Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf once again does not affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS,that of the 16th century missionaries when they offered the Traditional Latin Mass

In ASK FATHER: Why MUST one be in communion with Rome?, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf once again does not affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), He does not affirm EENS according to the 16th century missionaries when they offered the Traditional Latin Mass.

I  had mentioned in a blog post that Fr.Zuhlsdorf to possibly protect his personal interests is denying the Catholic Faith. In this way he maintains his incardination as a priest .

He assumes hypothetical cases are not hypothetical and he expects others to also make this error in principle.I do not and he does not correct me as a priest.
He suggests theoretical cases of the baptism of desire, allegedly without the baptism of water and being saved in invincible ignorance in 2016 are not theoretical.I do not.His teaching is irrational.
Since they are visible for him the baptism of desire is an exception to traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS Feeneyite).Not for me.
He actually interprets the Nicene Creed with this error( knowingly or unknowingly).This  is a first class heresy.How can such aa priest be incardinated in Italy ?
I have e-mailed these blog posts to him and he has no denial.
How can he say that he affirms EENS( Feeneyite).Since in Norcia and the rest of Italy  there are no explicit for us baptism of desire and blood or being saved in invincible ignorance cases  in 2016.There are none with or without the baptism of water whom he could meet on the streets.
He could be using this falsehood to remain politically correct but then so could Nancy Pelosi,John Allen at the National Catholic( Fishwrap) Register and other Catholics whom he criticizes with reference to Canon Law. 
I affirm the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite), Vatican Council II( Feneeyite), the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite) and Letter of the Holy Office 1949( Feeneyite)-all without the false premise and conclusion.Fr. Z will not do the same.
Neither will do the bishops in Italy do this, including the one in Norcia.Even the Benedictines at Norcia maintain the lie.Fr. Cassian Folsom osb, the Rector of the Benedictine monastery in Norcia will also not affirm the Faith without the lie.
However there is an exception.The Benedictine Dean of Theology at the St.Anselm University in Rome contradicts Fr. John Zuhlsdorf and Fr. Cassian Folsom osb.
Fr.Visintin does not lie.
He says there are no known exceptions to EENS( Feeneyite) in the present times.This makes sense. He is an honest priest.
John Martignoni the Americal apologist agrees with him.
Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson and many Catholic priests agree with Fr. Visintin 2

So Canon Law could apply to him in Norcia, Italy where he is reportedly incardinated.

Fr.Zuhlsdorf's new ecclesiology is based on a lie.
His New Theology is based on a lie.
His interpretation of Vatican Council II is based on a falsehood.
He interprets the Nicene Creed with an irrationality and the conclusion is false and irrational and this is not known to Catholics.Thefalsehood is not known.
So his doctrinal and theological position on Islam would be based on a politically correct lie.3

He even supports inter faith marriages and does not consider them adulterous, since there is known salvation for him outside the Church. He is a liberal on this point.
So he has no response when I say that I affirm EENS without Cushingism.
He believes that EENS( Cushingism) is the normal way to affirm EENS. Since this was part of his liberal Catholic religious formation as a priest.So for him Fr. Leonard Feeney held 'the hard line' position on EENS.
On the other hand if he says EENS( Cushingism) is irrational and EENS ( Feeneyite) is traditional his opponents will come sweeping down on him.So presently only with all this irrational and non traditional liberal theology and doctrine on salvation, he responds to the Muslim issue.4
-Lionel Andrades


ASK FATHER: Why MUST one be in communion with Rome?


 AUGUST 27, 2016

Dean of Theology at St. Anselm contradicts liberal Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

AUGUST 26, 2016
Canon Law could apply to Fr.John Zuhlsdorf in Norcia : promotes a falsehood

 AUGUST 26, 2016

I am avoiding the New Theology which assumes hypothetical cases are personally known in the present or past times, in particular, the hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance

Mundabor and the SSPX have replaced Feeneyite EENS with Cushingite EENS

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus


“The universal Church of the faithful is one outside of which none is saved.” -Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, Fourth Lateran Council (1215 AD)
“We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” -Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (1302 AD)
“The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her… No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”  -Pope Eugene IV, ex cathedra, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441 AD)

“The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in Her and asserts that all who are outside of Her will not be saved.”  -Pope Saint Gregory the Great (590-604)

