Saturday, October 10, 2015

Sedevacantist article on ecclesiology has the same connfusion as the Pontifical universities and seminaries which they call 'modernist'.

 According to the Most Holy Family seminary website they have a new article on Ecclesiology.
It states :
Schismatics and heretics leave the path of salvation and enter on that of perdition. Instead of being a means of salvation, non-Catholic sects are adulteress churches. Those who adhere to them go to hell, unless they are excused from fault because of invincible ignorance.1
Lionel:
It is agreed that the Orthodox Churches and the Protestants are outside the Catholic Church according to Vatican Councl II (AG 7, LG 14) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II.
Why does the seminary faculty have to suggest that all will go to Hell except for those in invincible ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of their own?
Who are these exceptions , for example, in 2015.
There is no such case known to us !. No name or calling card.
The seminary here is repeating the same Magisterial Heresy as the contemporary Magisterium in Rome(Vatican) whom they call modernists.
It is then with this error, this Magisterial Error , that they intepret Vatican Council II and reject it.
If they accepted that there were no known exceptions in the present times to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, then nothing in Vatican Council II would be an exception to the old ecclesiology, the pre-1808 ecclesiology. They could then accept Vatican Council II and the pre-1808 ecclesiology.
So the fault is not there with Vatican Council II but with their making an irrational observation.
The sedevacantists are making the same error as the pontifical universities and seminaries in Rome.
-Lionel Andrades
1.

http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/Triple%20Column%20Ecclesiology.pdf



sisters
An innovation was made in the Baltimore Catechism ,accepted in the Catechism of Pope Pius XII became Magisterial in 1949 at Boston and was included in Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/an-innovation-was-made-in-baltimore.html

Inline image 1
Holy Trinity Seminary does not clarify if they refer to Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8 is visible or invisible
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/holy-trinity-seminary-does-not-clarify.html



Sedevacantist and Roman bishops and clergy want to remain politically correct

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/incomplete.html



It all began with the Baltimore Catechism and was not checked by the Magisterium in 1949, the confusion and heresy was approved with irrational interpretations of Vatican Council II being a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Traditionalists adhere to the Baltimore Catechism says Fr. Longenecker. He does not mention that traditionalists, sedevacantists and liberals adhere to the Baltimore Catechism, including the error in the Baltimore Catechism.
Immagine correlata
With the same confusion and error they all interpret Vatican Council II. The traditionalists and sedevacantists reject the conclusion while the liberals accept it. Fr. Longenecker also interprets Vatican Council II with the same error.
Immagine correlata
The Baltimore Catechism says there are three baptisms, water, blood and desire.It infers that the baptism of desire and blood include( or excludes) the baptism of water and these cases are known .This is confusion. Since these cases are invisible for us.Why were they placed in the Baltimore Catechism in the section on the necessity of the baptism of water for all. They would have to be seen and known to be relevant to all needing the baptism of water or there being an exception .
In this way it was inferred that these cases of the  baptism of desire and baptism of blood, were explicit like the baptism of water and so were exceptions to all needing the baptism of water. In other words they were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which says all need to be formal members of the Church.
Then in the Catechism of Pope Pius XII which followed, there was the same confusion. Baptism of desire and baptism of blood were placed in the section on the baptism of water.
Then in 1949 the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archdiocese  of Boston assumed that the baptism of desire and baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma. The Letter criticised Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center for not accepting the baptism of desire etc as exceptions.So now the error had become official. They accepted the confusion in the Baltimore Catechism.
Then along with orthodox passages in Vatican Council II which supported the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , saying all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation (AG 7, LG 14) there were references to the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. In other words they are exceptions!
So the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, defined by three Church Councils has been discarded in the Church since there are 'known' exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II.This was Cushingism supported by the Magisterium of the Church.Rome was supporting the liberal Jesuit theologians in Boston, knowingly or unknowingly.
It is also suggested by the contemporary  Magisterium that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc also refer to known baptisms without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.This is a break with the pre-1808 Magisterium.
It all began with the Baltimore Catechism, not checked by the Magisterium in 1949 and the confusion and heresy was approved with the irrational interpretations of Vatican Council II .So Vatican Council II becomes a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
However if we intepret LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc as being invisible instead of visible we return back to the old ecclesiology.It is as  simple as that since we now know the root cause of the problem and can correct it.
-Lionel Andrades


