Monday, February 29, 2016

There is a mistake in Vatican Council II and the editor of Ethika Politika has nothing to say either way

There is a mistake in Vatican Council II and the editor of Ethika Politika has nothing to say. I asked him if he has an opinion for or against the subject and he will not respond. Instead Andrew Haines asks to be removed from my mailing list.
 
I sent him the blog post The Level 4 error is there in Vatican Council II which shows Vatican Council II as really supporting the Feeneyite version of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, if an irrationality in the interpretation if avoided. He has nothing to say for or against but finds the report or  its conclusion offensive or unwelcome.So he has asked me not to send him such posts.
When I say that there are no exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2016, since the baptism of desire cases are in Heaven if they exist, and we cannot physically see or meet them, Haines cannot contradict me. He cannot say that they physically exist in his reality.
When I say that in 1949 Boston or 1891 Baltimore no one could see or meet someone saved with the baptism of desire or blood and without the baptism of water, Haines cannot say that someone could really see such cases.He would be irrational if he made this claim. It is common knowledge that people who are dead or in Heaven are not physically visible to us and if they are not physically  visible in the present times, they cannot be exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church with no exception.
 
So he does not say anything.
 
Like the liberal Haines, I get no reply from Massimo Faggioli, who is considered a ' Catholic' and 'theologian' by his friends who are also 'Catholic theologians', who use an irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II. He interprets Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition by using the false premise and inference. So he cannot tell my that my theology is wrong since the error basically is not one of theology. It is one of a wrong inference, a wrong philosophical observation and this is the basis of a new theology, an irrational theology.
 
So since Faggioli and Haines cannot correct me by saying my theology is different or wrong and neither can they support me, since they do not want to be considered traditionalists or conservative Catholics, they say nothing. That Vatican Council II is really pro- traditionalist is like a bad dream for them and they must be hoping it will go away. At least they are not going to comment on it and admit that their theology, was all this time, based on a factual error and no one told them about it.
Now that they know about the mistake it is still going to be life as usual with no change.
They will keep writing the old stuff on Vatican Council II even though they know that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to invisible and not visible cases and so do not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma on no salvation outside the Church. Vatican Council II made a mistake when it mentioned being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire and placed this superflous references along with passages (AG 7, LG 14) which support the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma on no salvation outside the Church.Vatican Council II also made a mistake when it assume that those saved in invincible ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of their own referred to known cases and so every one did not need to enter the Church but only those who 'knew' about Jesus and the Church.This is a new doctrine which rejects the dogma EENS and it is based on visible and known exceptions of people now in Heaven saved without the baptism of water.
This is fantasy. The liberals all these years have been using a fantasy theology and now that they know about it are not saying anything.
A mistake in Vatican Council II, an objective error in the Council text, should be a big story for Haines (Ethica Politica) or Faggioli ( Commonweal) but in this case, the story has political significance and so they would like to be left alone.-Lionel Andrades
 

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Denzinger's 3870-3873 has a mistake

.@DouthatNYT there is a famous article about the right and wrong way to read the Denzinger (and Denz has been UPDATED more than 40 times)
  1. When I hear the word 'heretics' referred to the bishops and theologians at #Synod, I reach for my Denzinger #enough #basta #genug #çasuffit

    Altro
  2. @MassimoFaggioli @GibsonWrites Denzinger includes all the marriage-related anathemas of Trent.


Denzinger's 3870-3873 has a mistake.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 has been placed in the Denzinger-Schonmetzer.
It has a mistake.
It should not have been included in the Denzinger.
1. Hypothetical cases cannot be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
2. We do not know any one in the present times (2016) saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. Physically this is unknowable.
3. No one in the past could have seen or known someone saved without the baptism of water.This is not possible for human beings and the Church does not recognise this ability in any one.
Yet the Denzinger entry says there are exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.How can be in Heaven be visible on earth ? This cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit.
-Lionel Andrades


DENZINGER SAYS THE DEAD ARE VISIBLE TO ALL OF US.IT'S OFFICIAL

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/02/denzinger-says-dead-are-visible-to-all.html



The Level 4 error is there in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 of Vatican Council II


http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/the-level-4-error-is-there-in-ad-gentes.html

Friday, February 26, 2016

The Level 4 error is there in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 of Vatican Council II


The Level 4 error 1 is also there in Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II.There was a mistake in Vatican Council II in the text inserted in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 but Vatican Council II in spite of the error is not a break with Tradition.The mistake was there originally in the wrong decision on Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
Here is the text of Ad Gentes 7 without comments.

AD GENTES 7, VATICAN COUNCIL II
7. This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, "who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:45), "neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4:12). Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it." 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), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.
By means of this activity, the Mystical Body of Christ unceasingly gathers and directs its forces toward its own growth (cf. Eph. 4:11-16). The members of the Church are impelled to carry on such missionary activity by reason of the love with which they love God and by which they desire to share with all men the spiritual goods of both its life and the life to come.

Finally, by means of this missionary activity, God is fully glorified, provided that men fully and consciously accept His work of salvation, which He has accomplished in Christ. In this way and by this means, the plan of God is fulfilled - that plan to which Christ conformed with loving obedience for the glory of the Father who sent Him,that the whole human race might form one people of God and be built up into one temple of the Holy Spirit which, being the expression of brotherly harmony, corresponds with the inmost wishes of all men. And so at last, there will be realized the plan of our Creator who formed man to His own image and likeness, when all who share one human nature, regenerated in Christ through the Holy Spirit and beholding the glory of God, will be able to say with one accord: "Our Father."- Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II

Here is the text of the Ad Gentes 7 with comments.

AD GENTES 7, VATICAN COUNCIL II
7. This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, "who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:45), "neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4:12). Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware( Level 4 error here)  that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it." 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 ( Level 1, 2 and 3 error here)  (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity.
By means of this activity, the Mystical Body of Christ unceasingly gathers and directs its forces toward its own growth (cf. Eph. 4:11-16). The members of the Church are impelled to carry on such missionary activity by reason of the love with which they love God and by which they desire to share with all men the spiritual goods of both its life and the life to come.
Finally, by means of this missionary activity, God is fully glorified, provided that men fully and consciously accept His work of salvation, which He has accomplished in Christ. In this way and by this means, the plan of God is fulfilled - that plan to which Christ conformed with loving obedience for the glory of the Father who sent Him,that the whole human race might form one people of God and be built up into one temple of the Holy Spirit which, being the expression of brotherly harmony, corresponds with the inmost wishes of all men. And so at last, there will be realized the plan of our Creator who formed man to His own image and likeness, when all who share one human nature, regenerated in Christ through the Holy Spirit and beholding the glory of God, will be able to say with one accord: "Our Father."- Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II
Foto
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ERROR IN AD GENTES 7
Level 1. A hypothetical case is placed in Vatican Council II.Since in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 a hypothetical case was considered explicit, objectively visible and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).It begins with the FALSE PREMISE ( People in Heaven are visible to us on earth).

Level 2 . The hypothetical case excludes the baptism of water. If someone assumes AG 7 refers to a person saved without the baptism of water, this is stage 2 in the error.Level refers to an invisible case being visible and it excludes the baptism of water.FALSE PREMISE ( People in Heaven are visible to us on earth and they can be seen or known without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church).

Level 3 . There is a premise of a person saved in invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water and being physically visible to us human beings.FALSE INFERENCE ( So it is inferred  that these cases being visible and known in the present times are exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Church, for salvation.It is 'knowing' ( with the fantasy, supernatural element) that an invisible case is visible.Then it is posited as an exception to the dogma EENS.

Level 4 . It infers  that  there are exceptions in general to the dogma EENS.Since there are known exceptions to EENS ( even though there really are no known cases) it FURTHER concludes that IN GENERAL not every one needs to enter the Church but only those who know about Jesus and the Church.
___________



Ad Gentes 7  with 'Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware...' is at Level 4.

