisterium of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who interpreted Vatican Council II with LG 16 etc being explicit and a break with the the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.There position on Vatican Council II was irrational. It was a break with Tradition. It was heretical.Since in ignorance they did not realize their fault they excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for not accepting their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II. Neither did they explain to him that there was a choice. LG 16 etc could be interpreted as being hypothetical and known only to God. So it would be irrelevant to the old ecclesiology.
Based on this error they supported a new ecclesiology and a new theology, a fantasy theology which suggested that there is salvation outside the Church and these cases are known to us human beings, or were known to human beings in the past.
So the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was not based on the teachings of the Catholic Church but a new doctrine created with an irrational premise and inference.
The irrational premise was that we could see and know persons in Heaven, and that these persons were there without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. The irrational inference was that these 'known cases' were explicit exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism' (AG 7) to avoid Hell.So the thrice defined dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as interpreted by the Church Councils, popes and saints,was made redundant.
It was an innocent error by the Magisterium. Since even Archbishop Lefebvre was not aware of the error.
During the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI there were SSPX-Vatican doctrinal talks and the SSPX professor of ecclesiology Fr. Jean Marie Gleize was also unaware of the doctrinal error.-Lionel Andrades

Magisterium should apologise to the SSPX for the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre