Saturday, July 2, 2016

Jean-Paul Sartre: ‘Bathroom Bill’ Philosopher Extraordinaire by Brother André Marie

[THIS FALL: 2016 SBC Conference
The next Reconquest: The Precious Blood of Jesus. Learn how to listen to Reconquest.]
Jean-Paul Sartre: ‘Bathroom Bill’ Philosopher Extraordinaire by Brother André Marie 
Anyone who has studied a smattering of modern philosophy in college has probably heard the misanthropic utterance of Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) from No Exit, “Hell is other people” (L’enfer, c’est les autres). As with Friedrich Nietzsche’s “God is dead,” this pithy little impiety has been scrawled as graffiti on bathroom walls (where it arguably belongs), and blazoned on t-shirts, stickers, and now, on Internet “memes.” And just as some clever wag humorously inverted the declamation of Nietzsche (“Nietzsche is dead. —God”), another did the job for Sartre: “Hell is Sartre. —Other People.”
That quotable quote from No Exit, a popular expression of its author’s miserable philosophy, is quoted by fashionable atheists and libertines to give themselves an air of sophistication. Familiarity with the works of Sartre is marked as an accomplishment in their circles — perhaps as reading Saint Augustine or Saint Thomas Aquinas would be in other circles.
If his contempt for others, as expressed in L’enfer, c’est les autres, were Sartre’s only sin, the damage, though real, might have been confined to himself. (Of course, the damage could have been considerable, as one of history’s greatest non-self-fulfilling prophesies.) But Sartre was an existentialist who fully embraced the central doctrine of that loose philosophical school: “Existence precedes essence.”
It sounds innocently erudite, doesn’t it? But from there to moral anarchy, a proliferation of fictitious genders, and that signal legislative reality of 2016 — the bathroom bill — is not a very long trip.
How so?
As the sage editors of Wikipedia tell us:
Jean-Paul Sartre, the author of Being and Nothingness, wrote in his essay “Existentialism and Humanism,” “What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself.”
The existentialist philosopher is contrasted with the “essentialist” philosopher (e.g., Saint Thomas Aquinas), for whom universal natures and essences have great importance. Essence is “that by which a thing is what it is.” It is the quiddity, or whatness of a thing. Nature is essence considered in more concrete terms: according to what it can do and what can be done to it. Thanks to the realities of essence and nature, we can know, and intelligently speak about, what are conveyed by the words “cat,” “man,” “heavy,” “tree,” “soul,” and every other reality we observe and name. Each of these words is attached to concrete realities in existence, and each of them invokes a concept in the mind that corresponds to these realities. The concepts in the mind are important, because they are how reality is knowable to an intelligent creature. Against the idealists like Kant, we affirm the existence andknowability of concrete existing things, and against the nominalists like the medieval Roscelin or the modern John Stuart Mill, we affirm the reality of universal concepts.
But for the more radical of the existentialists, essence is not so much denied outright as it is rendered fluid, to be given concreteness only by the existing thing. So, we “define ourselves.” Again, to quote Sartre:  “We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards.” For Sartre the atheist, things simply exist with no reason, no cause, no necessity. Being simply is. Consciousness is all. Autonomy is all. There is no God, and no moral order.
Maybe Rachel Dolezal (“I acknowledge that I was biologically born white to white parents, but I identify as black.”) would have been embarrassingly vulgar for Sartre, but he could not have denied her claims as following from his principles.
Sartre’s ontology is nonsense, but ontology does not seem to be his real interest. No, his real interest appears to be writing cynical apologias for libertinism, the sort of libertinism he expressed by his “open” sexual relationship with fellow existentialist and pioneer feminist, Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986); and the kind of libertinism sheexpressed when she romanticized a fictitious ménage à trois between herself, Sartre, and a younger woman in her own 1943 novel, She Came to Stay.
Sartre had a complex relationship with communists (he cannot strictly be called a communist or a Marxist), but he admired the murderous revolutionary Che Guevara as “not only an intellectual but also the most complete human being of our age,” and as the “era’s most perfect man.” Presumably, Che “defined himself” very well.
On the other hand, our moral anarchist was critical of Castro’s Cuba for persecuting homosexuals, whom he compared to Jews suffering under Nazi persecution: “In Cuba there are no Jews, but there are homosexuals.”
Brother Francis said of notable modern philosophers in general that they were not just harmless fools, but very influential fools. Inasmuch as Sartre’s legacy is with us still, he remains an influential fool.
But in spite of what that fool might say, there is an exit. It is natural beingknowing, and doing elevated by grace. In a word, it is holiness, which God puts frighteningly close to each one of us who seeks it.-

Which doctrine should the pope choose ? Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the theology of Cushingism or Feeneyism.The conclusion is different with either of the two theologies

Bishop Bernard Fellay
1.  In the great and painful confusion that currently reigns in the Church, the proclamation of Catholic doctrine requires the denunciation of errors that have made their way into it and are unfortunately encouraged by a large number of pastors, including the Pope himself...
Which doctrine should the pope choose? Vatican Council II can be interpreted with the theology of Cushingism or Feeneyism.The conclusion is different with either of the two theologies.

2. The Society of Saint Pius X, in the present state of grave necessity which gives it the right and duty to administer spiritual aid to the souls that turn to it, does not seek primarily a canonical recognition, to which it has a right as a Catholic work. 

Yes the SSPX has a right.However it needs to accept Vatican Council II. I accept Vatican Council II.I accept Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite). This is different from the interpretation of Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) according to the SSPX or CDF/Ecclesia Dei.The SSPX rejects Vatican Council II( Cushingite) and doesn't seem aware of a Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).
So if the SSPX would accept Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) they would be entitled to canonical status.It would be their right. No one could say that they are denying Vatican Council II.

It has only one desire: faithfully to bring the light of the bi-millennial Tradition which shows the only route to follow in this age of darkness in which the cult of man replaces the worship of God, in society as in the Church.
Image result for Photo of Catholic doctrine

The ' bi-millennial Tradition' before the Council of Trent did not use Cushingism as a theology.They did not re-interpret the baptism of desire and blood  and being saved in invincible ignorance, as referring to objectively known cases,personally known people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water.For us human beings the baptism of desire with or without the baptism of water, will always be invisible.It always was invisible if it existed.Invisble for us baptism of desire of a theoretical case of a catechumen was part of Tradition.Liberal theologians have reinterpreted this hypothetical case as being explicit for us.This is Cushingism. It was not part of the Tradition of the Church before the Council of Trent.

3. The “restoration of all things in Christ” intended by Saint Pius X, following Saint Paul (cf. Ep.h 1:10), cannot happen without the support of a Pope who concretely favors the return to Sacred Tradition...

'the return to Sacred Tradition'.The use of the theology of Cushingism to interpret all magisterial documents is the new theology, the new liberal theology.It was not part of Sacred Tradition before the Council of Trent.

 While waiting for that blessed day, the Society of Saint Pius X intends to redouble its efforts to establish and to spread, with the means that Divine Providence gives to it, the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

How can the SSPX spread the the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ when Cushingism, the theology which they employ, says there is salvation outside the Church, every one does not need to a formal member of the Church, every one does not need to belong to the Catholic Church for salvation ?Theologically the SSPX is saying there are exceptions to the necessity of knowing and believing in Jesus.So why should all political legislation be based on Jesus according to the Catholic Church, when non Catholics can be saved outside the Church and without knowing Jesus personally?

4. The Society of Saint Pius X prays and does penance for the Pope, that he might have the strength to proclaim Catholic faith and morals in their entirety. In this way he will hasten the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary that we earnestly desire as we approach the centennial of the apparitions in Fatima.
Image result for Photo of Our Lady of FatimaImage result for Photo of Our Lady of Fatima

At Fatima, Our Lady said the dogma of the faith will be lost except for some future time in Portugal.Presently the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is lost since Pope Francis,Pope Benedict and the SSPX inteprets it with Cushingism, which is irrational, non traditional and heretical.
-Lionel Andrades

Communiqué from Bishop Fellay  June 29, 2016

SSPX is not in full communion since they will not accept a heretical interpretation of Vatican Council II unlike the popes and Vatican Curia

Traditionalist St. Pius X society 

abandons unification, claims 

Francis spreading errors

A traditionalist group of Catholic bishops and priests
 that has been separated from the wider Church
 for decades appears to have abandoned efforts
 to reunite with Rome, releasing
 a statement Wednesday that claims Pope Francis is 
encouraging the spreading of errors in Church teaching. 
The Society of St. Pius X, founded by the late French 
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1970 mainly in opposition
 to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, says 
now it “does not primarily seek a canonical recognition”
 from the Vatican for its continuing activities. 
There are 'reforms of the Second 
Vatican Council' only if Vatican
 Council II is interpreted with
 Cushingism instead of Feneeyism
 as a theology.
If the Society interprets Vatican
 Council II(Feeneyite) they have 
canonical status. Since they
 are accepting Vatican Council II
 ( Feeneyite) and they are 
intepreting ecumenism, 
religious liberty and inter-religious
dialogue with the old 
ecclesiology based on 
extra ecclesiam nulla salus 
(Feeneyite).Canonical status would 
be there right.Since they are accepting
Vatican Council II without heresy.

The society also says there is a “great
 and painful confusion that currently 
reigns in the Church” that “requires 
the denunciation of errors that have 
made their way into it and are
 unfortunately encouraged 
by a large number of pastors, including
 the Pope himself.” 
 Lionel:Yes they
 are all interpreting Vatican Council II, 
the Catechism of the Catholic
 Church, the Nicene Creed and 
the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla 
salus (EENS) with Cushingism 
instead of traditional Feeneyism.

The statement, released on the society’s
website, seems to eliminate chances that
 the group might reunite with Rome. 
Popes have tried to repair relations over
 four decades. 
 There can be untiy if the traditionalists 
announce that they prefer to interpret all
 magisterial documents with the Feeneyite 
theology, since it is rational and traditional.
 They could ask the Vatican Curia to do the
 same.This option is still there.

Pope Benedict XVI made the most effort 
to reunite with the group, lifting the 
excommunications of four of their
 bishops in 2009. Those efforts ultimately 
failed when Bishop Bernard Fellay, 
their current superior general, rejected
 a doctrinal statement drafted by the 
Vatican for the group to sign.  
Pope Benedict XVI wanted the
 SSPX to interpret Vatican Council II 
and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla 
salus,with innovative Cushingism.
In this way Vatican Council is 
 a break with Tradition on ecumenism,
 salvation, other religions,religious 
liberty etc.It would be heresy for the
 SSPX to accept Vatican Council II
 interpreted with Cushnigism.

Wednesday’s statement is made in 
Fellay’s name and comes as the global 
Catholic Church is celebrating the 
feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, the
 founders of the Church in Rome.  
 They both affirmed  outside the
Church there is no salvation.

Fellay says he is making the
 statement following a June 25-28 
meeting of the society’s superiors 
and gives four numbered points 
based on the premise that the 
purpose of the group “is chiefly
 the formation of priests, the 
essential condition
 for the renewal of the Church 
and for the restoration
 of society.” 
 However Bishop Fellay is not
aware that the new priests are being 
formed with the new theology, the 
Cushingite theology. Cushingism is based 
upon a philosphical error, an empirical 
error. Then upon this irrational the new 
Cushingite theology was created.It is the 
bases of the Anonymous Christian 
theology of Fr. Karl Rahner S.J.
The statement ends with a paragraph 
that begins: “The Society of Saint Pius
 X prays and does penance
 for the Pope, that he might have
 the strength to proclaim Catholic
 faith and morals in their entirety.” 
In faith and morals the pope
 rejects traditional teaching with
 philosphical subjectivity.
He assumes there are subjectively 
known cases of the baptism of desire
 etc which are exceptions to the dogma 
EENS. In Amoris Laetitia he also 
assumed that there were subjectively
 known cases, who were practical 
exceptions,to being in mortal sin.
The SSPX rejects subjectivism in moral
theology but accepts it in salvation theology, 
since Archbishop Lefebvre did the same.

The society’s statement comes less than 
three months after Francis met with Fellay
 for the first time at the Vatican in April.  

The Pope had earlier indicated a move 
toward unity between the wider Church and 
the traditionalist society with the opening 
of the ongoing Jubilee year of mercy last fall. 
 He still has not removed restrictions on 
Fr.Stefano Manelli F.I and the Franciscans
 of the Immaculate priests who want to
 offer the Traditional Latin Mass. 
He has closed down the F.I seminary.

In a September letter to the 
Pontifical Council for the Promotion 
of the New Evangelization, 
which is organizing the holy year on his behalf,
 he explained that members of the society would 
be granted faculties during the year to offer 
absolution of sins “validly and licitly” to those
 who approach them for confession. 
In a March interview posted on the society’s website
, Fellay had before said he thought Francis may
 consider his group as existing on the “periphery”
 and thus needing to be accompanied back to the 
It is believed that the Jewish Left derailed 
the unification agreement since they want
 the SSPX to interpret Vatican Council II 
with Cushingism and to accept the 
irrational conclusion of this irrational
The SSPX uses irrational Cushingism,
 like Pope Francis, but does not accept 
the conclusion. Pope Francis accepts this 
Vatican Council II(Cushingite) which  is a
 break with Tradition. 
They both do not interpret Vatican 
Council II with Feeneyism.

Outside of the faculties granted 
during the Jubilee year, members
 of the traditionalist society are 
considered not to be in full 
communion with Rome and, in 
normal circumstances, its priests 
and bishops cannot exercise Roman
 Catholic ministry.  
They are not in full communion 
since they will not accept a heretical 
interpretation of Vatican Council II,
approved by the Jewish Left, for the 
Catholic Church.

[Joshua J. McElwee is Vatican Correspondent 
for the National Catholic Reporter.] 