“By heart we believe and by mouth confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside which we believe that no one is saved.”  -Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, 18 December 1208 (DS 423)
“You see, dearly beloved sons and venerable brothers, how much vigilance is needed to keep the disease of this terrible evil from infecting and killing your flocks. Do not cease to diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors. Saturate them with the doctrine of Catholic truth more accurately each day. Teach them that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the community of His children.[Rom 1; Heb 11; Council of Trent, session 6, chap. 8.] There is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord,[St. Cyprian, epistle 43.] outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church.[St. Cyprian,de unitat. Eccl.] Thus, there can be no greater crime, no more hideous stain than to stand up against Christ, than to divide the Church engendered and purchased by His blood, than to forget evangelical love and to combat with the furor of hostile discord the harmony of the people of God.[St. Cyprian, epistle 72.]” -Blessed Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem, #4, 17 March 1856
“Some say they are not bound by the doctrine which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian Faith. These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science.”  -Venerable Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, #27, 12 August 1950
All the statements above are beautifully coherent. There is no contradiction in them. In them, the Church explains and teaches one Truth. The emphases are obviously mine. 
Lionel: However Mundabor and the SSPX contradict  extra ecclesiam nulla salus :-
Cushingite extra ecclesiam nulla salus replaces Feeneyite  extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).Cushingite EENS assumes that the baptism of desire etc, refer to explicit cases and so they are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. I support Feeneyite EENS.With the baptism of desire being an exception to EENS, Mundabor supports Cushingite EENS.

Here are the four points mentioned in a previous blog which Mundabor, Chris Ferrara and the other traditionalists use to contradict Feeneyite EENS.

1.Invisible cases are visible in the present times ( 1960-2016).
2.Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) and Lumen Gentium 14 ( baptism of desire) refer to a visible case.
3.Vatican Council II contradicts the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS since Lumen Gentium 16 etc are visible exceptions to the dogma.
4.The dogma EENS has exceptions. They are the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, all without the baptism of water.

Please read all these statements attentively. Then reflect on the following: 
Cantate domino does not state that a man who does not want to be damned must make a conscious, voluntary, publicly communicated decision to leave his heresy and join the Only Church. The requirement to avoid hell is that he be joined with Her before Death.
Lionel: Yes.
God, who is Omnipotent, can certainly join anyone He wishes to save to the Only Church before death. 
Lionel: Yes.

He can do that either by giving the soul of the man the consciousness that he is wrong and the Church is right, and a desire to be part of Her, just before his death (and neither you or I need be informed about the fact), or by joining him with Her of His own decree because the man was particularly good and God has decreed that he has died ininvincible ignorance and is, therefore, worthy of becoming part of the Church before his death.
Lionel: Yes hypothetically. Yes, in theory.Since you and I would not know of any such case in real life.
Christ is the Bridegroom. The Church is the Bride. It follows that Christ will not admit to the presence of the Bridegroom those whom He has not decreed to be joined with the Bride.
Lionel: He has decreed that all non Catholics with no known exceptions to us human beings, are oriented to Hell, unless they be incorporated as members of the Church. He has decreed it in the dogma EENS quoted by Mundabor above.
So it means all non Catholics in 2016 are on the way to Hell unless they formally convert into the Church; unless they have their names on the Parish Baptism Register.
This is all very linear, very logical, elegantly unavoidable from the premises of Truth.
Yes it is logical and traditional for me who affirms EENS Feeneyite and Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite).
I reject EENS Cushingite and Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite) as interpreted by Mundabor.
Mundabor also accepts the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office which says not everyone needs to be incorporated into the Church as a member.It presumes there is known salvation. So the second part of the Letter contradicts the first part of the Letter which affirms Feeneyite EENS.
I reject the second part of the Letter, since it is irrational, non traditional and heretical and I accept the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which is traditional and not heretical and rational.
Where the problems begin is when the “imprudent zeal for souls” leads people to talk nonsense for an apparently good, but  ultimately childish desire to see everyone (or almost everyone) saved; a childish desire and wishful thinking which, in fact, contributes to the damnation of those the childish person is so desirous to see saved, and might well be dangerous for the salvation of this person himself.  
We cannot say, with absolute certainty, that this or that just deceased Proddie, or Infidel, or Unbeliever has gone to hell. 
We cannot say so with our personal judgement or knowledge.This is something that would only be known to God.However  we can say that a particular Protestant or Jew or atheist has gone to Hell since the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church to teach extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Being incorporated into the Catholic Church as a member is the only means of salvation.It is the norm.

