Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf interprets magisterial documents including Vatican Council II with Cushingism, the right hand side column, which depends on an irrational premise to create a non traditional conclusion : pot calls the kettle black

OCTOBER 1, 2015

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf is in material heresy
Risultati immagini per Photo of Fr.John Zuhlsdorf with the pope and cardinals

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf recently wrote that the SSPX could be in  material/ de iure schism  and that their canonical position is 'ambigous'. He mentions ' the gravity of the material schism by which souls are at grave risk of not being saved for as long as the situation perdures.'.
Yes the SSPX would be in material schism for rejecting Vatican Council II if the criteria for the interpretation of the Council is Cushingismthe irrational premise and inference and the right hand column.(Pl.see tags for a definition of these terms)
If the irrational premise and inference was avoided, and if Feeneyism and the left hand column were used in the interpretation of Vatican Council II then Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis and Fr. John Zuhlsdorf would be in material schism.They would be interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS). This is material schism with the past popes.The pot has been calling the kettle black.
I Lionel, affirm Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise and inference and with Feeneyism and the left hand side column.
At the centre of Fr. Zuhlsdorf and my interpretation of Vatican Council II is EENS.He does not realize this.
For Fr.Z the popes cannot be in heresy since he cannot conceive, perhaps, of magisterial heresy among the contemporary popes ( from Pius XII to Francis).
For me the contemporary Magisterium uses fantasy theology which is a break with the pre-1949 magisterium.So the Magisterium has to be wrong either before or after 1949.Any one who infers we can see and know people in Heaven in 2015 as we see and know people on earth has to be wrog. If a pope or cardinal implies this he is still wrong.
The SSPX says they affirm the perennial Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The perennial Magisterium ( before 1949) did not interpret the dogma EENS with Cushingism.
1.They did not assume salvation in Heaven is visible and known on earth for us human beings.
2. They did not assume that these 'visible cases' exclude the baptism of water.
3.They did not infer that these allegedly visible cases were explicit exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Church with 'faith and baptism' for salvation.
For Fr.John Zuhlsdorf and the present Magisterium all these three errors ( 1,2,3) are there in their theology.
It is their position on Vatican Council II which is ambigous because of this irrationality of which they are not aware of.
 For the SSPX and for them, there would be no ambiguity if they interpreted all magisterial documents without irrational Cushingism and without the false premise and inference which creates a new theology.
There is no ambiguity then in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
The ambiguity comes with Cushingism which is a new theology based on the irrationality of being able to see and know of non Catholics now in Heaven who are there without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith( the premise) and who are exceptions to the strict interpretation of EENS ( the false inference).So all do not need to convert into the Church in the present times ( is the false conclusion).
I have written about this in the past. Quite a few times and I have e-mailed and tweeted this to Fr.Z. He could comment on his schism with the past popes on EENS ' the gravity of the material schism (heresy) by which souls are at grave risk of not being saved for as long as the situation perdures.'.-Lionel Andrades

Some two years have passed and sedevacantists will not answer if Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for them since it refers to visible and known people

 

OCTOBER 5, 2015


Four months and the sedevacantists will not answer if LG 16 is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus


Immagine correlata
Immagine correlata
A sedevacantist priest and his group of young Catholics will not answer if Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
I have to ask this question, since like the Left, the sedevacantists infer that there are explicit cases in 2015 saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. These persons they infer are exceptions  to the dogmaextra ecclesiam nulla salus. 
They infer this, when like the Holy Office (CDF) 1949, they assume that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.If they are exceptions they would have to be explicit and visible in the flesh.So they conclude that there are known exceptions to the dogma and they refer to persons saved in invincible ignorance and with the baptism of water(LG 16) and are unaware of the irrational reasoning they are using.They will keep silent and refuse to answer the question.
Since they already assume that LG 16 is explicit and since they are not aware of this, I have to begin the discussion by asking them if LG 16 is explicit.
They will not answer.
This is a rational question and the priests will not answer.
Can you see people, non Catholics in 2015, who are saved outside the Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith? Yes or No? It's no for me. Since I cannot see or know any such case here where I live.
Can you see or know non Catholics now in Heaven in 2015 saved in inculpable ignorance(LG 16) ? The answer is no for me.
In my discussions with the sedevacantist  blog owner at Ad Altare Dei  some four months back,  initially he agreed that LG 16 is not explicit ( this is common sense!) but then he was not sure and changed his mind!! At first he said that we cannot see the dead-saved in Heaven and then he changed his mind!!
He got confused when I asked him if he was holding the Feeneyite position.He said that there were no exceptions to the dogma EENS and LG 16 was not explicit , but he was not supporting Feeneyism!
Immagine correlataImmagine correlataImmagine correlata
Yes, this is what Fr. Leonard Feeney was saying. He was saying there could not be any known exception to the dogma EENS.There could not be any known case of someone being saved outside the Church.The baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) had nothing to do with the dogma. 
Since 1949 the Magisterium says there are known exceptions to the dogma EENs and so do the sedevacantists  Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada.They criticize Feeneyism . So the blogger at Ad Altare Dei  could not offend  them,  even though it made sense to him, his position would be rational if he supported Feeneyism.He understood there were no exceptions to the dogma, this was rational but he was not going to support Fr. Leonard Feeney.
If his reason tells him that there could not be any exceptions to the dogma, then to say LG 16 is an exception, would be  to change the meaning of the dogma. This was heresy and liberalism. This 'liberalism is a sin'( have you read the book with this title?).I recommend it.
Fr. Cekada Teaching Class
It would be the Magisterium which had made a mistake. The Magisterium was in heresy if LG 16 is not an exception to the dogma.
Worse still it would mean this mistake was being supported by the sedevacantists bishops, priests and seminarians.
The sedevacantists would have been supporting the heresy all these years and not knowing about it.
So the sedevacantists are telling each other on Twitter not to answer my question. Some of the priests too have blocked any discussion.Years have passed and there is no comment in public from Fr. Cekada or Bishop Sanborn.(March 2018. Some three years have passed and they will not answer if LG 16 refers to visible or invisible cases for them).
Immagine correlata
Where is the basis in Vatican Council II for their sedevacantism if there are no exceptions, to the old ecclesiology.They will not comment. They have gone into hiding.'Please don't ask me any questions and send me any e-mails' is the response of the bishop and the priests.They know the conclusion of this discussion would be embarassing.
It is only because they assume that LG 16 is explicit does LG 16 contradict the old ecclesiology. The fault is with them and not Vatican Council II.So I ask them is LG 16 as exception to the dogma hoping to begin a discussion.
They are similar to the priests and bishops in the main line churches here in Rome who do not want to answer if LG 16 is an exception to EENS.They know the answer!  It would put them at odds with the pope and the magisterium. They would have to say that the Magisterium is in heresy.So they do not say anything.
-Lionel Andrades

Immagine correlata
Wikipedia and Most Holy Trinity,Florida sedevacantist seminary make the same error http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/08/wikipedia-and-most-holy-trinity-usa.html


Does BOD and I.I refer to visible or invisible cases in 2015 where you live? is a difficult question for a sedevacantist priest
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/does-bod-and-ii-refer-to-visible-or.html

Sedevacantists do not have a single source to support their modernism, not a single reference. They continue with thier liberalism






OCTOBER 8, 2015


Bishop Sanborn and Fr.Anthony Cekada do not have a single source to support their position. Not a single reference!

 Immagine correlata
AnonymousIntroibo Ad Altare Dei:
If you can't even get the name of my BLOG correct, it's no wonder you can't get anything else right either. Things didn't "get too hot," you're a pseudo-educated dolt who can't understand basic concepts. We block you because you can educate the ignorant but--"When you're stupid nothing can be done!"

One last time:
There are 3 ways to enter the Church--BOW, BOD, and BOB.
Feeney denied BOB and BOD as means to enter the Church.
We can't see anyone in Heaven so how do you know water baptized people are there? On the authority of the Church! That's how! St. Emerantiana is in Heaven by BOB--the Church teaches it in her liturgy and in such matters the Church is infallible. If you object "How do we know"--because this is what the Church teaches! If you object "we can't see her" We can't see anyone who's been baptized either! So we can't know anybody in Heaven, even by Church proclamation! Here's a list of Church sources proclaiming BOD and BOB. When you can answer them all; then we can have a discussion. We don't answer (sedes) because you are of such a low intellect as to be a joke. You can't/don't understand the basic illogic of your heresy.
Here's the link:http://www.romancatholicism.org/bod-quotes.html

Immagine correlata
One last time:
There are 3 ways to enter the Church--BOW, BOD, and BOB.