Traditionalist St. Pius X society

 abandons unification, claims

 Francis spreading errors


JUNE 6, 2016

FSSP and SSPX priests need to know that there is a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office and Vatican Council II: there is an irrational premise

False reasoning from the Letter is all
 over Vatican Council II: Abp Lefebvre 
did not notice it -3

False reasoning from the Letter is all over Vatican

 Council II: Abp Lefebvre did not notice it -2

False reasoning from the Letter is all over Vatican 

Council II: Abp Lefebvre did not notice it -1

The Letter made a mistake. Archbishop 
Lefebvre did not notice it

So much Internet confusion on 'Catholic Salvation' : websites only discuss the Protestant-Catholic aspect and avoid non Christian religions

There is so much confusion on Catholic Salvation.All the links and tags on 'salvation' only refer to the Protestant-Catholic aspect.What is the official teaching of the traditionalists and sedevacantists on salvation?Their websites do not say it clearly.
Why do their website not say all non Catholics need to convert into the Catholic Church according to the Bible( John 3:5, Mark 16:16,Matt.7:13-14 etc),Tradition ( The Church Councils and the popes) and the text of Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church intepreted with Feeneyism.
This is the rational and non ambigous teaching of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II.Why don't they say that this is the message of Vatican Council II(Feeneyite)  in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 ?
So all non Catholics need to be formal members of the Catholic Church to avoid the fires of Hell.For me it is clear.
The websites of the traditionalists and sedevacantists could clarify that their understanding of the Catholic Faith, is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, since Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.He is the only way, truth and life.
So someone could ask the SSPX or the Most Holy Trinity sedevacantist seminary,Florida,of Bishop Donald Sanborn to be clear and say that Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation, since the Bible says the same ( John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Matt.7:13-14 etc) and the past magisterium says the same. 
However the position of  the present magisterium is confusing and politically accomodating with the Left but the position of the traditionalists and sedevacantists is also confusing.Instead of an EENS ( Feeneyite) , they choose an EENS ( Cushingite), as does the Vatican Curia.
Instead of a Vatican Council (Feeneyite) ,like the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, they can only interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism.This is the error on all the websites.I have not seen an exception.
They will vaguely say all need Jesus for salvation( but with the new theology which they accept) and they mean there is known salvation in another religion.So every one does not need to enter the Church for salvation.
They will vaguely say that the Church is necessary for salvation and also say that the baptism of desire is an exception.In some cases the Church is not necessary. Hypothetical cases ( baptism of desire,invincible ingnorance(LG 16), elements of sanctification and truth(LG 8) etc) are known exceptions for all of them.
Even the St.Benedict Centers, the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney, will interpret EENS as Feeneyite (no known exceptions) but will not interpret Vatican Council II as Feeneyite.Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to EENS for the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.Their position on Vatican Council II is the same as the SSPX and the sedevacantists.
Instead they should all tell the Vatican that they affirm Vatican Council II and EENS.They accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church.They interpret all these magisterial documents with rational and non ambigous Feeneyism. They should ask the CDF and Ecclesia Dei, Vatican to also do the same.
Just as parts of Amoris Laetitia is controversial for  Archbishop Guido Pozzo, the secertary of the Ecclesia Dei and consultator to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he should be asked to announce that EENS(Cushingite)  and Vatican Council II (Cushingite) is also controversial.How can theology assume there are objective cases of the baptism of desire?
The position of the SSPX on salvation is  confusing.Doctrinally they have made an error, as did the magisterium, on 'Feeneyism'.Since there can be no known cases past or present of any one saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.There can be no known exceptions to Feeneyism.
So the SSPX websites do not doctrinally teach the Catholic teaching on salvation.Before the Council of Trent it was assumed that there was no salvation outside the Church.The SSPX website assumes there is.
Before the Council of Trent it was assumed that the desire for the baptism of water by a theoretical case of a catechumen who dies before receiving it, is  hypothetical.It cannot be personally known.The SSPX website indicates that it is an exception to EENS, so it cannot be a hypothetical case.It has to be a known case for it to be an exception.
In the past it was taught every one needs to be a card carrying member of the Catholic Church now the SSPX websites indicate there are exceptions.( Baptism of desire etc).
Before the Council of Trent Feeneyism( there are no known exceptions) was the only theology now according to the SSPX website the dominant theology is Cushingite.

Before the Council of Trent there was no concept of the Anonymous Christian.Now the SSPX has accepted the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and so with being saved in  invincible ignorance etc, allegedly without the baptism of water,there is salvation outside the Church.There can be salvtion in another religion.This  is the Anonymous Christian theology of Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger.This is the new theology of the SSPX. This is standard Cushingite theology which was not there before the Council of Trent.
This is all the confusion which is there when you google the words 'Salvation', 'Catholic salvation'.
-Lionel Andrades