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 (Those saved in inculpable ignorance are hypothetical cases.They are at Level 1. They exclude the baptism of water (Level 2) and so they are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). This is Level 3.
1sister.jpg
The passage on inculpable ignorance (those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel)  is placed along side the orthodox passage on salvation (all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body) , as if it is an exception. They are placed together as if they are relevant. They were made relevant in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. In other words being saved in invincible ignorance is a personally known case ,without the baptism of water, for it to be relevant.
Can it really be a personally known case?
proffessions
Bros
We know this is false.Since beings saved in inculpable ignorance refers to a hypothetical case. No one has seen any one saved as such. We cannot see, know or meet any one saved without the baptism of water.They is known to have done it in the past too.
They made a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14).
A hypothetical case ( being saved in invincible ignorance) cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). All need to formally enter the Church with faith and baptism and there are no exceptions.
So being saved in invincible ignorance of the Gospel or with the so called baptism of desire were not explicit.They were not objective.So they were not relevant to the dogma EENS.

So the Holy Office and the Archdiocese of Boston made a mistake in the Father Leonard Feeney case.Since they believed that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire referred to personally known cases, seen in the flesh, the new theory was that not every one needs to enter the Church, as was taught  for centuries, but only those who know about Jesus and the Church.
So this new theory based on a factual error, an objective error, a wrong observation, was placed in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14).
-Lionel Andrades


1

LG 14 was a Level 4 error in Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/lg-14-was-level-4-error-in-vatican.html



LG16,LG 14, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc are not exceptions to EENS : Fr.Leonard Feeney's excommunication was a mistake
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/09/lg16lg-14-lg-8-ur-3-na-2-etc-are-not.html
smt

Their father was removed from Boston College when the President Fr.Keleher used an irrationality to interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/their-father-was-removed-from-boston.html


Boston College used an irrational premise to remove Catholic professors including Dr.Maluf whose daughters are American religious sisters http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/boston-college-used-irrational-premise.html



They were always correct : there are no known exceptions to the dogma

 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/they-were-always-correct-there-are-no.html





Pope Francis, Jesuits review the Fr.Leonard Feeney case

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/pope-francis-jesuits-review-frleonard.html



JESUITS OPEN THE FR.LEONARD FEENEY CASE


Cardinal Cushing and the Jesuits made a factual error in the text of Vatican Council II ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/message-incomplete-cardinal-cushing-and.html

Jesuit pope must be petitioned to correct the factual error of his community in the 1940's in Boston
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/03/jesuit-pope-must-be-petitioned-to.html#links

JESUIT SUPERIOR GENERAL REVIEW THE FR.LEONARD FEENEY CASE : THERE IS NO KNOWN CASE OF A PERSON SAVED WITH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE WHICH IS VISIBLE

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/11/jesuit-superior-general-review.htm



http://catholicism.org/letter-to-a-young-man-discerning-a-vocation.html
http://catholicism.org/information-about-vocations-to-the-sisters.html
Photos from the website Catholicism.org   Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, St. Benedict Center, Richmond, N.H, USA. 




Thursday, February 25, 2016

LG 14 was a Level 4 error in Vatican Council II

General Congregation meeting at the Second Vatican Council. File photo courtesy Catholic News Service.The Church made a big mistake in 1949. It was an objective error and it was magisterial. No one wanted to correct it. Or no one dared correct it.So it was easily placed in Vatican Council II. It still is part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church.
Since then the Church focus' on Jesus for salvation and not on the necessity of membership in the Church. This was a big break with centuries of traditional teaching on salvation ( soteriology) and our understanding  of the Church as a means of salvation ( ecclesiology).
It was such a big break and it was all done with a simple little trick. It was a kind of  flim flam action. It was so stupid and fantastic that it is hard to believe that they actually got away with it all.
The popes, cardinals and bishops, all did not notice it.However thousands of Catholics did notice that something important had been changed in the Church though they could not put their finger on the exact cause. They blamed Vatican Council II in general and thousands of priests and nuns lost their vocation and returned to the lay state.
This was not the fruit of Vatican Council II as the traditionalists make us understand. False. The cause was the error in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office which got past even Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
The SSPX bishops were so much against 'Feeneyism' as was the liberal Left that they did not realise that in the excommunication of Fr. Leonard Feeney was the answer to the Great Deception in the Catholic Church. The official- new innovation, the new direction the Church was now to take was based on an irrationality, a false premise and  inference, used to create a new conclusion, a non traditional conclusion.The big break with the past.
We can sniff this  big break in Lumen Gentium 14 (LG 14). Since in LG 14 not only is  a hypothetical case a break with the Feeneyite dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), but is the conclusion of a false premise and inference creating a fantastic new doctrine.It is an error at stage 4. It is fantastic since the error has its base in fantasy, a non reality.
When Lumen Gentium 16 mentions someone saved in invincible ignorance it is not a problem.Since it is a hypothetical case.We do not have to assume it is an explicit case.So it not a known exception to all needing to enter the Church.However a hypothetical case can be placed in Vatican Council II along side an orthodox statement on salvation, or in relation to the dogma EENS.This has been done.This could be done out of confusion or to confuse others.Anyway we can designate it as Level 1.
If someone assumes LG 16 refers to a person saved without the baptism of water, this is stage 2 in the error.Level 2 refers to an invisible case being visible and excludes the baptism of water.  There is a premise of a person saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water and that it was  physically visible to human beings.This is stage 3 of the error.It is knowing (with a fantasy element) that an invisible case is visible.
With stage 3 of the error Vatican Council II contradicts the traditional interpretation of EENS. There are MANY stage 3 examples in Vatican Council II e.g 'imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3), is a hypothetical case, allegedly without the baptism of water and it  is physically visible. This is how it is interpreted in fantasy theology, a new theology.
However LG 14 's 'those who know' is at Level 4.It goes a step further.
____________

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ERROR
Level 1. A hypothetical case is placed in Vatican Council II.Since in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 a hypothetical case was considered explicit, objectively visible and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).It begins with the FALSE PREMISE ( People in Heaven are visible to us on earth).

Level 2 . The hypothetical case excludes the baptism of water. If someone assumes LG 16 refers to a person saved without the baptism of water, this is stage 2 in the error.Level 2 refers to an invisible case being visible and it excludes the baptism of water.FALSE PREMISE ( People in Heaven are visible to us on earth and they can be seen or known without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church).

Level 3 . There is a premise of a person saved in invincible ignorance, without the baptism of water and being physically visible to us human beings.FALSE INFERENCE ( So it is inferred  that these cases being visible and known in the present times are exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Church, for salvation.It is 'knowing' ( with the fantasy, supernatural element) that an invisible case is visible.Then it is posited as an exception to the dogma EENS.

Level 4 . It infers  that  there are exceptions in general to the dogma EENS.Since there are known exceptions to EENS ( even though there really are no known cases) it FURTHER concludes that IN GENERAL not every one needs to enter the Church but only those who know about Jesus and the Church.
___________

The error begins with the 1949 Boston Letter. It suggests that a person being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire or blood is an exception to the dogma EENS.So every one in those times (1949) did not need to enter the Church. Familiar stuff. Here begins the problem.
Since a person can be saved 'in invincible ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of his own'(a hypothesis) and this case is physically known,physically visible ( stage 1), and it excludes the baptism of water (2) this case is an explicit exception to the dogma EENS (3) and so every one does not need to formally enter the Church for salvation in the present times.( Stage 3).
Since there is allegedly a known case of a person saved in inculpable ignorance and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church , it is said that only those who are not in invincible ignorance and who instead, know about the Church and Jesus, only they need to enter the Church and not non Catholics in general.Non Catholics in general it is inferred do not need to enter the Church. This was the big one! This was level 4. The topper. They created a new doctrine based on a stupidity.
They began with the false premise and inference (1 and 2 ) .They concluded that there was now an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( EENS). They concluded there were exceptions in general(4) to the dogma on exclusive salvation.Then FURTHER it was concluded that IN GENERAL not every one needs  to enter the Church but only those who know.Wow.From a particular irrational hypothesis they made a new rule.
This is the factual error in Vatican Council II. It is a doctrinal error, an innovation based on an irrational premise and inference to create a wrong conclusion.
Related image
This cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit cannot teach error and the Holy Spirit cannot reject the dogma EENS, as it was interpreted over the centuries.

THE FAULT IS NOT THERE WITH VATICAN COUNCIL II
Damage control now requires us  to simply accept LG 14 as referring to a hypothetical case.So it is not an explicit exception to the old ecclesiology, as it was known to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center, as it was taught by St. Robert Bellarmine and St. Francis Xavier,  the popes and Church Councils.

