Tuesday, December 26, 2017

The Most Holy Family Monastery like the SSPX and SSPX Resistance groups interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism, they use a false premise


The Most Holy Family Monastery like the SSPX and SSPX Resistance groups interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism instead of Feeneyism, they use a false premise instead of avoiding it. So  with a false premise their conclusion is non traditional and heretical for me.
-Lionel Andrades


















Archdiocese of Boston, to which the diocese of Worcester and Manchester are affiliated, made an objective mistake in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case


There is no known salvation outside the Church but the St. Benedict Centers have to accept this irrationality and falsehood among their bishops and the curia  in the diocese of Worcester and Manchester in the USA.
The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are recognized by the bishops of Worcester and Manchester.The bishops assume invisible for us cases of the baptism of desire are visible in the present times. Then they conclude that these are known examples of salvation outside the Church and exceptions to the old ecclesiology. This is what the USCCB expects them to teach in Religious Education , in  catechesis and evangelisation.
The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in these two dioceses correctly affirm Feeneyite EENS. Since it would be obvious for the bishops and every one in the diocese that there are no practical exceptions to EENS known in Boston or New England.
Yet the deception continues among the bishops in Boston and the rest of the USA.
So now the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in the diocese of Worcester have been granted canonical status since they affirm Vatican Council II, with invisible cases being visible.This is the interpretation of Vatican Council II rejected by the SSPX.
No one is insisting that these bishops in Worcester and Manchester affirm Vatican Council II (Feeneyite), in which  references to the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are references to hypothetical cases only.
This would mean that the Archdiocese of Boston, to which they are affiliated, made an objective mistake in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case in the 1940's and 1950's.It is no wonder that Fr. Leonard Feeney was not asked to recant. 
It was Fr.Leonard Feeney who was correct since BOD, BOB and I.I could never be practical exceptions to EENS. It was the Archbishop of Boston and the Holy Office 1949, the magisterium, which was in heresy and in a rupture with the past magisterium of the Church.-Lionel Andrades




Another year passes and SSPX Italy priests will not answer a simple question


Last Sunday I went to the SSPX chapel in Rome before the 11 a.m Mass.
There was a family there, a lady with her husband and children, who had come early for Mass.I had seem them before too at the chapel.The priest Father Gabriele D'Avino was teaching catechism.
I told this lady there that it was some five years and I have been receiving no statement or comment from the SSPX priests there.They will not answer a simple question. I wondered if she could help.
Father Gabriele D'Avino would not answer a simple question and could I ask her that question? She replied,'Yes'.
She knew what was the baptism of desire(BOD) and so I asked in Italian, " We cannot meet or see someone saved with the baptism of desire. There is no known case in our reality?
"Of course not" was her reply.
It is the same for being saved in invincible ignorance?
"Yes".
Similarly no one could know of a baptism of desire case in 1965 or 1940 or earlier."They could not have known" she said in Italian.
I said that this was all I wanted to ask Fr.Gabriele D'Avino and the SSPX priests.
I prayed the rosary with them and left before the Mass. Fr. Gabriele was hearing Confessions.
For the SSPX priests and bishops BOD refers to  visible cases.This is their inference and they are not aware of it.So Mystici Corporis would contradict Feeneyite EENS for them and Vatican Council II would be a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
For them LG 16 (invincible ignorance) is an example of known salvation outside the Church.
-Lionel Andrades

Sedevacantists continue to teach their seminarians that the baptism of desire is an exception to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).


The sedevacantists continue to teach their seminarians that the baptism of desire is an exception to Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).They know that the baptism of desire(BOD) cannot be a practical exception to EENS.Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada  are acting as if BOD refers to known people saved outside the Church.
Similarly Bishop Mark Pivarunus still needs to believe that BOD is an exception , or was relevant , to Feeneyite EENS. Upon this reasoning depended the the rejection of Vatican Council II by his sedevacantist community.
When the communities are contacted there is no comment or correction.It is as if they have discovered  such a big error in their theology and doctrine that they are in a state of shock.
Seminarians should be taught that outside the Church there is no salvation is a dogma taught by the Catholic Church  and the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are accepted only as hypothetical cases for us, possibilities known only to God, if they happened.
Hypothetical cases must not be assumed to be non hypothetical.This would be dishonest.
-Lionel Andrades








Traditionalists need to delete obsolete passages from their websites

On the traditionalist websites they must delete the passages which state Mystici Corporis etc contradict Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).Mystici Corporis is referring to invisible for us baptism of desire etc so it cannot be anything else.
There are not invisible people saved with the baptism of desire.
We cannot meet or see someone saved in invincible ignorance  and without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
Similarly no one could have seen St.Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water in the Church.The unknown person who mention St. Emerentiana in the Matryrology of the Saints, as being in Heaven without the baptism of water, made a mistake.How can she contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needing to be members of the Church , when no one could see her as an exception?
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949  is a glaring mistake and Fr. Karl Rahner s.j placed it in the Denzinger!
Cardinal Ratziger  referenced the Letter in the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) and used the irrational theology in Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus etc.-Lionel Andrades




I don't think sedevacantism is the answer since we see traditionalist and conservative Catholics making errors in theology and doctrine


Comment on the blog Vox Cantoris
I don't think sedevacantism is the answer since we see traditionalist and conservative Catholics making errors in theology and doctrine and they still will not correct themself.
Chris Ferrara and Roberto dei Mattei wrote books on Vatican Council II unaware of the difference between Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) and Vatican Council II(Cushingite).
The sedevantists, Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr.Anthony Cekada rejected Feeneyite EENS since they assumed that the baptism of desire refers to known people saved outside the Church. For me there are no such known people.
The sedevanatists Peter and Michael Dimond have rejected Vatican Council II since they interpret hyothetical cases mentioned in the Council (LG 16 etc) as being non hypothetical. So with this irrational premise there has to be a non traditional conclusion.They reject it of course.
The Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) and the St. Benedict Center(SBC-Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary) also accepted the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II, when there was a rational choice available.
They have all being criticizing the popes on Vatican Council II when the fault lies with their inference.Change the inference and change your understanding of the Catholic Church.
Now that they know about the error they are not formally affirming the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church since it would be Anti-Semitic etc.
-Lionel Andrades

Paul VI to be canonised a Saint? Oh come on now, you knew this was going to happen. 



http://voxcantor.blogspot.it/2017/12/paul-vi-to-be-canonised-saint-oh-come.html

Will the German Bishops go into schism because of Vatican Council II?


Will there be a schism when the German,English and other liberal bishops  realize that the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood (BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) refer to invisible and not visible, unknown and not known people.They are theoretical and hypothetical references.
So with Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II affirms  extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) like the Jesuits in the Middle Ages and LG 16,LG 8,UR 3, NA 2,GS 22 etc are not exceptions  since they are only references to what is speculative and theoretical and not real.
it also means the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Catechism of Pope Pius X,Mystici Corporis etc when they mention the BOD, BOB and I.I are referring  to only a possibility.So they do not contradict Feeneyite EENS. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949,placed in the Denzinger, has made an objective mistake.
So with magisterial documents (Mystici Corporis etc), referring to invisible cases they are in harmony with  EENS and Vatican Council II,Feeneyite.
So with Feeneyite magisterial documents(Mystici Corporis etc) and those of the popes before Pius XII, we are back to the old ecclesiology of the Church. Since there are no exceptions in Mystici Corporis etc to Feeneyite EENS.There is no rupture with the Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism of return and the need for non Christians to also convert with BOD, BOB and I.I not being exceptions.-Lionel Andrades