Every single one of them might, just might, have saved his ass to Purgatory in the end. Odds don’t count here. We can just not exclude it, no matter how little the odds. 
All need faith and baptism for salvation(Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II).There cannot be subjectively known exceptions to the Catholic teaching on faith( exclusive salvation in the Church) or morals ( objective mortal sins).
But we also cannot say that one particular sperm will not manage to fecundate the ovule. We cannot say that, no matter how little the odds!
Good luck, you little sperm. I wish you well. I really do.
Allow me not to bet my pint on you, though… 
Being humans, we can’t avoid asking ourselves: “how are the odds”? 
The answer lies in the simple phrase extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Seen that the “being joined with Her before death” by Divine Decree must be an exceptional circumstance (otherwise, you will agree, it would not make much sense, and in the extreme it would not make any sense at all, to be a Catholic in the first place) the odds can’t be good at all; in fact they must be, in descending order, from bad to absolutely terrifying for Proddies, Infidels, and Unbelievers*. How many of them will, without any obvious decision to convert, be fished out from Christ from the very jaws of Hell? We don’t know, but as stated above, it can only be the exception. He who stakes his salvation on God making an exception for him is, it seems to me, a presumptuous idiot. 
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, as quoted in the dogma above, always meant all with no exceptions.It is liberal theology,Rahner's theology, which considered the baptism of desire etc as being explicit.So it was not more all needing to enter the Church formally.Rahner's new theology is used by Mundabor.
The same error is there in the Baltimore Catechism (1891) .It is assumed that the desire for the baptism of water of a hypothetical catechumen, who dies before receiving it , was an explicit case and so it was a known baptism like the baptism of water.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 also mixed up what is hypothetical as being objectively known.So it rejected the dogma EENS ( Feeneyite) by saying not every one needs to be incorporated into the Church.The Baltimore Catechism error was repeated in subsequent catechisms.
Mundabor repeats the same error.The two popes do the same.
Another important element must be derived from these reflections: there can be no true saintliness outside of the Church. “No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
Lionel: The reference in the dogma EENS is to salvation.It is not a reference to the presence of the Holy Spirit in other religions.Christ could choose to work miracles or give charisms to Protestants or  non Catholics. We know that many non Catholics have converted into the Catholic Church. This would be with the grace of the Holy Spirit, to whom they responded positively.
There is nothing like a “Protestant Saint”. There is also nothing like “protestant saintliness”.Every Protestant is marching towards hell. His piety and love for the Lord, his Christian zeal – no matter how strong; and I am sure it is very strong in many of them – avail him nothing, until and unless he is joined with the Church before death. Let us not kid ourselves about this, lest our “imprudent zeal for souls” makes their path far more difficult, and encourages them to walk toward a cliff out of which only the merciful hand of the Lord can save the one or other of them when they have their feet almost in mid-air.
Protestants are on the way to Hell.
What a blessing it is, to be a Catholic! How easier it is for us to safely travel through the perilous sea of life from the security of the Barque! How many, who think themselves too good for it, will drown! The greatest blessing of my life was to be born a Catholic. The second, to be born with a strong faith. Yes, in this order
Lionel: This was a blessing for me too, in the same order.
There is no salvation outside of the Church. The one or other will save their backside by being fished in by Our Lord just at the very last moment. But no one can say that he thinks that they will be very many and believe in extra ecclesiam nulla salus at the same time.   
According to Vatican Council II(AG 7, LG 14) the majority of people are on the way to Hell. Since they die without 'faith and baptism', which is needed for all, for salvation(to avoid Hell).Mundabor does not cite the Council here.Since the SSPX assumes that Vatican Council II contradicts the old ecclesiology which supported an ecumenism of return and need for all non Christians to formally enter the Church.Here we can see the influence of Rahner's theology, the New Theology, Cushingite theology which infers there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS, quoted by Mundabor above.
-Lionel Andrades
* For these, of course, they might have received the grace of faith and being joined with the Church before dying. If they died in their atheism, the matter is settled already. But this is why the Church teaches us to pray for our relatives and loved ones who apparently died in their atheism.  

Modernist Traditional Latin Mass

Lionel L. Andrades

Holy Cannoli,
I have mentioned that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with an irrational premise and irrational conclusion, or without it. You have not commented on this.
I refer to the irrational interpretation as Cushingism and the rational and traditional interpretation as Feeneyism.You have not commented on it.
I have written that without the four points( mentioned below) the interpretation of Vatican Council II changes.You have also not thought this through and commented on it.
You could ask these questions in your church. Or phone up Fr. Hunwicke,FSSP or SSPX priests and ask there opinion and post it here.
I think they all know what I am saying. Since I have been saying the same thing for the last few years.
However they do not want to be suspended by the Vatican or lose their reputation or some interest.So they remain politically correct even though the Traditional Latin Mass which they offer, is theologically modernist.
Today we have the phenomenon of the modernist Traditional Latin Mass which is a rupture with the Mass of the 16th century for example.
The Vatican and the two popes know this. So they are approving the Tradtional Latin Mass to be offered by the FSSP and other comunities who interpret Vatican Council II with the irrational Rahner theology, Cushingite theology.While they do not permit the Franciscans of the Immaculate, who reject 'the speculative doctrines of Karl Rahner, the Jesuit', to offer the Latin Mass.
Fr.Hunwicke does not have any problem. Since he interprets Vatican Council II with the irrational premise and conclusion.He does it with the four points mentioned here.So he keeps quiet on this issue.He is politically correct with the Left.
The Latin Mass Society of England and Wales is also Cushingite. Dr.Joseph Shaw will not affirm the Feeneyite interpretation of Vatican Council II. He could be protecting his job at Oxford University .Now he has the approval of the Vatican and the liberal English bishops.
I have written all this not out of dis-respect for any of them but so that this issue is discussed and resolved.-Lionel


Holy Cannoli
Lionel L. Andrades wrote:
Fr. John Hunwicke, Joseph Shaw, the FSSP priests and the sedevantists influenced by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, do not say that they reject Cushingism and accept Feeneyism.They offer/ attend Mass with an irrational and heretical interpretative theology.
There you have it. According to Lionel Andrades, the above priests are all heretics. Do you realize what you are Lionel and what your demeaning posts say about you? I don't think you do so I am going to tell you.
You are a spamming egomaniac. You will repeat a line or two of an article that is posted and follow it by making a non-relevant rambling post polluting and hi-jacking that given article in order to 1) feed your own ego and, (you hope) 2) generate hits to your boring, convoluted and pathetically written blog.
In spite of your using bright colors to highlight text, bold and other childish gimmicks to attract attention, you deceive nobody and your actions are obvious to everyone. You are so identified with your own bizarre spamming posts you are unable to see what an uninteresting dullard you actually are.
You have no idea what EENS is and is not. You do not understand what VC-II taught or did not teach. Instead you prefer to make rambling screeds railing against only heaven knows what each and every day. You think you know more than Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. You think you know more than the priests of the FSSP. You think you know more than the SSPX bishops. In short, you think you know more than every Catholic who has ever lived or is currently living.
You are an individual who is deeply disturbed, obsessive, egomaniacal and self-absorbed in his own eccentric thoughts who has made his very deep seated pathology clear to everyone at this website for weeks and weeks. You desperately need psychological/psychiatric intervention.

Lionel L. Andrades
There can only be a conflict between Traditionalists and Modernists over Vatican Council II when it is wrongly assumed :-
1.Invisible cases are visible in the present times ( 1960-2016).
2.Lumen Gentium 16 ( invincible ignorance) and Lumen Gentium 14 ( baptism of desire) refer to a visible case.
3.Vatican Council II contradicts the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since Lumen Gentium 16 etc are visible exceptions to the dogma.
4.The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has exceptions. They are the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance, all without the baptism of water.

It's as simple as this.Try it! Interpret Vatican Council II without this error.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for example, was not aware of these four points.So Vatican Council II became a rupture with Tradition.
He could not say that Vatican Council II traditionally says all non Catholics need to convert into the Church for salvation and so Vatican Council II supports the old ecclesiology of the Church.

He could not say this. Since he was not aware of the four points above. So he interpreted the Council as a break with Tradition.The SSPX bishops, even after being informed today, still do the same.
When Vatican Council II does not contradict the old ecclesiology how can there be the difference between traditionalists and modernists ? The modernists have their legitimacy only by interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.
So this was the mistake made in the film in 1972.It ignored the four points mentioned above.
With these four points in order, a Catholic can attend the Traditional Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo Mass and the ecclesiology would be the same. It would be that of the 16th century missionaries,traditionalists.
It is the present day 'modernists' who should be on the defensive. Since there will be no text which they can cite from Vatican Council II to support their interpretation of the Council as break with Tradition.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc would all refer to hypothetical case. So they cannot be known exceptions to the old ecclesiology based on Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades