Thursday, August 10, 2017

SSPX seminarians like those at Detroit should also rebel against the irrationality and heresy being taught in theology at Econe

from Louie Verrecchio's blog

Image result for Photo Louie Verrecchio

si no

SSPX: Where is thy conviction?

Recall that in the spring of this year, Fr. Jean Michel Gleize, SSPX, offered a detailed critique of his own wherein he concluded that Amoris Laetitia contains nothing properly heretical.
It was only after seeking clarification from the U.S. District House that I was able to report to readers that this is the Society’s official position.
The 45 theologians, however, have a different take.

I will have more to say on their evaluation in a later post, but for now let it be known that they have concluded that no less than eleven of the propositions set forth in Amoris Laetitia should be “censured as haeretica.”
The definition of haeretica provided by the 45 theologians is essentially the same that Fr. Gleize used in the process of making the Society’s case.
The theologians write:
Heretical propositions, censured as ‘haeretica’, are ones that contradict propositions that are contained in divine revelation and are defined with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra,’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.
https://akacatholic.com/sspx-where-is-thy-conviction/
In an earlier blog post on Eucharist and Mission today I wrote :
'Catholic students at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit should rebel against the irrationality and heresy being taught at the Theology Department.They should protest and ask the Catholic faculty to go for Confession.' This also applies to the SSPX seminary at Econe, Switzerland and those in the USA.Heretical propositions are being taught.
The SSPX seminarians should report the issue to an Ethics Committee.
Image result for Photo SSPX seminariasn and Bishop Bernard Fellay
They should tell Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General, that they refuse to accept magisterial documents interpreted with a fantasy and nonsensical theology approved by the political Left, for the Catholic Church.
All the students know that the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) refer to hypothetical cases and invisible people but the students are being forced to project these cases as being visible people saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.In this way there is a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and Tradition in general.
Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura, Catechism of Trent and Pio X do not state that BOD, BOB and I.I refer to visible, instead of invisible cases.Yet the SSPX seminarians assume they refer to visible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I. So they say that the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS cannot be accepted by them since (visible for them) BOD, BOB and I.I mentioned in Mystici Corporis, Catechism of the Council of Trent etc contradict Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.
If the SSPX bishops and the seminary faculty did not interpret BOD,BOB and I.I and other hypthetical cases(LG 16,LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc) as referring to known people saved without the baptism of water; saved outside the Church, then Vatican Council II would not be a rupture with Tradition.Instead Vatican Council II would be considered 'fundamentalism' by the Left.
The seminarians should appeal to the faculty, to affirm all magisterial documents ( Nicene Creed, dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Council of Trent, Catechisms of Trent,Baltimore and Pius X, Vatican Council II, Catechism of the Catholic Church etc) but  interpret them without the New Theology, Cushingite theology, which is based on the irrational premise of there being non existing people who really exist.
This is deception, with full knowledge,at this SSPX seminary in Econe.
Similar to the professors Ralph Martin, Robert Fastiggi and Phillip Blosser at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary Detroit, faculty, agree that BOD,BOB and I.I do not refer to physically visible people in 2017.Yet when they teach, and write books they have to infer that LG 16, LG 14, AG 7 etc all refer to exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.So they infer that BOD, BOB and I.I are visible cases in our reality when they teach theology at the Licentiate and Doctorate level at the seminary.It is the same at the SSPX seminary in Switzerland.
All the faculty members at Sacred Heart have been contacted via e-mail, including the Rector, and none of them deny these reports on the blog Eucharist and Mission.
Students will not be given an Academic Degree if they affirm Feeneyite EENS.It is the same at the SSPX seminaries.
Like the seminarians at Detroit, it is obligatory for the SSPX seminararians too, to also state in public that BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS and that the Holy Office 1949 did not make an objective mistake in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.
When this error is avoided it completely changes the interpretation of Vatican Council II and this is not taught at the SSPX or Detroit  seminary.-Lionel Andrades


TERMS DEFINED

Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reasoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.It is practical. There obviously are no known cases of the baptism of desire (BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) in 2017.So there are no practical exceptions to EENS.Neither was BOD,BOB and I.I an exception to Feeneyite EENS in 1949 when the Letter of the Holy Office was issued to the Archbishop of Boston. The cardinals made an objective mistake.Similarly mentioning BOD and I.I in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) relative to the traditional teaching on salvation was superfluous.

Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning.It 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.

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 isFeeneyite and for them it isCushingite.For me Invincible Ignoranceis 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 Feeneyitebut they reject the baptism of desire which isCushingite for them.
For me the Nicene Creed is Feeneyiteand for them it is Cushingite.
For me the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Bostonis Feeneyite 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.
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 wasFeeneyite.
Liberal theologians: They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.They useCushingism.
Vatican Council II (Cushingite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II withCushingism.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 withFeeneyism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which areunknown 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 withCushingism 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 withCushingism or Feeneyism.
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.
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.
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 ( 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.
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).
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 salvatioon.

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.
________________________


So I accept all the magisterial documents of the Church and interpret them all with Feeneyism i.e invisible people are not visible in the present times, hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc are invisible in the present times(2017) and so are not objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( Feeneyite).

REINTERPRET MYSTICI CORPORIS, CATECHISMS OF TRENT AND PIUS X
It is important to re-interpret Cushingite theology of the Church from Pope Pius XII to Pope Francis.Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus are Cushingite.They should not be rejected but be re-interpreted with Feeneyite theology.
Similarly when Mystici Corporis, the Catechisms of Trent and Pius X etc refer to BOD, BOB and I.I they must be interpeted as referring to invisible people at that time and even in 2017. They must not be projected as being known people saved outside the Church. This was the mistake of the liberal theologians.
Without these errors it is easy to affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) then there can only be an ecumenism of return.The present new ecumenism is based on known salvation outside the Church.
Collegiality will not be an issue when the past ecclesiology is affirmed.Since there will be unity on traditional doctrine.When there is unity on Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) then collegiality will not be a problem for the orthodox Catholics.
Religious liberty will not be an issue just as it never was during the past ecclesiology of the Church.During the time of the papal states non Catholics were free to follow their religion by the state affirmed outside the Church there is no salvation.
With Vatican Council II (Feeneyite)affirming the old ecclesiology of the Church, with no salvation outside the Church, the priority must be, to save souls, the proclamation of the Social Kingship of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State.There will be no rupture with Tradition on inter religious dialogueand the need for non Catholics to convert.Pre and post Vatican Council II ecclesiology will be the same without the irrational premise and false conclusion.With Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) all non Catholics would need to convert formally into the Church.Mission will be based on traditional salvation theology, on an exclusivist ecclesiology, since this is the charachteristic of Vatican Council II( Feeneyite).
Vatican Council II (Cushingism) today  is the Arian-like heresy in the Church.
__________________________


Let us review the two column approach here.

Would you interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side or left hand side column? 


LEFT HAND SIDE COLUMN - RIGHT HAND SIDE COLUMN

All salvation referred to in Vatican Council II i.e saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3),seeds of the Word (AG 11), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2) etc are either:
implicit                        or  explicit for us.
hypothetical               or   known in reality.
invisible                      or   visible in the flesh.
dejure ( in principle)  or   defacto ( in fact ).
subjective                  or   objective
So one can choose from the left hand side or the right hand side column.
 n.


If the right hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general on other religions and Christian communities and churches. There areknown exceptions in 2017 to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. The dead- saved are 'visible'.
If the left hand side column is chosen then Vatican Council II does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus, nor Tradition on other religions and Christian communities and churches.
Most people interpret Vatican Council II with the right hand side values.
So the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance was never ever an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney, unless one is using the right hand side column.There were and are no known exceptions.

_____________________________________

DIAGRAMS 


Image result for Photos Letter of the Holy Office 1949


Image result for Photos Letter of the Holy Office 1949