Baltimore Catechism made an empirical mistake : there can only be one known baptism for us human beings
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/08/baltimore-catechism-made-empirical.html
Can the Athanasius Creed be recited in Church today ? Yes!
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/08/can-athanasius-creed-be-recited-in.html
'You can fool all of the people most of the time but not all of them all the time' http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/08/you-can-fool-all-of-people-most-of-time.html
Implicit desire and martyrdom being baptisms and explicit like the baptism of water is an American theory which originated in Baltimore http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/08/message-incomplete-that-baptism-of.html
1
http://www.cruxnow.com/church/2015/10/06/is-catholicism-about-to-break-into-three/

Holy Trinity Seminary does not clarify if they refer to Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8 is visible or invisible


from the website of the sedevacantist Most Holy Trinity Seminary, Florida, USA.
Inline image 1

Most Holy Trinity Seminary was founded in 1995 in order to provide priestly training for young men who thoroughly reject Vatican II,(in which LG 16, LG 8 etc refer to explicit cases instead of invisible cases.For me it is Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8 refer to invisible cases.Let me qualify this at the outset.) its reforms, and the Modernist hierarchy which promulgates them.(the modernism comes from assuming LG 16, LG 8 are visible instead of visible) This position is in contrast to the seminaries of traditionalist groups that operate with the approval of the Modernist hierarchy, or who seek this approval.( they also assume LG 16, LG 8 are visible instead of invisible. So Vatican Council II ( with the irrationality) becomes a break with Tradition)

The Seminary trains priests according to pre-Vatican II standards.( but they also accept the Baltimore Catechism and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 with the same irrationality) Its rule, discipline, spiritual formation, and academic curriculum imitate faithfully those which were in effect in seminaries before the Second Vatican Council.( before 1808 there were no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For the seminary the baptism of desire and baptism of blood are exceptions. This is an innovation) By training priests in this manner, the seminary hopes to contribute to the solution to the problem of the nearly universal desintegration of Catholic faith, morals, discipline, and liturgy  which the Second Vatican Council has caused.(When Vatican Council II is referred to it needs to be qualified that this is Vatican Council II in which LG 16, LG 8 etc are invisible instead of visible.For me LG 16, LG 8 etc is invisible so Vatican Council II would not be a break with the pre-1808 ecclesiology in the Catholic Church).

The seminary sees that the only solution to the problem of Vatican II( in which LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc are visible and known in personal cases.This is irrational.It is also Magisterial.), however, is to condemn it as a false council( it would be a false interpretation of the Council, I agree. If I would use the irrational premise I too would get a non traditional conclusion)  which was dominated by heretics, and to discard and ignore its decrees and enactments. Consequently, the Seminary does not seek to be recognized by the heretical hierarchy which promulgates Vatican II,(also with the same irrational premise i.e LG 16 etc are visible instead of invisible and so is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the old ecclesiology which the seminary follows by excluding Vatican Council II)  nor does it seek to work with the Novus Ordo clergy, as if in a single church or religion.( since they too are using the same irrational premise but accept Vatican Council II with the same non traditional conclusion.)

The Seminary therefore repudiates the idea of the Motu Proprio Mass, or that of a fraternity of priests which has received permission or seeks permission from the Novus Ordo hierarchy to function in communion with the Modernist heretics.