VATICAN COUNCIL II AGREES WITH EENS
In this way Vatican Council II ( AG 7, LG 14, NA 4) does not contradict the Church Councils which defined EENS, instead it supports Feeneyite EENS. Vatican Council II does not contradict St. Robert Bellarmine and the 'strict interpretation' of the dogma.The Church's teachings on the need for Jews and Protestants to convert with Catholic Faith is still there.

VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH CUSHINGISM IS AN ERROR
So it is important to identify the error in Vatican Council II and then to avoid it. It is the difference between Feeneyism ( there are no known exceptions to EENS)  and Cushingism ( there are known exceptions to EENS and they exclude the baptism of water).

INTERPRET VATICAN COUNCIL II WITH FEENEYISM
We lay people must interpret Vatican Council II with Feneeyism i.e there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS, we do not know any one who does not know about Jesus and the Church and who will be saved or has already been saved.These are theoretical possibilities known only to God if they exist. There is nothing concrete here.

NATIVES IN GOA, INDIA BEFORE ST.FRANCIS XAVIER BAPTISED THEM
So all the natives in Goa, India were on the way to Hell before St. Francis Xavier baptised them.In general all need the baptism of water for salvation and those natives did not have it. If any of the natives were saved without the baptism of water ( as some postulate) it would not be known to us human beings.So it is not an exception or relevant to the general rule i.e all need 'faith and baptism' (AG 7, LG14) for salvation.

VATICAN COUNCIL II INDICATES THAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE ARE ON THE WAY TO HELL
Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) tells us that the majority of people are oriented to Hell without 'faith and baptism. The dogma EENS says the same. This is the magisterial teaching of the Church according to Vatican Council II and  Sacred Tradition.
This however is not the teaching of the contemporary magisterium of persons who form the Vatican Curia. Nor is this  the doctrine of the traditionalists associated in some way with Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX. -Lionel Andrades

14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing (This is a Level 4 error) that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a "bodily" manner and not "in his heart."(12*)  (Level 1 hypothetical case is placed here ,which is not relevant to the orthodox passage above, which supports EENS. It could be inferred that it excludes the baptism of water. It could be wrongly inferred to be an exception to EENS. )  All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)

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. (Levels 1, 2 and 3 are here.Being saved with the baptism of desire or blood, allegedly without the baptism of water has nothing to do with EENs. Since they are 'zero cases' in our reality, they are invisible to us. )  With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.-Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.




Photo from http://conciliaria.com/what-the-council-did/

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Vatican Council II is no more an issue.We have found the factual error in the Council and it is linked to the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston: SSPX - Vatican talks

So Vatican Council II is no more an issue after we have discovered the factual error in Vatican Council II.
SSPX has simply to announce that they accept Vatican Council II with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism, with no known exceptions to the dogma EENS instead of known exceptions, with no known salvation outside the Church instead of known salvation.



The SSPX MUST Regularize NOW

Comment on the blog The Eponymous Flower , Remnant Warns (Threatens?) SSPX They'll be in Schism if they Don't Play Ball With Vatican

Joseph,
Vatican Council II is no more an issue.We have found the factual error in the Council and it is linked to the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston.
The 1949 Letter assumed hypothetical cases were explicit i.e objectively visible.Then this error in reasoning has been placed all over Vatican Council II.
If we read Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases being just that - hypothetical, the Council changes. It is then not in contradiction but in accord with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), the Feeneyite version. So then there are no exceptions to the old ecclesiology. This is the ecclesiology which the SSPX can support. Since it means there is no change in the exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church and all non Catholics need to formally convert into the Church to avoid Hell.
So Vatican Council II is no more an issue after we have discovered the factual error in Vatican Council II.
SSPX has simply to announce that they accept Vatican Council II with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism, with no known exceptions to the dogma EENS instead of known exceptions, with no known salvation outside the Church instead of known salvation.
Similarly they(SSPX)  need to announce that they reject Vatican Council II with Cushingism, with the irrational premise and inference used to interpret the Council. So they can ask the contemporary magisterium, to stop interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism, which is irrational, non traditional and heretical.
Cushingism cannot be the teaching of the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit cannot make an objective mistake, nor contradict the magisterium of the Church before the Council of Trent.
The Council interpreted with Feeneyism changes the discussion between the SSPX and the Vatican. It is the Vatican Curia which will now be on the defensive. The SSPX simply has to ask the CDF/Ecclesia Dei to affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite version).

Postulancy: The Journey BeginsVeni Sponsa Christi!The Sisters' CD is Now Available!
The St. Benedict Centers, traditionalists, can also ask the Vatican to do the same.
The SSPX and the SBC could begin the dialogue by affirming Vatican Council II in public interpreted without the false premise and inference, which makes the Council a break with Tradition.

It's a win-win situation now.

Here are two posts from my blog which will help in understanding what I have written above.
There are many posts on EucharistandMission which explain this error in Vatican Council II which is still not being discussed by tradtionalists or liberals.


For over two years the falsehood is clear at Dallas but not proclaimed at the local level : from school to university Catholics are taught the false premise

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/for-over-two-years-falsehood-is-clear.html

CDF Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis S.j repeats the error of the 1949 Holy Office Letter : the mistake was placed in Vatican Council in so many passages
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/cdf-notification-on-dupuis-repeats.html
-Lionel Andrades


https://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2016/02/remnant-warns-threatens-sspx-theyll-be.html?showComment=1456331654720#c2530889083755461609

https://www.saintbenedict.com/

For over two years the falsehood is clear at Dallas but not proclaimed at the local level : from school to university Catholics are taught the false premise

 A University of Dallas graduate after reading  the reports on this blog with reference to Dallas in March 2014 says ' I have to admit I was fooled for fifty years.The falsehood is clear but not proclaimed at the local level'. It is two years now. I had e-mailed these blog posts to the Theology Faculty at the University of Dallas, a Catholic University.
 I also e-mailed Bishop Kevin Farrell and his Curia and the offices for Religious Education and Evangelisation.They all knew what I was saying. No one responded.
They continued to teach the lie.
Not only did they continue to teach the lie from school to university in Dallas but a traditionalist college was closed down since it did not accept Vatican Council II with the lie.
IPS History
They did not care. Their priority was their jobs and personal interests. The truth was not important. The Catholic Faith was not the top priority.
Here are some of the reports with reference to Dallas. I do not have time at this moment to check all the related reports.
-Lionel Andrades
http://bishopkevinfarrell.org/
http://udallas.edu/braniff/about/history_ips.php
http://udallas.edu/index.php
http://udallas.edu/constantin/about/tradition.php
https://www.cathdal.org/Auxiliary_Bishop
 

After fifty years of false and blantant teaching it is incredible that anyone who reads and thinks is in the Church. I have to admit I was fooled for fifty years. The falsehood is clear but not proclaimed on the local level- Larry, University of Dallas graduate http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/02/after-fifty-years-of-false-and-blantant.html

 
 
March 14, 2014
Dr.John Dudley and the schools in Dallas
March 20, 2014
Even Tom Mohniyan's Ave Maria University adhere's fully to Ex Corde Ecclesiae and interprets Vatican Counncil II with a false premise
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/even-tom-mohniyans-ave-maria-university.html

Gaudium et Specs 22: Cushing-Jesuit Factual Error

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/gaudium-et-specs-22-cushing-jesuit.html
Dallas school children are told in Religion Class that the Church teaches all in the present times do not have to enter the Catholic Church for salvation
 
Traditionalist extremism
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/traditionalist-extremism.html

ALL THE CATHOLIC SCHOOLS IN DALLAS ARE USING THE FALSE PREMISE  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/all-catholic-schools-in-dallas-are.html

From school to university Catholic children are taught the false premise : Fort Worth Diocese

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/from-school-to-university-catholic.html

Chaplains at FMC used the false premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II : cause of tension with faculty

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/chaplains-at-fmc-used-false-premise-in.html

First class heresy which is expected of priests, is also taught in schools at Catholic Fort Worth diocese

 
March 7, 2014

Bishop Michael Olson wants faculty and students to accept a lie ?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/03/bishop-michael-olson-wants-faculty-and.html