Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Catholic Apologetics Which Is Non-Apologetical

Apologetica cattolica che non è apologetica ( Catholic Apologetics Which Is Non-Apologetical )

Solamente la Chiesa Cattolica
-Lionel Andrades

Bishop Sanborn not keeping his promise to report to the Chancery Office

Image result for Photo Bishop Sanborn and Dr., Fastiggi photos
Bishop Donald Sanborn is not following up on this promise.He said  that if he could be shown a continuity in the teachings of the Church before and after Vatican Council II he would 'report to the Chancery office the next morning' and tell the Bishop  that he is no more a sedevacantist.
Image result for Photo breaking a promiseImage result for Photo breaking a promise
Image result for Photo Bishop Sanborn and Dr., Fastiggi photos
' Is there a continuity between pre and post Vatican Council II?,' sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn asks when  answering a question ( Video Ecclesiology Debate: Bp. Donald Sanborn vs. Dr. Robert Fastiggi (2004).See 1:43:31 ). 1
"If there was a continuity," Bishop Sanborn says, then he "would go tomorrow to the Chancery office and submit to the local bishop".
(1:43:34) "We do not want to be in schism", says Bishop Sanborn.
(1:43:36) "We have no problem submitting to the Roman pontiff..."
(1:43.38) "If I was convinced that there was continuity in doctrine...between pre and post Vatican Council II I would go tomorrow morning down to the Chancery Office and submit...I would have no problem. The question is: is there continuity between  pre and post Vatican Council II?"
With Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) there is a continuity in Catholic doctrine.The pre and post Vatican Council II ecclesiology is the same.He has not denied these reports.
He has always interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingism.So  there was a rupture with Tradition.
Now he knows the difference between Vatican Council II Feeneyism and Cushingism.The same is known to other sedevacantists.So they should have the integrity to announce their decision to leave sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II (Cushingism).
When will Bishop Domald Sanborn report to the Chancery Office as he promised now that he has been shown shown a continuity in Church doctrine before and after Vatican Council II?-Lionel Andrades

1

Ecclesiology Debate: Bp. Donald Sanborn vs. Dr. Robert Fastiggi (2004)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NigK6MhXs6Q




 JUNE 27, 2017


Bishop Donald Sanborn in a crisis
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/06/bishop-donald-sanborn-in-crisis.html


 JUNE 24, 2017


Brother Andre Marie MICM too is teaching error : Bishop Sanborn cannot report at the Chancery office
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/06/brother-andre-marie-micm-too-is.html



Invisible people cannot be visible exceptions to all needing to be members of the Church for salvation : sedevacantists have it wrong

ndhorner
I have to say that much of your posts, probably due to brevity, are hard for me to follow your train of thought. Do you accept feenyism? Are you a sedevacantist? I know you don't agree with cushingite philosophy, but partly why I ask is because if I am confused, I doubt I am the only one.

THEY HAVE IT WRONG







I understand.
I work with different premises.
For me the baptism of desire refers to physically invisible cases and so it is not an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in 2017.
For traditionalists, sedevacantists, liberals and the magisterium, the baptism of desire(BOD) is an exception to the dogma EENS. So the inference is that BOD is physically visible to be an explicit exception to EENS.Only if it was physically visible would it be an exception to EENS. Only if we know someone saved outside the Church without the the baptism of water, could we say that there is an exception to all needing to be members of the Church to avoid Hell.
So this is a major difference between me and others and it is important to understand.
So for me the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) refer to invisible persons and so they never were and nor are relevant to the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
So with my premise ( invisible cases are just invisible) there is a different interpretation of Vatican Council II, EENS, BOD, Nicene Creed, the Catechisms and other magisterial documents.I would be affirming Feeneyite EENS without rejecting Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite), the Catechisms ( Feeneyite), the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite) and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( Feeneyite-first part).
Since Catholics in general use the false premise ( invisible cases are physically visible in the present times) they will be interpreting all these magisterial documents with what I call Cushingism, which creates a rupture with Tradition.
So I can affirm all magisterial documents but they would be interpreted with the theology of Feeneyism. I would also reject all magisterial documents interpreted with the philosophy( invisible people are visible) and theology ( these visible people are saved without the baptism of water and so are exceptions to EENS and examples of salvation outside the Church) of Cushingism.
I do not have to be a sedevacantist sinced Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) is traditional and not a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors and EENS( Feeneyite).
I do not have to be a Feeneyite who affirms EENS with Feeneyism but rejects Vatican Council II since it is interpreted with Cushingism and so is a rupture with Tradition and EENS ( Feeneyite).
So basically what I am saying is that invisible people cannot be visible exceptions to all needing to be members of the Church for salvation.So there are no exceptions to the past ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. The ecclesiology of the Church before and after Vatican Council II is the same for me.

Good News for sedevacantists: Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) is traditional.So the popes are not …

JUNE 27, 2017 Good News for sedevacantists: Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) is traditional.So the popes are not to be blamed Sedevacantists who have gone into sedevacantism because Vatican Council II was heretical and a break with the past centuries …