Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Traditionalists in a soup

I received the following e-mail from a supporter of the Traditional Latin Mass.
............."subsists in", utilized in the Vatican II Document, Lumen Gentium. Was there another, more clear cut word that could have been used to express the authors intent? Maybe....what do you think?  What word would you have suggested the author(s) use instead, to express more clearly what they wish to accurately convey?
    If I may add a personal note .... I used to think the verbiage used in the Vatican II documents were vague, until, that is, until this present Pontificate began "teaching us".
Today, what we have, in  my opinion, is a resurgence of the Tower of Babel... on weed.
Really cool, ma-a-an. Can ya dig it? I mean, like.....far out.
So I responded with this blog post and I e-mailed it to him.He has responded with this  e-mail.

Yes, Lionel...agree.....it's all in the Cushingite/Semi-Pelagian interpretation. The "dogma of the Faith (the strict interpretation of EENS) had to be expelled from the minds of Catholics, in order to usher in the "religion of man" wrought by the vague and easily manipulated verbiage of the VII Docs.

When Fr. Feeney was found to be so successful in Boston, at converting the students there, the Protestant establishment of the Kennedy clan as well as others, joined forces to have Fr. Feeney denigrated, blackballed, and removed from the great prominence that he had had up to that time......that denigration continues to this day.

So I e-mailed him the following.

Yes.
However there can be a Vatican Council II Cushingite and a Vatican Council II Feeneyite?
In the VC II ( Feeneyite) LG 8 is not an exception to Feeneyite EENS?
There is no answer from him. A simple question with a simple answer and there is none coming from another traditionalist.We have been through this drill for over a year. 

Why is it difficult for traditionalists to understand the following and respond to it ?
If you consider the baptism of desire as being invisibleor visible decides how you interpret Vatican Council II.
If you infer that the baptism of desire is visible you have a Vatican Council II which I call Cushingite.
If you infer that the baptism of desire is physicallyinvisible for us human beings, then you have a Vatican Council II which I call Feeneyite.
If the baptism of desire is visible then Fr. Leonard Feeney was in heresy and the magisterium in 1949 was correct.Since there would be exceptions to Tradition which he refused to acknowledge.
If the baptism of desire is invisible then it is the magisterium which was in heresy and Fr. Leonard Feeney was repeating orthodoxy.
It's as simple as this!
In a previous post I wrote the following which for me is simple to understand.
If you consider the baptism of desire as being invisible or visible decides how you interpret Vatican Council II.
If you infer that the baptism of desire is visible you have a Vatican Council II which I callCushingite.
If you infer that the baptism of desire is physically invisiblefor us human beings, then you have a Vatican Council II which I call Feeneyite.
If the baptism of desire is visible then Fr. Leonard Feeney was in heresy and the magisterium in 1949 was correct.Since there would be exceptions to Tradition which he refused to acknowledge.
If the baptism of desire is invisible then it is the magisterium which was in heresy and Fr. Leonard Feeney was repeating orthodoxy.
It's as simple as this!
Cardinals Bugnini, Bea, Ottaviani etc were not responsible for the interpretation of Vatican Council II. Simply inverse the visible-invisible distinction and the interpretaton changes.

Traditionalists pride themself on Catholic doctrine and believe they are following it and now they cannot say that someone made a mistake and they were wrong over the last 70 years or more.

They will keep repeating the same errors.
They will say that Bugini or someone else was responsible for the error in Vatican Council II which is a break with Tradition and I wll point out that if you simply inverse the invisible-distinction Vatican Council II is traditional before your eyes. They will not respond.

They cannot call me a sede or  claim I do not accept Vatican Council II and so refuse to answer me. They are stuck.Even the sedes do not know what to do about this.
Then with another Catholic who attends only the Traditional Latin Mass there was another conversation via e-mails.-
I wrote in  response to his e-mail the following 

The point
 I want to make is that you have said (you have agreed with me) that in 2017 we do not  know and cannot know of any BOD or I.I  case.We also agree that in the  past no one could possibly know of any such  case.
 So when the saints  and popes mentioned BOD and I.I to whom were they referring  to?
So he responds:-
Correct,You are correct on  Invincible Ignorance and I agree . You are  totally incorrect about Baptism of Desire. As mentioned below Saint Felicitas was a catechumen who was arrested with St Perpetua.as a SAINT who achieved SANCTITY through Desire.
So I responded:
O.K She received sanctity with Desire, however it was followed with the baptism of water.
It is not specified(by the Church in her case) that the desire excludes the baptism of water.
While the the dogma in the Church says all need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.
Agreed?
And if someone says she is in Heaven without the baptism of water then who is this person in the Church who has said this? Who gave him permission? Is he recognised by the Church?
Again there is no response also from this traditionalist.
The first one could not get himself to say that with Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) LG 8 (subsists it and elements of sanctification and truth) were not an exception to Tradition.
The second traditionalist could not say that since the baptism of desire could not be physically known in the present or the past we cannot say that there is any saint in Heaven who is there without the baptism of water.
They both could not say that the magisterium has made an objective error and it is supported by all the other traditionalists. This could not have been the theology of the Traditional Latin Mass in the past.
They both attend Mass at FSSP parishes in different parts of the USA.
-Lionel Andrades




1
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/02/for-bishop-bernard-fellay-and-sspx.html

How do people react to a homeless person? (social experiment)| [BrzozaTV]