Thursday, June 9, 2016

IT’S SO EASY - Only one thing matters on earth — and it's very easy (in comparison) - Michael Voris

Gaining Heaven is pretty simple.
So here’s a quick question: If someone offered you $5 million to take a knife and make a small cut in your finger, would you do it? No tricks, everything straightforward, no deception. Just make a small cut, like a paper cut, the type…
CHURCHMILITANT.COM

http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/vort-2016-06-09

Bishop Fellay made a mistake and Boniface on the blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam has nothing to say in his defense:agrees Cardinal Muller and Archbishop Augustine di Noia also made an objective error

Unam Sanctam Catholicam
Bishop Fellay made a mistake 1 and Boniface on the blog Unam Sanctam Catholicam has nothing to say in his defense.2.
I have said on blog posts that Bishop Fellay assumes hypothetical cases are explicit, so they are objective exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Boniface agrees with me.He has read the statement of Bishop Fellay along with my explanation.
Boniface,the founder of the blog,  does not say that Fellay does not assume hypothetical cases are explicit.He agrees with me.Fellay does assume hypothetical cases are explicit in the present times.So there is an objective mistake made by the Superior General of the SSPX and Boniface on his blog agrees.
Then I wrote that Cardinal Gerhard Muller  and Archbishop Augustine di Noia made the same public mistake.Boniface agrees with me here too.He has read their statements in the National Catholic Register and has no arguement in their favour.

He does not support them.The error is obvious.So Boniface cannot say, 'Lionel, there is a mistake in your theology or reasoning'.At the most he will criticize me for spamming.I have been placing comments on his blog calling attention to this issue which he has neglected for years.I have also been pointing out to this same error being taught at the Norcia theology program.
Boniface knows in his heart that I am correct and the three people mentioned in the blog posts are wrong.However his bishop holds the same wrong view. He also knows Dave Armstrong and the priests and professors at the Angelicum University,Rome,whom he admires,  also maintain the same irrational reasoning as Muller, Di Noia, Fellay and his bishop.
All the members of his choir for whom he has had religious programs are using the Muller-Di Noia-Fellay irrattional reasoning.He taught them while confusing invisible cases as visible.Since for him this was magisterial. It was the teaching of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
On traditional issues, like the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation, Boniface uses the irrational premise and conclusion of Muller, Di Noia and Fellay.
So this mistake of theirs,  is obvious for Boniface when he read my blog posts which state Muller-Di Noia and Fellay mistook hypothetical cases as being objective. They wrongly assumed that hypothetical cases were 'real people' in the present times.So there were real exceptions, for them, to the traditional understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).
Boniface cannot refute me doctrinally.Since I affirm EENS and also  implicit- for- us- baptism of desire.I reject explicit -for- us- baptism of desire.I also accept Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and reject Vatican Council II ( Cushingite).Nor can he correct me theologically.Since I do not interpret magisterial documents with Cushingism as a theology.I choose traditional Feeneyism instead.
Basically what I am saying is that hypothetical cases cannot be objectively known in our present reality.They are invisible and not visible.So how can Boniface contradict this? But then, how can he also say in public, that I am correct? This is a problem facing other traditionalists too.
He cannot say anything doctrinally or theologically against me when I say that Bishop Fellay made a mistake,even Boniface in the past was pro-SSPX.-Lionel Andrades

1.

Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective mistake in the interpretation of Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/muller-di-noia-and-fellay-made.html

Muller, Di Noia and Fellay made an objective mistake : hypothetical cases are assumed to be explicit

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/muller-di-noia-and-fellay-made_8.html

2.
Hey, Lionel...

http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.it/2016/06/hey-lionel.html



I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) in agreement with Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14). EENS and Vatican Council II say all need to formally enter the Church for salvation ( with faith and baptism ).There are no exceptions

 
 
 
 
From the blog The Eponymous Flower: Vatican Excommunicates Members of the "Bambinello of Gallinaro"Community
  
 
Michael Bonici:
 Lionel makes the category error of believing that his corrupt Neo-Scholastic syllogism actually has something to do with God, Christ, the Holy Spirit and the entire Mysterium Fidei.
Lionel:I affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).I then affirm it in agreement with Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14). I say that EENS and Vatican Council II say all need to formally enter the Church for salvation ( with faith and baptism ).There are no exceptions. This is the general rule, this is the de fide teaching.

Then I say that I personally I do not know of any one saved with the baptism of desire or blood, with or without the baptism of water. So there are no known exceptions to the dogma for me in 2016.

The baptism of desire is a hypothetical case. For it to be an exception or relevant to EENS it would have to be explicit. Zero cases of something are not exceptions to EENS says the apologist John Martignoni.

So the bottom line is that there is no known salvation outside the Church for me. I cannot meet someone saved without the baptism of water.This is physically impossible and so no one in the past could also have known of a case of someone saved outside the Church.

So this is my basic position. It is traditional with no irrational theology.

I at least know my Catholic Faith and can give an account of it on the issue of salvation.Tancred, instead when asked, indicates he has to confirm his position with Brother Andre Marie MICM,Prior, St. Benedict Center, N.H, USA.

My Approachhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/my-approach-apologetics.html

SSPX in its theological and philosophical formation is using the false premise and conclusion which is the basis of the new theologyhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/sspx-in-its-theological-and.htmlDelete
-Lionel Andrades
 

Once we avoid this irrationality, we are back to traditional theology.

From the blog The Eponymous  Flower::Vatican Excommunicates Members of the "Bambinello of Gallinaro"Community
 
Michael Bonnici:
Lionel's trust in the corrupt Neo-Scholasticism which underpins and validates to his satisfaction the 'reasoning' which supports views on Baptism has led him into heterodoxy.
Lionel:Be specific please.
I am saying that hypothetical cases are not explicit.Period.
So we cannot reject the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas for example, on exclusive salvation in the Church,by claiming there is known salvation outside the Church.We cannot reject orthodoxy on the salvation-issue by assuming hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to Aquinas' traditional understanding of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Once we avoid this irrationality, we are back to traditional theology.
_________________

What on earth has corrupt Neo-Scholasticism...Lionel:
Corrupt new Scholasticism refers to liberal theologians interpreting the baptism of desire and blood as refering to explicit cases. So they postulate that there are exceptions to the St. Thomas Aquinas' understanding of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.In other words the man in the forest, in invincible ignorance, refers to a known case in the present times, objectively visible, seen in the flesh and so he is an explicit exception to Thomaism on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church and all needing to be formal members of the Church to avoid the fires of Hell.-Lionel Andrades

Is it not a first class heresy for Archbishop Di Noia to reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus defined by three Church Councils and that too with an irrationality? Is this not heresy for you? Is this not the stuff for excommunication?

From the blog The Eponymous Flower : Vatican Excommunicates Members of the "Bambinello of Gallinaro"Community
 
AthelstaneIs
there *any* blog post you can't derail with lengthy Feeneyite broadsides, Lionel?


Lionel:
It is based on reason, simple English, affirming traditional theology and Catholic doctrine.
It is based on a factual and public error made by three persons including Bishop Fellay.
You are unable to refute the rationality of the report nor question its orthodoxy. Neither are you able to defend Bishop Fellay.
All you can refer to is 'Feeneyism' which keeps you politically correct with the Left.
It's like Boniface on Unam Sanctam Catholicam who will comment on every thing else, with reference to me, except the subject in question: Catholic doctrine and theology.
You do not agree that Bishop Fellay, and the others, have a new theology based on hypothetical cases being objective exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla nulla salus?
You are aware, that I can affirm Vatican Council II without assuming hypothetical cases( LG 16, LG 8, UR 3 etc) are objective in 2016 ? So then Vatican would not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the 16th century missionaries?

Is it not a first class heresy for Archbishop Di Noia to reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus defined by three Church Councils and that too with an irrationality? Is this not heresy for you?
Is this not the stuff for excommunication?
-Lionel Andrades

http://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2016/06/cdf-community-is-contrary-to-catholic.html#comment-form