Friday, November 6, 2015

Pope Francis and Cardinal Braz de Avez expect the Franciscans of the Immaculate to be obedient to a falsehood even after being informed

Related image
Last month(Oct.11) I mentioned that no doctrinal decision has been made by Fr. Sabino Ardito SDB, the Commissar of the suppressed Franciscans of the Immaculate (F.I) whose priests want to offer the Traditional Latin Mass with the old ecclesiology.

I had mentioned in that Oct.11 blogpost that until today, for the Vatican Curia, the present Magisterium, Lumen Gentium 16 (LG 16) refers to being saved in invincible ignorance without the baptism of water and so is an exception to the strict interpretation of EENS and the old ecclesiology based on EENS.So explicit LG 16 becomes a break with the past and Vatican Council II is accepted with this irrational reasoning by the contemporary Magisterium and rejected by the traditionalists and sedevacantists.
All this is according to the reasoning of the Baltimore Catechism and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
This is how Fr. Sabino Ardito SDB and the later Fr. Volpi, commissars of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, would interpret Vatican Council II.The Franciscans of the Immaculate, Friars and Sisters, have to be obedient to this error.
This is an injustice.
Cardinal Braz de Avez, Prefect of the Congregation overseeing religious institutes, expects the Franciscans of the Immaculate and all other religious congregations to affirm this falsehood.
Image result for Photo of Cardinal Braz de aviz
The religious communities in the name of obedience have to claim Lumen Gentium 16 as being visible,  explicit for us and objectively seen. Then they have to postulate that these objective cases are known exceptions to the strict interpretation, the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra eclesiam nulla salus.
Even though Cardinal Braz and Fr. Ardito have been informed they still expect the Franciscans of the Immaculate in obedience, to affirm this falsehood in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents.
For them LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 would refer to explicit cases, saved without the baptism of water but with the effect of the baptism of water, and so they would be exceptions to the dogma EENS and the pre-1808 ecclesiology.
So the old ecclesiology is rejected allegedly with Vatican Council II and this is also accepted by many priests, sisters and brothers in the F.I community founded by Fr. Stefano Mannelli F.I. who is now being offically calumniated and separated from the community he founded.
Now that we have identified the cause of the doctrinal change in the Catholic Church we can avoid it.The onus is with Pope Francis and Cardinal Braz de Avez.
Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church can be interpreted by all without ambiguity and in accord with the old ecclesiology.
The Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass can be offered with the old ecclesiology .Ecclesiology does not depend on the liturgy but on avoiding the irrational premise i.e LG 16, LG 8 etc would not refer to visible for us cases.

We have found the missing link.LG 16 can be considered explicit or implicit, visible or invisble. It is irrational to consider LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc as referring to explicit cases.This is not common sense.It is rational instead to consider them as implicit, hypothetical and invisible for us.
So if the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate priests, who offer only the Traditional Latin Mass, affirm LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc as being invisible for us, there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the old ecclesiology, usually associated with the Latin Mass.There would be nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the Feeneyite version of EENS. So they would be affirming Vatican Council II ( as sought by the Commissar) and also the pre-1808 ecclesiology.
It's as simple as that!
So the old doctrinal option, rejected by the contemporary Magisterium because of the Magisterial heresy,is available again for them, when they reason out correctly.The ecclesiology does not depend on the Latin Mass.
So Fr. Sabino Ardito must explain his position on this issue.It was avoided by Fr. Volpi and the Secretary General of the F.I.
Will they permit all the priests of the F.I to interpret Vatican Council II with LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc as being invisible and not visible,hypothetical and not concrete, unknown to us and known only to God ?
Immagine correlata
Could these hypothetical cases be followed by the baptism of water in the Catholic Church since this is the dogmatic teaching and also the teaching of Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) ?
This is a doctrinal issue. It has to be decided upon by Fr. Ardito and his superiors.
How does he and Cardinal Braz de Avez interpret Vatican Council II ? Is it obligatory to consider LG 16 as being explicit for us in real life, when we cannot see or know any such case?
It seems Pope Francis and the political Left do not want the Traditional Latin Mass because of the old ecclesiology.They do not want Vatican Council II interpreted with Feeneyism( no exceptions). They are willing to accept the Traditional Latin Mass being offered by the FSSP priests and others who like the popes, accept Vatican Council II with Cushingism( there are exceptions to EENS).
So now we know that the Traditional Latin Mass in itself is no more an issue.

Since even the priests of the F.I who offer the Novus Ordo Mass have only one rational option in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and it is in harmony with the old ecclesiology.
So when is Fr. Ardito going to make an announcement on this issue?
Presently there is doctrinal ambiguity in the community and they are using a falsehood to interpret Vatican Council II, which makes the Council a break with the past, and acceptable to the contemporary Magisterium.
-Lionel Andrades

When will Fr. Sabino Ardito SDB make an announcement on the Franciscans of the Immaculate doctrinal issue ?

Reuters Religion Editor Tom Henegan also interprets Vatican Council II with the Baltimore Catechism error

No denial from Phillip Pullela and Nicole Winfield

Questions and Answers : Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. It has an exclusivist ecclesiology
Questions and Answers : Did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make a factual mistake ?
Questions and Answers : Evangelizing with Vatican Council II

Cardinal Kaspar changed ecclesiology assuming B is an exception to A : he used an irrational model to interpret Vatican Council II

Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for not accepting the error which emerged from the Baltimore Catechism

Vatican Council II has an error : secular journalists, cardinals and bishops don't know what to do