It is confirmed at the Archdiocese of Palermo, Italy that they are using an irrational and false theology to interpret magisterial documents.They will not use the theology of Feeneyism to interpret Vatican Council II, since then the Council will be in step with the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation ( Feeneyite).
Archbishop Corrado Lorefice of Palermo who suspended Fr.Alessandro M.Minutella, a Parish Priest has no denial to a report sent to him and other officials of the diocese.1 Fr.Minutella criticized ' a false church' within the Catholic Church.
The archbishop was asked to please affirm Catholic doctrine in accord with magisterial documents of the Catholic Church, including Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite).It is now confirmed.He is unable to do it!
The statement e-mailed to him and posted on Twitter, Gloria TV and other media stated that if he cannot affirm the doctrines of the Catholic Fatih as a bishop then according to Canon Law he has no right to be a bishop. Please ask for a replacement for the diocese of Palermo.
He was asked if the Archdiocese could confirm if they have been teaching doctrinal heresy all these years supported by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the two popes.There is no denial from Palermo.
It was pointed out to him that as a Catholic layman I affirm the magisterial documents of the Catholic Church and it differs from him and that of the Archdiocese of Palermo.
1.I Lionel Andrades, as a Catholic affirm that 'All Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and other non Catholics,Protestants, Pentecostals,Orthodox Christians and other Christians, atheists and other non believers in God, need to formally enter the Catholic Church with 'faith and baptism(Ad Gentes 7,Lumen Gentium 14 Vatican Council II)to avoid the fires of Hell and to go to Heaven .They all need to be incorporated into the Church with no known exceptions, according to Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus'.
I asked him to affirm the above magisterial teaching which is the same in the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II. He could not do so in public.
If Archbishop Corrado Palermo and the Auxiliary bishops of the diocese cannot affirm Catholic doctrines interpreted with rationality I had mentioned then for the sake of unity in the diocese, could they in conscience resign and ask for a replacement; ask for a bishop or priest, who affirms the Catholic Faith with integrity.
No one in the archdiocese has been able to refute what I have said theologically or doctrinally.
I mentioned in the statement :
2.I, Lionel Andrades, as a Catholic affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) in which Lumen Gentium 16, Lumen Gentium 8, Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Nostra Aetate 2, Gaudium et Spes 22, Lumen Gentium 14 etc refer to physically invisible cases; hypotetical cases and not people personally known in the present times.
Could the Archdiocese of Palermo please affirm this traditional doctrinal teaching of the Church.The issue here is doctrine and not pastoral approach or theological praxis.
3.I,Lionel Andrades affirm the Nicene Creed. When I say at Mass " I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' I mean one known baptism, the baptism of water.There are not three known baptisms. The baptism of desire and blood cannot be administered like the baptism of water, they cannot be physically seen or repeated like the baptism of water.The baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are always physically invisible for us in 2017.Could the Archdiocese of Palermo please affirm this Catholic teaching with rationality and advise every one in the diocese to do the same.
2.I, Lionel Andrades, as a Catholic affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) in which Lumen Gentium 16, Lumen Gentium 8, Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Nostra Aetate 2, Gaudium et Spes 22, Lumen Gentium 14 etc refer to physically invisible cases; hypotetical cases and not people personally known in the present times.
Could the Archdiocese of Palermo please affirm this traditional doctrinal teaching of the Church.The issue here is doctrine and not pastoral approach or theological praxis.
3.I,Lionel Andrades affirm the Nicene Creed. When I say at Mass " I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' I mean one known baptism, the baptism of water.There are not three known baptisms. The baptism of desire and blood cannot be administered like the baptism of water, they cannot be physically seen or repeated like the baptism of water.The baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are always physically invisible for us in 2017.Could the Archdiocese of Palermo please affirm this Catholic teaching with rationality and advise every one in the diocese to do the same.
4.I, Lionel Andrades, accept the baptism of desire as being a hypothetical case, irrespective if it is theoretically followed by the baptism of water or excludes it.The baptism of desire is always invisible and never visible for us human beings.So it cannot be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2017. An alleged possibility in the past cannot be an exception to all needing to enter the Church with faith and baptism in 2017.