The Catholic Church, in the outlook of the Seminary, will not be cured of its current problems until the hierarchical sees, particularly the papacy, are once again occupied by Catholics. For as long as Modernist heretics possess the mere appearance of authority which they now possess, the problem of Vatican II (with LG 16 visible instead of invisible) will continue. In the meantime the Seminary, as well as the priests who emanate from it, shall abhor even the suggestion of an official recognition from the Novus Ordo hierarchy(which interprets Vatican Council II irrationally like the seminary), or of a compromise with the Modernists, whom St. Pius X called the “most pernicious of all the enemies of the Church,” who are striving “utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ.”


http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/home.html



sisters

An innovation was made in the Baltimore Catechism ,accepted in the Catechism of Pope Pius XII became Magisterial in 1949 at Boston and was included in Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/an-innovation-was-made-in-baltimore.html

An innovation was made in the Baltimore Catechism ,accepted in the Catechism of Pope Pius XII became Magisterial in 1949 at Boston and was included in Vatican Council II

 sisters

Comments from the blogpost Sedevacantist and Roman bishops and clergy want to remain politically correct
Introibo Ad Altare Dei said...
I just answered your points. You can't answer mine. You claim there are two ways to interpret Vatican II--that makes it heretical!
Pope Pius VI, condemning the Synod of Pistoia, Bull “Auctorem fidei," August 28, 1794:
“[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

"It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

"In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: WHENEVER IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO EXPOSE STATEMENTS WHICH DISGUISE SOME SUSPECTED ERROR OR DANGER UNDER THE VEIL OF AMBIGUITY, ONE MUST DENOUNCE THE PERVERSE MEANING UNDER WHICH THE ERROR OPPOSED TO CATHOLIC TRUTH IS CAMOUFLAGED.”

Pope Pius VI teaches us that if someone veils a heresy in ambiguity, a Catholic must hold him to the heretical meaning and denounce the heretical meaning which is camouflaged in ambiguity. He points out that heretics have always used such tactics to insinuate their doctrinal errors and heresies. There are countless examples from the Vatican II apostasy that could be given for which this teaching applies. There are plenty of bold and unambiguous heresies taught by the Vatican II sect and the Vatican II antipopes, but there are also countless heresies that are veiled in ambiguity or contradictory statements. The fact that these must be held to their heretical meaning is not just the teaching of the Church, but also common sense.
 
For instance, if a man says that he is against abortion but sometimes contradicts himself and votes in favor of it, he is a supporter of abortion. He rejects Catholic teaching. Likewise, if a man teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church but sometimes teaches that souls can be saved without the Catholic Faith, he rejects the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. If he didn’t believe in salvation outside the Church he wouldn’t teach it even one time. If he didn’t support abortion he wouldn’t vote in favor of it. The fact that he contradicts himself doesn’t show that he is not teaching heresy. Pope Pius VI teaches that heretics have always used such tactics because they are deceivers and dishonest at their core. Those who say that heretics cannot be held to their heretical meanings because they often state precisely the opposite – even sometimes within the same context – or because they veil it in ambiguity, aid and abet heretics, assist the destruction of the Faith and contradict the authoritative teaching of the Church. And this is precisely the method of the post-V2 popes. Welcome to sedevacantism!
 
I just answered your points.
Lionel:
You have not answered a single one and it is sad that Bp. Sanborn and Fr. Cekada do not come to your rescue since they have been trained in philosophy and theology and would be able to answer my questions with rationality and logic.
____________________

Image
 You can't answer mine. You claim there are two ways to interpret Vatican II--that makes it heretical!
Lionel:
Yes I agree one way is heretical. One way is also irrational.As a lay man if you could trace the irrational one you may also discover the heretical one.
____________________

Pope Pius VI, condemning the Synod of Pistoia, Bull “Auctorem fidei," August 28, 1794:
“[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.
Lionel:
Yes the truth has been compromised here. This is why I keep writing about it.
_________________
"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done,... It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.
Lionel:
An innovation was made in the Baltimore Catechism it was accepted in the otherwise good Catechism of Pope Pius XII it was an innocent mistake. It became Magisterial in 1949 at Boston and was included in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The error was based on an innocent irrationality and so it can be reversed. I write all this, I refer to a Magisterial heresy not to condemn, but so that it can be corrected.

