Thursday, October 5, 2017

God bless Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for rejecting irrational Vatican Council II (Cushingite) and opposing a magisterium in heresy, in schism with the past magisterium

Image result for Photo of Archbishop Marcel LefebvreImage result for Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops photosImage result for Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops photos
God bless Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for rejecting irrational Vatican Council II (Cushingite) and opposing a magisterium in heresy and in schism with the past magisterium.
Archbishop Lefebvre had integrity and courage. He is a modern day Athanasius.
We know things now that he did not at that time.
Pope Paul VI made a mistake. A factual and objective mistake.He overlooked what could have been a con job.The work of ecclesiastical Masonry.
With Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) interpreted as being a known and physically visible case saved outside the Church, Vatican Council II had to become a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus itself was changed in the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office when invincible ignorance etc was assumed to be a personally known and visible example of salvation outside the Church.
So when the Catechism of Pope Pius X mentions invincible ignorance etc it is re-interpreted as being a known person saved outside the Church. The Catechism of Pope Pius X, Mystici Corporis etc are then re-interpreted as being exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.This is done to accomodate the error in the 1949 Letter.
But this is all false reasoning, we now know.
For me a person saved in invincible ignorance outside the Church does not exist in 2017.
Such a person could not be physically known in 1960-65 or 1949.
There is no such case in our human reality.
 So how could it be relevant or an exception to the dogma outside the Church there is no salvation(Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 etc)?
How can a hypothetical and theoretical case be an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS? How could it be an exception to the 16th century missionary interpretation of EENS? 
It was not.It never was an exception to EENS.
An invisible person cannot be visible at the same time. Someone in Heaven cannot be seen on earth,saved without the baptism of water, to be an exception to the teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation.
This is an objective error.There are no practical exceptions to EENS.
This is a factual error.It is a fact that people saved in Heaven cannot be seen on earth for them to be considered examples of salvation without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
Yet this was accepted by the popes.
With this stupidity i.e, in principle invisible people are visible exceptions to EENS, Vatican Council II was being interpreted by Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Fr.Hans Kung s.j, Fr.Hans Rahner s.j....and now Pope Francis and the Jesuits.
Vatican Council II interpreted with the false premise (invisible people saved outside the Church  are visible and known) and conclusion ( these visible and known examples of salvation outside the Church,are exceptions to traditional EENS), I call Vatican Council II (Cushingite).
Vatican Council II without this false premise( LG 16 only refers to a hypothetical case in 2017 and so is not an exception to EENS, the 1949 Letter made a mistake), I call, Vatican Council II( Feeneyite).
May be the popes were not aware of all this.
Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger however wanted Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to affirm Vatican Council II with this false premise and conclusion.
He would not.
So they excommunicated him.
He still would not do so.
He died rejecting the  Council interpreted with this irrationality supported by 'the Magisterium' of the Catholic Church.It could not be the Magisterium since the Holy Spirit cannot make a mistake.It was a human error.
The Magisterium had changed the understanding of EENS, the Nicene Creed and Vatican Council II.Based on the objective error they created a new theology, new moral laws and the 1983 Code of Canon Law to support the innovation.It was a rupture with the past Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit and so was schism.It was a complete rupture with Tradition(EENS, past ecclesiology, Syllabus of Errors,Social Reign of Christ the King, ecumenism of return, Mission based on exclusive salvation in the Church etc).
Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated by a magisterium gone wrong.He was honest.Vatican Council II(Cushingite) was a rupture with the past.
Similarly during Vatican Council II(1960-1965) the excommunication of Fr.Leonard Feeney was not lifted.He was correct.There are no practical exceptions to EENS.The Magisterium made a mistake.Invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance cannot be a visible exception to EENS.
Now when Cardinal Raymond Burke says the SSPX is in schism it must be noted that he has accepted Vatican Council II(Cushingite) just like the two popes. He supports Magisterial Heresy and schism.The present Magisterium is a rupture with the past Magisterium, the past popes.
The two popes need to apologise for the excommunication of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Fr. Leonard Feeney. They need to also affirm Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) and EENS( Feeneyite).They need to admit that they supported an objective mistake in the Church -Lionel Andrades