Friday, February 16, 2018

We affirm Tradition and Vatican Council II and can ask the German bishops to do the same. Ask them to affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus like the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century. It is compatibile with Vatican Council II( Feeneyite).

Comments from The Eponymous Flower

We can also give up the usual way traditionalists and liberals interpret Vatican Council II

FEBRUARY 15, 2018
Reinterpret Vatican Council II with these four links
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/reinterpret-vatican-council-ii-with_15.htm

______________________________________


It's not open for "reinterpretation" because it contains errors, if the document contains errors you have to throw the entire thing in the garbage.

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

That's a simple falsehood, an error or a lie, voiding the entire document and this is only one example.

Lionel:
There are philosophical errors in Vatican Council II which come from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 but we can still re-interpet Vatican Council II in harmony with the past ecclesiology of the Church, the Syllabus of Errors and the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So lets go ahead and do it and let Rome come back to the Faith and let the German bishops reject Vatican Council II as the SSPX is doing today.
We have to make the distinction between Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) and Vatican Council II(Cushingite). Reject Vatican Council II(Cushingite) which is non traditional and irrational and affirm Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) which avoids the New Theology.
This is what the SSPX can do immediately and then ask for canonical recognition.

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, 

Lionel:
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 assumed that there was known salvation outside the Church.This was an error. So Nostra Aetate says that the plan of salvation also includes the Muslims.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 mistook invisible for us baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance as being visible exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is Cushingite theology.It is a mistake. Yet this was the theology used by Cardinal Cushing and the others at Vatican Council II.It is used by the two popes today.
Now even though this is an error we can re-interpet Vatican Council II.
Just be aware that all salvation in personal cases is known only to God. So there is no known Muslim who is saved outside the Church. The reference to salvation here is a reference to a theoretical and hypothetical case, a speculative case.It is based on the wrong reasoning in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. So we know that the salvation mentioned here cannot be a practical exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Magisterium made a mistake.
So even though there is an error in Vatican Council II, a philosophical error, which cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit, we can still interpret Vatican Council II in harmony with the old exclusivist ecclesiology and the Syllabus of Errors, by simply avoiding the false Cushingite premise.
In this way we affirm Tradition and Vatican Council II and can ask the German bishops to do the same. Ask them to affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus like the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century. It is comptaible with Vatican Council II( Feeneyite).

Lionel Andrades

JANUARY 1, 2018



German bishops interpret Vatican Council II with philosophical error - possible schism ahead?http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/german-bishops-interpret-vatican.html













February 15, 2018

Reinterpret Vatican Council II with these four links




FEBRUARY 8, 2018


Error repeated in the Church : there is salvation outside the Church.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/error-repeated-in-church-there-is.html
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.it/2018/02/rome-gives-up-pope-for-lent.html#comment-form

The liberal theologians suggest that all do not need to enter the Church since there could be exceptions of BOD, BOB and I.I( as if we could know of any) or someone could be saved at the last moment( as if we could know of someone)

 We cannot and should not judge anyone as Father Feeney did. He stepped over and pronounced a person not saved. This is completely up to God .
The Church tells us that non Catholics are on the way to Hell.This is done through the dogma EENS.
So we can say when someone is oriented to Hell. You cannot say that at the last moment a particular person will be saved with BOD etc.
The Catholic Church teaches in the dogma EENS and has always taught that all need to be members of the Church with faith and baptism for salvation, which is, to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
The liberal theologians suggest that all do not need to enter the Church since there could be exceptions of BOD, BOB and I.I( as if we could know of any)  or someone could be saved at the last moment( as if we could know of someone). Both inferences are false. We cannot know these cases and so they are not exceptions to the ordinary means of salvation.
There are no known exceptions to the rule.
So I affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and tell every one that they need to be baptised in the Church and live the faith- teachings of the Church to avoid Hell.There is only one way to Heaven and that is membership in the Catholic Church and living the Gospels- following the traditional faith and moral teachings  of the Catholic Church and receiving the Sacramants.
I cannot know of anyone who will be saved at the last second before death and who will be an exception to the dogma EENS and I do not know any person in 2018 who will be saved with BOD(baptism of desire), BOB(baptism of blood) and I.I(invincible ignorance) and so will not have to be baptised in the Church.
We know that the majority of people are on the way to Hell since they die without faith and baptism. Vatican Council II says all need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7).So this indirectly is a Vatican Council II -teaching i.e that the majority of people, who die outside the Church, are oriented to Hell.
So millions of people are oriented to Hell. They die without the baptism of water and they also commit mortal sins in that state.They do not know Jesus and they do not call  on Him for help.They are slaves of Satan.
-Lionel Andrades





















The reality remains: invisible BOD,BOB and I.I cannot be visible exceptions to the dogma EENS. However they are exceptions for Catholic Apologetics and Father Francois Laisney(SSPX)


From the Catholic Apologetics website

VARIOUS ERRORS OF FATHER FEENEY
1* The misinterpretation of the text Jn.3: 5 i.e. it must be absolutely interpreted literally so that one must receive Baptism of water in order to win eternal life.
Lionel: Yes it must be interpreted literally according to Feeneyism by Lionel Andrades since there are no known exceptions.The baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) are not visible and known in personal cases in 2018.Neither were they physically visible to the people in the past.Invisible people cannot be visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in the present times.
__________________________

Refutation:  His interpretation contradicts the Church’s official interpretation of the passage
Lionel : Yes the Church's official interpretation since Pope Pius XII is based on irrational and non traditional Cushingism.So now we have extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Feeneyite and Cushingite.
Similarly we have Vatican Council II Cushingite and Vatican Council II Feeneyite.
Then there sadly is a Nicene Creed Cushingite and the traditional Nicene Creed Feeneyite.
The apologists at Catholic Apologetics, including their founder Karl Keating, are Cushingites.
___________________________

. The Council of Trent teaches that the grace of Baptism (res sacramenti) is absolutely necessary, without no exception whatsoever, while the exterior water (“sacramentum tantum”) is necessary “re aut voto” ---
Lionel: This is Feeneyite.It is traditional and supports John 3:5.
_________________________


In fact or at least in desire.
Lionel: Which is hypothetical and so does not contradict John 3:5 or Feeneyite EENS.
________________________


 In other words, the Church tells us that the effect of Baptism, namely, justifying grace or sanctifying grace is necessary “sine qua non” for salvation, and that it can be obtained in three ways: 1.by Baptism of water (which is the ordinary means to obtain justification); 2. by baptism of blood; and 3. by baptism of desire. 
Lionel. Hypothetically it could be received in three ways.In reality, de facto, there is only one way the baptism of water.
In reality only the baptism of water can be given and there are no known cases of BOD,BOB and I.I. This is the Feeneyite version.The baptism of water is the ordinary means to receive justification and we cannot know of an extra ordinary means of salvation.
So since the ordinary means for salvation for adults is faith and baptism(Ad Gentes 7,Vatican Council II) all need to enter the Church and there can be no exceptions.
_________________________

  The Fathers of the Church have always taught this doctrine, and in fact, the Popes[9] and Councils have based their declaration on this matter on their teachings.
    Another reason that led Father Feeney to this error is that he, unfortunately, missed the point of the text. The whole context is actually emphasizing on the spiritual rebirth rather than the rebirth obtained by the exterior water, as he erroneously thought. If we look at the whole text, we find that within six verses, Our Lord speaks of a new birth five times (v.3,5,6,7,8), but of water only once (v.5). Explaining what He has just said in v.5, Our Lord says twice: “he who is born of Spirit,” (v.6,8) without mentioning the water anymore. Then in the rest of His discourse to Nicodemus, He explains how this new birth is by “living Faith.” Therefore, the emphases of the whole context is on the spiritual rebirth, which is the grace signified and produced by the Sacrament.  This is also how St. Thomas interpreted the verse in question: “ As it is written (1 king 16:7), “ Man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart.” Now a man who desires to be “ born again of water and the Holy Ghost” by Baptism, is regenerated in the heart (i.e. spiritual rebirth), though not in body; thus of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of man but of God.”[10]
Lionel: This is a personal interpretation of Scripture and what it is believed was the view held by Fr. Leonard Feeney, who cannot defend himself today.
However the reality remains: invisible BOD,BOB and I.I cannot be visible exceptions to the dogma EENS. However they are exceptions for Catholic Apologetics.
_____________________