Could the Archdiocese of Palermo please clarify that they affirm the baptism of desire as being invisible and not visible and that it never was and nor is an exception to the interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,as it was guided by the Holy Spirit and the magisterium in past centuries, for example, the missionaries of the 16th century.
5.I, Lionel Andrades do not affirm Vatican Council II with Cushingism, in which the baptism of desire is always visible and so it becomes an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is heresy.Yet this is the heretical doctrine being taught in the Archdiocese of Palermo.Could the Archdiocese of Palermo please formally reject the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Cushingism and clarify this issue for their lay congregations and diocesan religious.
If Archbishop Corrado Palermo cannot affirm these teachings of the Catholic Church then could the archdiocese confirm it. Could they confirm that they have been teaching doctrinal heresy all these years supported by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the two popes.
If Archbishop Corrado Palermo and the Auxiliary bishops of the diocese cannot affirm Catholic doctrines interpreted with rationality then for the sake of unity in the diocese, could they in conscience resign and ask for a replacement; ask for a bishop or priest, who affirms the Catholic Faith with integrity.'-Lionel Andrades
1.
APRIL 18, 2017
Archdiocese of Palermo please formally affirm Catholic doctrine for the religious and lay congregation of the diocese
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/04/archdiocese-of-palermo-please-formally.html
_______________________________________________________________________________
TERMS EXPLAINED
A Feeneyite does not separate the baptism of water from the baptism of desire.The baptism of desire will be followed by the baptism of water.
A Cushingite separates the baptism of water from the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water.
I interpret the following terms with Feeneyism and the two popes and the cardinals do so with Cushingism (so does the SSPX).
I use Feeneyism and Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Muller, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Bishop Mark Pirvanus, Bishop Donald Sanborn and the sedevacantists Michael and Peter Dimond use Cushingism.
________________________
For me the Baptism of Desire is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.For me Invincible Ignorance is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.For me Vatican Council II is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.
For me Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.For the Dimond Brothers extra ecclesiam nulla salus is Feeneyite but they reject the baptism of desire which is Cushingite for them.
For me the Nicene Creed is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.
For me the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston is Feeneyite (in the first half) and for them it is Cushingite.
I avoid the New Theology, while they uses it.
For me the Catechism of the Catholic Church is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.
The present magisterium separates the baptism of water from the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water.I do not do so.
Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reaoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma EENS.There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.
Baptism of Desire (Feeneyite): It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it is not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Baptism of Desire (Cushingite): It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is a visible case or the SSPX it is relevant to the dogma EENS.
Invincible Ignorance ( Feeneyite): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.
Invincible Ignorance (Cushingite): This refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.
Council of Florence: One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was Feeneyite.
Liberal theologians: They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They use Cushingism.
Vatican Council II (Cushingite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Cushingism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II (Feeneyite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite-one baptism),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston: It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.It was Cushingite.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( Feeneyite): It means accepting the Letter as Feeneyite based on the first part,only .It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.
Letter of the Holy Office ( Cushingite): It is based on the second part of the Letter.It rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( Cushingite-explicit) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( Cushingite-explicit cases) as being exceptions to EENS ( Feeneyite).It worngly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.
Baltimore Catechism: It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with the confusion.It can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism.
Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.It can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism.
Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.It is Feeneyite.
Nicene Creed ( Cushingite) : It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.This is a Cushingite interpretation.
New Theology: It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.It's basis is Cushingism.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Feeneyite): It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite): CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Cushingite): It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite): CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known exceptions, since God is not limited to the Sacraments.
When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needin to formally enter the Church. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvation.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite): CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).
Council of Trent : A Feeneyite does not separate the baptism of water from the baptism of desire.The baptism of desire will be followed by the baptism of water.
Council of Trent : A Cushingite separates the baptism of water from the baptism of desire. The baptism of desire excludes the baptism of water.
April 18, 2017
Boston Heresy of the magisterium has practical consequences today : Abp.Corrado Lorefice interprets Vatican Council II with irrational Cushingism instead of traditional Feeneyism
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/04/boston-heresy-of-magisterium-has.html
April 16, 2017
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment