Sunday, March 6, 2016

Abp.Guido Pozzo does not deny it : Ecclesia Dei/CDF use an irrationality and heresy to interpret Vatican Council II

I mentioned in a previous report:-

The CDF could clarify the points mentioned here.

Archbishop Thomas E. Gullickson says there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Archbishop Pozzo could clarify if he agrees with him.

Fr.S.Visintin osb. Dean of Theology at the Pontifical University of St. Anselm, Rome says the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance do not refer to known cases.There are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Archbishop Guido Pozzo could clarify if being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire refer to known exceptions, to the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus.2

Similarly the Catholic apologist John Martignoni says zero cases of something cannot be exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Archbishop Pozzo could clarify if he considers Lumen Gentium 16 (saved in invincible ignorance) a zero- case with reference to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

He could also clarify if the magisterium made a mistake in the 1949 Boston Case and an injustice was done to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St. Benedict Center.He could also ask the Jesuits to issue a clarification, or rather an apology, on this issue.1


 Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson says Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors

Related image

How can zero cases of something be considered exceptions ?- John Martignoni

-Lionel Andrades

Abp. Guido Pozzo wants the SSPX to accept Vatican Council II with heresy
Archbishop Pozzo must not change the teachings of the Church to please his superiors

Bishop Williamson is correct. Rome must come back to the Faith before there can be an agreement

Just sayin'
When a rogue bishop starts consecrating new bishops carelessly, as (the bishop expelled from the Society of Saint Pius X Richard) Williamson is doing now, Thuc-style, one can start doubting validity. Carelessly, awake, but as in a dream...

Bishop Williamson is correct. Rome must come back to the Faith  before there can be an agreement.There cannot be an agreement with liberals who do not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no exceptions ( SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012). No agreement please, with magisterial heresy.This is being sought by Rorate Caeili and supporters.
Rorate Caeili, Joseph Shaw and the 'SSPX group' refuse to interpret Vatican Council II rationally ( there are no physically known  exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus).This is common sense. It is simple. Even a non Catholic can understand it. No theology is needed.Instead the Rorate group chooses to support an irrationality in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENs.For them there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS and they include the baptism of desire etc.This is the Cushingite version.It's from the liberals in the Archdiocese of Boston supported by the new Rome, the innovative Rome.
The theology of Rorate is Christological and anti- ecclesiological, ecclesiological in an exclusivist sense.It is Jesus separated from the Church. Jesus without the necessity of membership in the Catholic Church for salvation.Since for Rorate there are known cases of the baptism of desire and blood,there are people now in Heaven without the baptism of water,there  is salvation outside the Church.It is with this mode of thinking that they intepret Vatican Council II.
Dominicans of Avrille, France
This is the liberal position of the contemporary magisterium and that of the Jewish Left which Rorate supports to stay above water.
It may be asked when has Rorate or the Vatican Curia said there are people in Heaven saved without the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water who are physically visible to us in 2016?
Reply : They say this when they say there are exceptions to the dogma EENS.It is implied. It is inferred and when this is pointed out to them there is no denial.
They say this when they say hypothetical cases in Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) are exceptions to the dogma EENS.
These hypothetical cases would have to be physically visible to be exceptions to the Feeneyite version of EENS.No clarification or denial from Rorate here.
They would have to been seen in the flesh for Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) to be a break with Tradition- and we know the Council is a break with Tradition for Rorate.
If these invisible cases for me, are not seen in the flesh, not objectively known in the present times, how could they be relevant to  EENS, for Rorate ? Yet they were relevant for the cardinal who issued the Letter of the Holy Office in  1949 and this is accepted by Rorate Caeili with the objective error. It is also accepted by the present liberal magisterium, which wants the SSPX to accept all this innovation for canonical status.
Rorate correspondents approve the consecration of the four bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre who assumed there were known exceptions to all needing to enter the Church for salvation. Not only is Archbishop Lefebvre contradicted by the SSPX General Chapter Statement but this is the same magisterial heresy which Rorate supports.
The validity of the four bishops is accepted even though it was with doctrinal error and heresy. The four bishops changed the Nicene Creed( I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin to I believe in  three or more known baptisms without the baptism of water). They interpreted Vatican Council II as a break with the past.Since there are three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sin, (and they include baptisms without the baptism of water) LG 16 etc contradicts the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.Vatican Council II becomes heretical and is rejected.With the same irrationality(that of known exceptions in the present times to the dogma EENS) they interpret and accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and other magisterial documents. All this is normal and 'doctinal' for them.
With all these public errors New Catholic at Rorate Caeili, (who still does not write under his real name) accepts the validity of the consecration of the four SSPX bishops and does not ask if Archbishop Lefebvre was also in heresy.
It is not known what was the motive for his writing that Just Sayin piece.We know that the SSPX may not affirm the Faith in public only to protect its property. We know that the SSPX did not comment on the  recent document on Dialogue with the Jews.The document said Jews do not need to convert.It also  distorted Nostra Aetate 4.NA 4 really says Catholics are the new people of God, the Chosen People.Neither did Bishop Athansius Schneider in a recent interview with Rorate affirm exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. In this way Bishop Schneider remains in communion with the Church and has canonical status at the expense of the truth.He has no problem with Pope Francis and the Jewish Left.
Similarly New Catholic does not state that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism instead of Cushingism.He remains politically correct with Left.He supports the new ecclesiology with the Traditional Latin Mass as does Pope Francis. So no one accuses New Catholic of being anti-Semitic.
Neither will Joseph Shaw, Rorate correspondent in England risk his teaching of theology at Oxford University, by affirming the truth i.e Vatican Council II can be interpreted with LG 16 etc referring to invisible and not visible cases.So for Shaw and New Catholic,  Vatican Council II does not contradict the Feeneyite version of the dogma i.e the 'strict interpretation'.This is irrational and heretical. It is the same  liberal position as cardinals Koch and Kaspar.
The Rorate correspondents are not saying, like the apologist John Martignoni, that zero cases of something are not exceptions to EENS  and that the baptism of desire and blood without the baptism of water is a zero case for us.
With such a blatant denial of the Faith by Rorate Caeili how can they criticize the validity of the consecration done by Bishop Richard Williamson? 
The heresy of the magisterium and Archbishop Lefebvre is there before all in public and no one is willing to defend the Archbishop in spite of so many of my reports on the Internet.
While Bishop Williamson who does not support a Rome which has doctrinally lost the Faith- and who is not afraid of the anti-Semitic stigma- is referred to in such a crude way by New Catholic, who like Bishop Athanasius Schnieder, is protecting personal interests at the expense of the truth.He wants the SSPX to do the same within the Catholic Church, to get its canonical status with the approval of the Left.
'Rome must come back to the Faith' and it can happen when the traditionalists and the Vatican  avoid an irrational premise and inference in the interpretation of magisterial documents, especially Vatican Council II. It can happen when Bishop Schneider and Rorate are willing to set an example, by affirming  exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church with no known exceptions in 2016.This needs to be said in spite of the personal costs.-Lionel Andrades
Eleison Comments  5