2.) That “God would not allow one to die in the state of grace, but not yet baptized.” “Father (Feeney) taught that God would have seen to it that those few martyrs who were reported to have died without baptism would not have left this life without baptism.”[11]
Refutation:  It must be noted that this is the precise error of Father Feeney, resulting from his excessive reaction against the liberals. From this idea he would hold later on that the state of grace was not sufficient for salvation; the character of Baptism is also absolutely required to win eternal life. Let me quote to you Fr. Laisney’s refutation on this error. He says,
 such affirmation makes liars the very person who reported the Martyrdom of these martyrs! This is a gratuitous affirmation, in opposition to the opinion if the Fathers. Father Feeney himself was aware of the novelty of this very opinion of his, thinking he was “improving (sic) upon the teaching of some of the Doctors.”[12] 
Lionel. Again I reiterate that we humans cannot physically see any one saved in Heaven without the baptism of water and instead with the baptism of desire and baptism of blood.So how could any one on earth claim that someone is a martyr without the baptism of water?
____________________


 In the Bread of Life, p.137. Father Feeney wrote: “ Q. What are we to say to those who believe there are such souls (souls that die in the state of justification but have not received Baptism of Water)?    A.  We must say to them that they are making reason prevail over Faith, and the laws of probability over the Providence of God.”                                                                           The answer should rather be: We must say that they make the teachings of the Fathers of the Church, of the Doctors of the Church, of the Popes and Saints prevail upon the “improvements” of Father Feeney!   
Lionel: Fr. Leonard Feeney is correct.Faith says the ordinary means of salvation is the baptism of water in the Church. Cushingite reason says there are known exceptions.
The Providence of God says salvation is open to all and to  receive it all must enter the Catholic Church.Cushingism says that there is a possibility, that God will choose to save someone outside the Church who is not baptized with water.This is speculation with no proof in real life.There is no known example of someone saved outside Church. We humans can only hope and speculate.
___________________   
                                                                                 
   Fr. Laisney continues, “Why not simply accept the opinion of St. Cyprian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Fulgence, Innocent II, Innocent III, St. Thomas Aquinas, the council of Trent, St. Catherine of Sienna, Pope Pius IX, etc…that there are such souls in Heaven?        Instead of “improving upon the teaching of some Doctors,” let us rather humbly “hold fast to the doctrine of the Fathers”!
Lionel. None of them state that they have seen someone saved in Heaven without the baptism of water.There could be martyrs in Heaven all saved with the baptism of water.
St.Augustine held the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.
Pope Pius IX held the strict interpretation of the dogma  according to Feeneyism( by Lionel Andrades). If Cushingism is used as a theology, then Pope Piux IX and the other saints would be suggesting that there are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS. For example when I read the reference to invincible ignorance in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Catechism of Pope Pius X,  for me this is a reference to a hypothetical case and so irrelevant to EENS. This is not so for the rest of the Catholic Church would read it.So the interpretations of the Cathechisms could be with Feeneyism or Cushingism.
Fr. Leonard Feeney was correct and traditional for me.This understanding depends on my Feeneyite theology(according to L.A).

____________________

3.) The other strange view that Fr. Feeney held is that a person who received the sacrament of Baptism but not the Blessed Sacrament is only a son of God but not of Mary, although both may enjoy the Beatific Vision in heaven. Here is a quotation of what he wrote in his book, Bread of Life, p.97-98: 
“I think that Baptism makes you the son of God. I do not think it makes you the child of Mary. I think the Holy Eucharist makes you a child of Mary…What happens to those children who die between Baptism and the Holy Eucharist?…They go to the beatific Vision. They are of the Kingdom of Mary, but they are not the children of Mary. Mary is their Queen, but not their Mother. They are like little angels. There was a strong tradition in the Church that always spoke of them as “ those angels who died in infancy.” They have the beatific Vision, and they see the great Queen, but not move in as part of the Mystical body of Christ…I say: If a child dies after having received baptism, he dies as the son of God, but not yet as the child of Mary
Refutation: As Father Laisney points out, these words are at least offensive to the pious ear. The Church rather taught that by Baptism one was incorporated into the Mystical body of Christ, and thus became not only a son of God, but also a child of Mary. Our Lady gave birth not only to the Head (Christ) but also to the members of His Mystical Body: there is not a single member of His body whose Mother she is not!
Lionel: This is an interpretation. 
The objective fact still remains: there are no known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I for Fr. Leonard Feeney and for me but for  Fr. Laisney and Catholic Apologetics there are.This is their inference when they consider BOD,BOB and I.I exceptions to the dogma EENS. It is an objective error. 
So with their false premise, they heretically change the meaning of EENS, the Nicene Creed, Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) and reject the ecumenism of return and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.
__________________________

4)      Father Feeney and/or his followers were led to teach confusing things about the character of baptism, saying for instance “the character is itself a sanctifying grace”![13]
Refutation:  Briefly, the sacramental character is not at all a sanctifying grace, for they are two different realities. A character is something indelible by nature, in such a way that even if the person who receive this mark, goes to hell, he will still have that mark in hell, whereas sanctifying grace is not permanent; it can be lost by the commission of mortal sin. Moreover, the latter is the one that makes us pleasing to God and heir to the heavenly Kingdom, and not the former. Please see p.37, Baptism of Desire by Father Laisney for further argument against this unCatholic doctrine.
Lionel: Un-Catholic doctrine? The Magisterium and missionaries in the 16th century were teaching un-Catholic doctrine? Pope Benedict said that EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century.So even for Pope Benedict, the Magisterium in 16th century, would be holding un-catholic doctrine? Even John 3:5?
To suggest unknown cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are known exceptions to traditional EENS is Catholic doctrine?
I affirm Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) which is Catholic doctrine for me while they affirm Vatican Council II(Cushingite) which is Catholic doctrine for them.
-Lionel Andrades

Atila S. Guimarães interprets Magisterial documents with Cushingism : proof on the Tradition in Action website

HOME

Second message, October 15, 2010 
 
Dear Editor, 

I recently e-mailed an opinion on the matter of baptism of blood which conflicts with an article by TIA. Though I expressed an opposing position I believe I did so in a courteous and respectful manner at the same time leaving the door open for a correction of my possibly erroneous belief. 

I am surprised that your office did not take advantage of the thinly veiled invitation to show me my error using clear Church teaching of a magisterial nature. 

It is not usual practice for TIA to deny anyone the courtesy of a helpful reply. I apologize if I am expecting too much from an already overworked staff. 

It is also possible that you did not receive the e-mail or that you were unable to open the attachment. If such is the case I resubmit the attachment. 
 Fr. J.F.C.
burbtn.gif - 43 Bytes

 
The Editor responds:
Rev. Fr. J.F.C.,
I thank you for your consideration in sending, for the second time, your question/objection to TIA, requesting texts from the Magisterium that prove baptism of blood is common Catholic doctrine. 

1. On baptism of blood it seems to me that the description of Fr. Alban Butler posted by TIA on our website is in perfect agreement with the Catechism of St. Pius X. In Part IV on the Sacraments, Chapter II on Baptism (§ 4), it states: 
Q: Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way?
 
A: The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire (Original online here). 
Lionel: Theoretically it is called the Baptism of Desire practically there are no known cases. So the theoretical baptism of desire case is not an objective exception to the de fide teaching on all needing to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation.
When the  Baptism of Desire is assumed to be  an exception to traditional EENS, I call it Cushingism or the New Theology.
_________________________________

2. It appears that the baptism of blood is an extreme case of the baptism of desire. Indeed, that person who is offering his life actually is doing so because he has the desire to enter the Catholic Church. Thus, I believe that you may be interested also in knowing the doctrine of the Magisterium on baptism of desire, which applies as well to the baptism of blood. In this supposition, I transcribe some texts for your perusal. 
Lionel: Again I would say that  the 'extreme' case is a hypothetical case. There are no known cases of the baptism of desire or baptism of blood for them to be examples of salvation outside the Church or exceptions to the dogma EENS.
___________________________________
About the baptism of desire accepted as an exception to the rule that everyone should be baptized with water, please read the Encyclical Quanto conficiamur. In it Pius IX states that those outside of the Church may be exceptionally saved through baptism of desire. In case you do not have an easy access to this encyclical, I am transcribing the excerpt that pertains to the topic: 
Lionel: Again Pope  Pius IX refers to a hypothetical case in Quanto Conficiamur. The baptism of desire and blood would only be known to God and visible to him alone. So they are always hypothetical for us. They were theoretical cases even at the time of Pope Pius IX.
Quanto Conficiamur does not state that they refer to personally known people saved outside the Church and so are exceptions to the dogma EENS. This is a wrong  inference made here by Atila M Guimares.
__________________________________

Here too, our beloved sons and Venerable Brethren, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error that is unfortunately entrapping some Catholics who profess that it is possible for men to arrive at eternal salvation although they live in error and are alienated from the true Faith and Catholic unity. Such opinion is absolutely opposed to Catholic teaching.
Lionel: The pope here supports Feeneyite EENS or EENS as it was known to the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.
__________________________________

We know and you know that there are those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy Religion. Uprightly observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches, and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, His supreme goodness and clemency do not permit those who are not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishment. 
Lionel:So they are known only to God. These are invisible cases for us if they exist.
___________________________________

Also well known is the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who with contumacy oppose the authority and definitions of the same Church, as well as with contumacy oppose her unity and the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom ‘the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior’ (Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon)’ (Recueil des allocutions, nn. 7-8, pp. 480-481). 
Lionel: Again the pope is affirming Feeneyite EENS, like the Catechism of St. Pius X interpreted with the philosophy and theology of Feeneyism( according to L.A).
______________________________________

3. As for more ancient teachings on the same topic, a letter of Pope Innocent II to the Bishop of Cremona (1140) reads: 

We answer to your question: The presbyter who died without the water of baptism, since he persevered in the faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, we affirm without any doubt that he became free of the original sin and reached the joy of eternal life” (Denzinger n. 388). 

That Pope also quotes St. Augustine and St. Ambrose teaching the same. 
Lionel: It is hoped that they are saved.On earth no one would know for sure.They could have received the baptism of water in a manner known only to God.We humans cannot read the heart of any one, however good  he may appear to seem.
_______________________________________

4. Pope Innocent III in his letter Debitum pastoralis of 1206 states:

You have communicated to us that a certain Jew, at the edge of dying as he was only among Jews, immersed himself in water saying: ‘I baptize myself in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. Amen.’

We answer saying that the baptizer and the one who receives baptism must be different persons, as we infer from the words of the Lord when, speaking to His Apostles, He said: ‘Go, baptize all nations in the name etc (Matt 28:19). Therefore, the mentioned Jew must be baptized again by another person to show that one is the baptizer and another is the one who receives the baptism. … Nonetheless, if he would have died immediately, he would have flown instantly to the celestial homeland for his faith in the Sacrament rather than for the Sacrament of the Faith (Denzinger n. 413). 
Lionel: Yes and he would have been known only to God.So again we do not have an example of a known case of someone saved outside the Church, or someone saved without the baptism of water.There are still no practical exceptions to EENS.
 BOD and BOB are not relevant to EENS.We can see here that Atila Guimares has repeated the confusion created by the liberal theologians in their attempt to do away with the dogma EENS in the Catholic Church.With this reasoning Vatican Council II becomes a rupture with Tradition for Guimares.He is using the philosophy and theology of Cushingism.
__________________________________________

5. A brief but important mention to the baptism of desire is also made by Pope Paul III along with the Council of Trent. As a matter of fact, in the official Decree on Justification of that Council, chapter IV, it is affirmed: 
By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is given, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This translation, however, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God (Denzinger, n. 796). 
Lionel: We can give a person the baptism of water, it is concrete and repeatable, it is real. This is not true for the baptism of desire. So the Council of Trent does not state here that 'the desire thereof' refers to a known person saved without the baptism of water.
Cushingites re-interpret this passage from Trent and assume it is an exception to EENS or it is a known baptism in particular non Catholics.This is  a false inference.
____________________________

6. You may find further documentation of the official Magisterium of the Church in Denzinger-Schonmetzer (nn. 3866-3973), in which is transcribed a Decree of the Holy Office (August 8, 1949) specifically analyzing the errors of those who make a strict interpretation of the dogma Extra Ecclesia nulla salus without admitting any exception.
Lionel: Notice how Guimares considers the baptism of desire and baptism of blood as being exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.He is a Cushingite. With the same Cushingism he has written a book on Vatican Council II unaware of the Feeneyite interpretation of the Council .
So for him the baptism of desire and blood do not refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases.If they are exceptions to EENS they would have to be visible and known people, this his the inference.
____________________________

7. Not of the official Magisterium of the Church but with the greatest authority below it, St. Thomas Aquinas also teaches the same regarding the possibility of salvation outside of the Church in exceptional cases: 
It falls to Divine Providence to provide all men with the means necessary for salvation, so long as they do not place obstacles in the way. In effect, if someone raised in the wilds or among savage animals is led by natural reason to follow the appetite for good and to flee evil, it should be considered most certain that God will reveal to him by internal inspiration the things necessary to believe, or that He would command some preacher of the Faith to go to him, as he sent St. Peter to Cornelius (Act 10) (De veritate, q. 14, a. 11, ad 1). 
Lionel: Here St. Thomas Aquinas refers to the man in invincible ignorance in the forest who is to be saved and to whom God would reveal to him the truth.God would even send a preacher to baptize him.Aquinas held the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS as did St. Augustine.
_______________________________
 
These are some documents I have at hand without having the leisure of time for a more precise research. I hope they will help you to clarify your doubts.... 
Lionel: I have affirmed the same documents but have interpreted all of with Feeneyite philosophy and theology and my premise and conclusions are different. They are traditional, rational and non heretical. Guimares instead affirms the same documents with Cushingism(according to L.A) and his premise and conclusion are a rupture with Tradition, and unknown to him, heretical.-Lionel Andrades



     In Jesu et Maria, 
     Atila S. Guimarães
 https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/E042_BaptBlood.htm







February 15, 2018

For you all these magisterial documents are Cushingite and then the fault is wrongly placed on Vatican Council II.

Lionel said:
With Cushingite theology,you are making baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) relevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).

 OF course BOB, BOD and II are relevant to salvation !!!  Has nothing to do with Cushingite theology.
Lionel: You are using Cushingite theology without knowing it.
______________________________ ____


some sites for you to read up on:
Lionel: They are all Cushingite sites. Archbishop Lefebvre was a Cushingite. So are the SSPX and FSSP priests.
I am a Feeneyite. For me all the Catechisms are Feeneyite. Vatican Council II is Feenyite. EENS is Feeneyite.
For you all these magisterial documents are Cushingite and then the fault is wrongly placed on Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades





February 15, 2018

Since the dogma EENS say every one who is in Heaven is there with the baptism of water I say the same thing. This is the Holy Spirit teaching the Church.

