Saturday, September 10, 2016

The Vatican Curia interprets the Nicene Creed with irrational Cushingism : 'I believe in three known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins.'

















-Lionel Andrades


SEPTEMBER 10, 2016


If the magisterium avoids the error Vatican Council II , Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Catechism of the Catholic Church can be interpreted with rational and traditional Feeneyism :it's a return to the old ecclesiology

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/if-magisterium-avoids-error-vatican.html



In the hierarchy of values of Pope John Paul II, we are dealing with first class heresy http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/04/on-hierarchy-of-values-of-pope-john.html


"Thanks for providing this! God bless the Society!", " I agree with much of what Lionel says" http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/thanks-for-providing-this-god-bless.html

The Nicene Creed was changed with the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mistake : it was approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/03/the-nicene-creed-was-changed-with.html

Where the Worm Dieth Not - Michael Voris

WHERE THE WORM DIETH NOT

https://gloria.tv/video/WGU4CFxU1AZLMpoxXM2ZWcCQ3

http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/vortex-where-the-worm-dieth-not

If the magisterium avoids the error Vatican Council II , Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Catechism of the Catholic Church can be interpreted with rational and traditional Feeneyism :it's a return to the old ecclesiology











































..and the error is carried over into the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257).




















So if the magisterium is aware of the error and avoids it then Vatican Council II , the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church  can be interpreted - not with irrational Cushingism - but with rational and traditional Feeneyism.So there will be a return to the old ecclesiology.
-Lionel Andrades


This magisterial error has to be acknowledged and corrected by the CDF, it is a doctrinal error :the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculate are being forced to accept it, with the interpretation of Vatican Council II, to have their position regularised

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/this-magisterial-error-has-to-be.html


There is the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite) as interpretated by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/there-is-catechism-of-catholic-church.html

A piu di cinquan' anni dalla chiusura del Concilio Vaticano II è urgente leggere veramente i suoi testi.Il Concilio non ha mai chiesto di celebrare rivolti al popolo - Cardinale Robert Sarah con Famiglia Cristiana

Parla il prefetto della congregaziione per il culto divino : la Messa sia celebra verso Dio



https://gloria.tv/article/sp8F7c2nariYKnGj1NrBwj8yR


This magisterial error has to be acknowledged and corrected by the CDF, it is a doctrinal error :the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculate are being forced to accept it, with the interpretation of Vatican Council II, to have their position regularised


 
For Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF), the passages quoted above from Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II, refer to someone visible.Since he infers that they are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiamn nulla salus as interpreted by the 16th century missionaries.If they were invisible they would not be exceptions or relevant to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
For him these passages are also exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 saying all need faith and baptism for salvation.All.
So it is upon this irrationality that he and the two popes and officials of the International Theological Commission, interpret Vatican Council II.So his premise is wrong and the conclusion is a break with Tradition( Syllabus of Errors, extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite), Athanasius Creed etc).
 
For Cardinal Muller,Cardinal Ladaria, Archbishop Di Noia, Archbishop Pozzo and others at the CDF they would  consider seen, what I would consider as being 'not seen'.What is invisible, according to common knowledge, they postulate as being visible. I cannot see people in Heaven or on earth saved with the baptism of desire. They would infer they can see such persons. Then they will support the New Theology, which assumes people who are not seen are really seen.
 
 
For the Vatican Curia,Lumen Gentium 16 refers to someone visible. For me this can only be a reference to someone invisible in 2016. So when Wikipedia and other secular media, infer that Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to the Feeneyite rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus there is no opposition from the Vatican. Since they agree with Wikipedia on there being visible exceptions to EENS.LG 16 is the common example.
 
Wikipedia,the National Catholic Register editorial staff,apologists at Catholic Answers and Catholics in general assume we can see a baptism of desire case in 2016.
Reason tells us that we cannot see someone saved in invincible ignorance in 2016. One does not have to be a Catholic to know that being saved in invincible ignorance cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Zero cases of something are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus said the apologist John Martignoni.Now the Vatican Curia has still to make this common place announcement.

 
Our two popes are Cushingites.
 
 
For me the baptism of desire can only be invisible. I cannot see people in Heaven. So if someone was saved with the baptism of desire, allegedly without the baptism of water, I would not be able to physically know about this case.
 
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumed invisible cases awere visible. Theology in the Church was derailed.The Letter contradicted the centuries-old magisterium on a faith issue.With an inter-office letter from one bishop to another, which was kept secret for three years, a dogma (EENS) defined by three Church Councils  was discarded.The Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) would call this dogma an 'aphorism'.
 
The mistake was carried over into Vatican Council II by Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits active at Vatican Council II ( 1960-1965). They still had not lifted the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
This magisterial error has to be acknowledged and corrected by the CDF it is a doctrinal error.The SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculate are being forced to accept it, with the interpretation of Vatican Council II, to have their position regularised.
-Lionel Andrades

Ask the CDF to re-interpret Vatican Council II without this error:This is the doctrinal scenario that the Vatican must accept before an agreement with the SSPX

There is a factual mistake in Vatican Council II. It is a subtle error but it is obvious now. This should be brought to the attention of the Vatican Curia. Ask the Congregationm for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and Ecclesia Dei to acknowledge it.Then most important, ask the CDF to re-interpret Vatican Council II without this error.
Since Vatican Council II was always an issue and recently Pope Francis said that the SSPX would have to accept Vatican Council II ask the CDF/Ecclesia Dei to confirm that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism.
1.Hypothetical cases are assumed to be only hypothetical.
2.There are no explicit and personally known cases of people saved in invincible ignorance( LG 16) and the baptism of desire( LG 14) in 2016( with or without the baptism of water).
3. LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to invisible- for- us cases in 2016.They do not contradict the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as it was known to the 16th century missionaries.
4.Pope Benedict XVI was wrong. There is no 'development' of the dogma EENS. There is no development with Vatican Council II.The pope was assuming that LG 16 etc refer to visible cases in the present times.He wrongly assumed that there were seen cases of persons saved with the baptism of desire or blood and in invincible  ignorance, and without the baptism of water.So he concluded that the dogma EENS( Feeneyite) was no more relevant for our times.
5.Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. Similarly the Letter of the Holy Office ( first part), the Nicene Creed, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, can all be interpreted with the Feeneyite principle i.e there are no visible; no physically seen exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the present times. De facto there cannot be exceptions to EENS as it was interpreted by Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston, the Church Fathers and Church Councils.This is the doctrinal scenario that the Vatican must accept before an agreement with the SSPX.
The SSPX must refuse to enter the Church with canonical status if Vatican Council II is interpreted with Cushingism.
They must agree to enter the Church with canonical status if Vatican Council II is interpreted by the magisterium with Feenyism.
The Vatican Curia must be reconciled with Catholic doctrine before the SSPX can be reconciled with them.
-Lionel Andrades