______________

"It is as if the innovators...a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.
Lionel:
The error has been insinuated in the Catholic Church and the traditionalists have also accepted it. This was the mistake made by Archbishop Lefebvre in the interpretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II.He promoted liberalism and no one in the SSPX until today can refute what I say. They know I am correct.________________________
 
"In order to expose such snares,... ONE MUST DENOUNCE THE PERVERSE MEANING UNDER WHICH THE ERROR OPPOSED TO CATHOLIC TRUTH IS CAMOUFLAGED.”
Lionel:
Agreed.
So when the Baltimore Catechism suggests the Baptism of desire(BD) and Baptism of blood (BOB)are baptisms like the Baptism of water(BOW) there is ambiguity here.
Since the BOD and BOB cannot be known like the BOW.
They cannot be administered like the BOW.
They depend only on God while the BOW is under our control.
No one in the past has known or see a BOW or BOB case, since that person would only be known to God in Heaven.
So how can zero cases in our reality be relevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the necessity for all to receive the baptism of water for salvation.
There is confusion here.
The link was made between BOD and BOW with EENS. In other words BOD and BOB were explicit and known, to be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation.
How can people in Heaven be exceptions to EENS on earth in 2015 for example? This is irrational.
So there is ambiguity here.
________________________

Pope Pius VI teaches us that if someone veils a heresy in ambiguity, a Catholic must hold him to the heretical meaning and denounce the heretical meaning which is camouflaged in ambiguity.
Lionel:
So you could acknowledge the ambiguity at leaset, as a first step.I have already denounced it.
_______________________

He points out that heretics...this teaching applies.
Lionel:
When you refer to the Vatican Council II apostasy I assume this is based on the online writings of Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada, critical of VC2.
Apostasy is a vague word. I have been precise in my writings.
Bp. Sanborn refers to LG 18 ( Subsistit it). For him LG 8 refers to an explicit case which contradicts the old ecclesiology. There is salvation outside the Church for him.
So he concludes that this is apostasy.
For me LG 8 is not explicit. I have cited two links.
So you could be precise and not ambigous and comment on this.
There is a misunderstanding with Lumen Gentium also in their writings.
How many times have I asked you and them if LG 16 is explicit or implicit?
You probably know the answer by now and may have guessed that the sede position is heretical,ambigous and irrational and so no one wants to answer.
_______________________

There are plenty of bold and unambiguous ... Likewise, if a man teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church but sometimes teaches that souls can be saved without the Catholic Faith, he rejects the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.
Lionel:
Agreed.
'if a man teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church but sometimes teaches that souls can be saved without the Catholic Faith, he rejects the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation.'
And are you saying this is not the position of the Most Holy Family Trinity seminary in Florida, USA under Bishop Sanborn ?
___________________

        If he didn’t believe in salvation outside the Church he wouldn’t teach it even one time.
        Lionel:
       So you believe in salvation outside the Church as do Bishop Sanborn and Fr.    Cekada since LG 8(explicit) refers to salvation outside the Church so you reject Vatican Council II this is apostasy for you.
The faculty at the seminary imply that LG 16 is an exception to EENS. So LG 16 is explicit for them. They use this reasoning to reject VC2.
I do not use this reasoning and none of you will comment on this.

______________________

If he didn’t support abortion ... contradict the authoritative teaching of the Church.
Lionel:
Agreed! And tell me how is this not your position?
LG 16, LG 8 refer to explicit cases for you so you reject VC2. This is heresy.
LG 16, LG 8 refer to implicit cases, not visible in the flesh for me , so it does not reject VC2. I accept the Council.This is not heresy.

The BOD and BOB cases for you all are explicit and so this is a rejection of the dogma EENS. This is heresy.
The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to invisible cases for me and so they are not exceptions to the dogma EENS. I accept EENS and so this is not heresy.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumed that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the dogma EENS. The second part of the Letter contradicted the first part.
The second part of the Letter was heresy.It was Magisterial heresy. I accept the first part of the Letter which affirms the dogma and I reject the second part.

You accept the second part of the Letter ( which is heresy) and claim that you also accept the first part. This is ambiguity.
________________

And this is precisely the method of the post-V2 popes. Welcome to sedevacantism!
Lionel:
And this is precisely the method of the trads and sedes.It is heresy and liberalism.
-Lionel Andrades
 
 

Sedevacantist and Roman bishops and clergy want to remain politically correct