 There are ONLY Catholics in heaven.  Are you listening to me Lionel. ONLY CATHOLICS IN HEAVEN!
Lionel: Yes and they are all there with the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.

George's answer: So you are God and know whether A BOB, BOD or II are Baptized with water.
Lionel: Since the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) defined by three Church Councils says so, I say every one who is in Heaven is there with the baptism of water. It is the Holy Spirit teaching truth to the Catholic Church.
______________________________ _

  HMMMMM Case closed on this point alone. and the Catholic Church has allowed for centuries BOB, BOD and II
Lionel:  Vatican Council II also says all need faith and baptism for salvation(Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II)
-Lionel Andrades






February 15, 2018

 

So who was really 'sound'? Fr.Leonard Feeney or the pope and the cardinals.

This is also the very reason that Father Feeney was ex communicated by the Pope along with some very sound Cardinals BESIDES Cardinal Cushing. He was wrong about BOB, BOD, and II.


Lionel: Fr.Leonard Feeney was saying like me that there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS). Invisible for us cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) could not be  visible examples of salvation outside the Church.Theoretical, implicit and subjective references are not objective exceptions to EENS. This is common sense.How can  people who do not exist in our reality be exceptions to all needing to enter the Church as members for salvation? Every one needs to be incorporated into the Church is the norm, the dogmatic teaching guided by the Holy Spirit. Where are the practical exceptions in 2018 or the last year or the last 50 years?
So who was really 'sound'? Fr.Leonard Feeney or the pope and the cardinals.-Lionel Andrades
















February 15, 2018

 

Blessed Pope Pius XII made an objective error in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case and Pope Paul VI repeated it at Vatican Council II


Liberal Magazine, Were All Recent Popes Really Saints?







Pro-Francis journalist Mollie Wilson O'Reilly asks the pope to “stop making every pope a saint” saying that it is “a pretty big coincidence for all of the popes since Pius XII — ahem, Venerable Pius XII — to have been men of uncommon heroic virtue”.


Writing in the liberal Catholic magazine Commonweal (February 8) she adds, "If the modern Church really has managed to elect an unbroken string of papal saints in the past century, well, that’s impressive, but considering that the pope is the one who gets to make that call, it’s also a bit...suspect.”


In 2014, Pope Francis canonized John XIII († 1963) and John Paul II († 2005). Paul VI († 1978) is on the docket to be canonized 2018 and Pope John Paul I († 1978) was recognized “Venerable” last November.
https://gloria.tv/article/hvfRVJgB9Wsc1a3NjhvvCUpDN

 FEBRUARY 14, 2018

To re- interpret Vatican Council II and switch from Cushingism to Feneeyism as a theology review your understanding of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 -1
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/to-reinterpret-vatican-council-ii-and.html

FEBRUARY 14, 2018

To re-interpret Vatican Council II and switch from Cushingism to Feeneyism as a theology review your understanding of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 - 2
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/february-19-2015-contents-of-letter-of.html

FEBRUARY 14, 2018


To re-interpret Vatican Council II and switich from Cushingism to Feeneyism as a theology review your understanding of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 -3

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/to-re-interpret-vatican-council-ii-and.html

FEBRUARY 14, 2018
To re-interpret Vatican Council II and switch from Cushingism to Feeneyism as a theology review your understanding of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 -4
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/june-21-2014-catholic-religious.html

FEBRUARY 15, 2018
To re-interpret Vatican Council II and switch from Cushingism to Feeneyism as a theology review your understanding of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 -5
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/02/to-re-interpret-vatican-council-ii-and_15.html