Friday, February 9, 2018

If Michael Voris could accept that Pope Pius XII, Card. Ottaviani and Abp Lefebvre were in heresy while Fr. Leonard Feeney was teaching Catholic orthodoxy then the interpretation of Vatican Council II would change for CMTV.

 If Michael Voris and the Church Militant TV could accept that Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani and Archbishop Lefebvre were in heresy and that Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center were teaching Catholic orthodoxy then the interpretation of Vatican Council II would change for CMTV.
-Lionel Andrades

February 8, 2018
Church Militant TV is interpreting the Nicene Creed, Vatican Council II and EENS with Cushingism and so are a rupture with the past Magisterium of the Church.This is doctrinal chaos.


February 8, 2018
Michael Voris and Church Militant TV are Cushingites like the rest of the Archdiocese of Detroit : they use the New Theology

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/michael-voris-and-church-militant-tv.html
 

February 8, 2018
Even Bishop Robert Barron could say like Michael Voris that all who are in Heaven are Catholic and most people on earth are going there.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/even-bishop-robert-barron-could-say.html
  
 
 
February 9, 2018
CDF would have to discard the New Theology used to interpret EENS,Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents : this will end CMTV's doctrinal chaos
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/cdf-would-have-to-discard-new-theology.html


February 9, 2018





If Catholics can accept that Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani and later Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake instead of Fr. Leonard Feeney - the interpretation of Vatican Council II changes.
 
















February 8, 2018
Church Militant TV is interpreting the Nicene Creed, Vatican Council II and EENS with Cushingism and so are a rupture with the past Magisterium of the Church.This is doctrinal chaos. http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/church-militant-tv-is-interpreting.html

January 30, 2018
 
 

The way you look at St. Emerentiana decides how you interpret Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/the-way-you-look-at-st-emerentiana.html




 RELEVANT LABELS/ TAGS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THIS BLOG (Click to AccessVatican Council II( premise free)(2)
  • Vatican Council II(Cushingite).(5)
  • Vatican Council II(Feeneyite)(8)
  • Vatican Council II(premise free)(2)
  • Vatican Council II(premise-free)(6)
  • ____________________________________


    If Catholics can accept that Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani and later Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake instead of Fr. Leonard Feeney - the interpretation of Vatican Council II changes.






    If Catholics can accept that Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani and later Archbishop Lefebvre made a mistake instead of Fr. Leonard Feeney - the interpretation of Vatican Council II changes.
    Fr. Leonard Feeney was saying that the baptism of desire(BOD) was not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the rest were saying it was.
    The Magisterium was saying physically invisible cases of BOD were visible exceptions to the need for all to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation. They were exceptions to the dogma EENS.
    Fr. Leonard Feeney was saying hypothetical cases could not be exceptions to EENS and so there was no salvation outside the Church.
    The Council Fathers at Vatican Council II accepted the irrational premise, of Pope Pius XII.This was also accepted by Pope Benedict(Fr.Joseph Ratzinger) and Archbishop Lefebvre at Vatican Council II(1965).Today this is the common and official interpretation of Vatican Council II.
    Now suppose we look at Vatican Council II from the perspective of Fr. Leonard Feeney. Hypothetical cases are just hypothetical.They are not objective exceptions to all needing to be members of the Church for salvation. They cannot contradict EENS and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
    Then reason it out. There will be nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict the Syllabus of Errors and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.
    This means the Council Fathers in 1965 made a mistake.The Pope from Pius XII to Paul VI made a mistake. The mistake has continued right up to Pope Francis.
    So from now onwards we can re-interpret Vatican Council II as being in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.
    It was Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Centers of his time who were correct .It was the Archbishop of Boston,Cardinal Richard Cushing, the Rector of Boston College and the Jesuits, the Holy Office(CDF) 1949 and Pope Pius XII who were  wrong.They were in heresy for rejecting the dogma EENS, a de fide teaching of the Church.They did it by using an irrational premise(invisible people are visible).
    They have been responsible for the New Theology,which is based upon a false premise.It was supported by Cardinal Ratzinger in the Catechism of the Catholic Church(1994) and in other magisterial documents.It makes Vatican Council II a rupture with Tradition when the Council really is not if the error is avoided.-Lionel Andrades












    In a prepared statement for the press the former Jesuit (Fr.Leonard Feeney) added: "The conscience difficulty is that the diocese of Boston, under the auspices of Archbishop Cushing, and Boston College, under the auspices of Father John J. McEloney, S.J., both notably ignorant in the field of Catholic theology ... are teaching that there is salvation outside the Catholic Church." - Father Feeney Is Dismissed From Jesuit Order by Rome
    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1949/10/29/father-feeney-is-dismissed-from-jesuit/
     
     

    CDF would have to discard the New Theology used to interpret EENS,Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents : this will end CMTV's doctrinal chaos

    Image result for Photo of Simon Rafe
    The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) did not originate with Fr. Leonard Feeney and neither with the liberal theologians, who interpreted invisible for us baptism of desire(BOD) as being a visible exception to traditional EENS.
    Now we have two interpretations of EENS.1) There is EENS in which visible for us BOD is an exception(Cushingism/New Theology) and 2) EENS in which invisible for us BOD is not an exception(Feeneyism/old ecclesiology).
    For Simon Rafe  at Church Militant TV there is only an EENS (Cushingite). So if someone  does not infer that BOD refers to known and visible people (and that too saved outside the Church) he would consider it heresy.
    So the original EENS(Feeneyite) would be heresy for him.The Church Councils, the popes and saints are in heresy according to Simon Rafe.This would be expressed in CMTV apologetics.This doctrinal chaos exists at CMTV since the Archbishop of Detroit affirms only EENS(Cushingite) and this has the approval of the Jewish Left.
    However the St. Benedict Centers, traditionalists in the USA, still endorse EENS(Feeneyite) and reject EENS( Cushingite).So do I. (I attend Holy Mass in Italian and support Medugorje).
    But the St.Benedict Centers(SBC) like Simon Rafe and Michael Voris,interpret Vatican Council II with invisible for us LG 16( invincible ignorance) and LG14( catechumen who desires baptism) being visible. They are Cushingites on Vatican Council II.They infer that LG 16 and LG 14 refer to known people saved outside the Church.So for the SBC and CMTV, Vatican Council II is a rupture with EENS( Feeneyite), the past ecclesiology and the Syllabus of Errors.This error is magisterial and is supported by the two popes, the Masons and all the cardinals.
    They all want the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) to affirm Vatican Council II(Cushingite) like them.Since the SSPX rejects Vatican Council II(Cushingite) as being heretical, and it is, Michael Voris  and Cardinal Raymond Burke, perhaps in ignorance,say the SSPX is in schism.
    This was like when the Magisterium in 1949 told Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston that he was in heresy when it really was Pope Pius XII,Cardinal Ottaviani and the other cardinals who were in heresy.
    Today Cardinal Burke, CMTV and the traditionalists have a choice.They can endorse EENS(Feeneyite) and Vatican Council II(Feeneyite).There would then be no change in the Nicene Creed, the Catechisms could be interpreted  with Feeneyism  and there would no more be a false Profession of Faith, for religious and laity.
    This would mean asking the Cushingite Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) tp approve EENS(Feeneyite) and Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) for all religious communities and Catholics at large.
    The CDF would have to discard the New Theology they use to interpret EENS, Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents.
    Then Simon Rafe  would be comfortable.He would say that he supports EENS and Vatican Council II interpreted  without the irrational premise( invisible people are visible) and conclusion( invisible people are examples of salvation outside the Church).Now he has to follow the heretical magisterium like the rest at CMTV.-Lionel Andrades