Lionel:
Agreed.
Is BOD and BOB an exception to EENS ? This is the issue.
Why is all this so difficult for you? Is this some political position of the sedevanatists in your community?...(March 2018 and still there is no clarification or correction from them).
____________________
Feeney denied BOB and BOD as means to enter the Church.
Lionel:
He denied the baptism of desire and baptism of blood, without the baptism of water, as known  means of entering the Church.I agree with him.
He also denied that we human beings could know any such case for them to be relevant to the dogma. He criticised the Rector of Boston College and the Jesuit Provincial for saying there was salvation outside the Church.How could the Rector know ?
Your position and that of the sedevacantist seminary in Florida is that of the Jesuit Rector and Provinciial during the time of Fr. Leonard Feeney. It is is also the position of the Jesuits and the liberals today.
This is heresy and it is supported by Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada. The Left must be clapping in approval.
All of you interpret Vatican Council II with the same heresy, of there being explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Vatican Council II (LG 16, LG 8).
Even when it is so obvious and pointed out to you over some four months your persist. Are you so emotionally attached to them ?


Immagine correlata


_________________________



Blogger
We can't see anyone in Heaven so how do you know water baptized people are there? On the authority of the Church! 
Lionel:

So you agree we cannot see any one in Heaven today.

You agree that we humans cannot see any one in the past,in 1949 or 1808.

So when could someone in the Church say with authority, that that he or she could see someone in Heaven who is there without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.

Who had this gift?

When was this gift declared to be an infallible teaching ? Who issued this infallible statement that you claim is an authority in the Church?

Someone who could see the dead-saved in Heaven?

Then you keep asking me why do I mention the dead-saved in Heaven being visible? It is because of your repeated inference.
__________

Immagine correlata
Blogger
On the authority of the Church! That's how! St. Emerantiana is in Heaven by BOB--the Church teaches it in her liturgy and in such matters the Church is infallible.
Lionel:
O.K she is in Heaven with the baptism of blood ( martyrdom).Where does the Church state that in her case it excludes the baptism of water? How could someone in the Church make this claim ?
How could you or any one infer that she is in Heaven without the baptism of water?
Again you make me ask the question which I don't want to mention : who saw her in Heaven without the baptism of water?
So why is it being said that she is an exception to the dogmatic teaching on salvation? Where is the proof ?
Where is the Church authority which says otherwise?
The liturgy only says she is a martyr.
It reminds me of the Good Thief on the Cross. We know he is in Heaven but the Church does not state that he did not receive the baptism of water before or after his death.The liberals and the sedevacantists say he is in Heaven without the baptism of water. O.k that is an inference but it is not the teaching of the Church.

_______________________


 Immagine correlata
If you object "How do we know"--because this is what the Church teaches! If you object "we can't see her" We can't see anyone who's been baptized either! So we can't know anybody in Heaven, even by Church proclamation!
Lionel:
I have covered this point in the last comment.Here I go again.
Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Anthony Cekada and all those associated with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre have accepted that BOD and BOB are exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.
Since they keep saying that BOD and BOB are exceptions to EENS I keep asking where are these exceptions this month, this year, near the place we live or wherever.Since, we do not know the names and location of these 'exceptions'.
For someone to be an exception to the dogma( all needing to formally enter the Church with no exceptions)these people must have a name and they must live, they need to be real.

We beleive St.Emerentina is in Heaven with the baptism of blood ( martrydom) but :
1. We cannot say that someone who died centuries back is a real case today; she exists today, to be an exception to the dogmatic teaching on exclusive salvation in the Church. Some one from the past cannot be an exception to all needing to enter the Church today ( October 2015).So when you say there are exceptions you imply you know who these exceptions are or who are going to be exceptions tomorrow.
Also there is no way of knowing if she did not make it to Heaven as a martyr and received the baptism of water after she 'died', as the saints have explained.Either way, with or without the baptism of water, there is no way of knowing.
2.In general hypothetical cases cannot be defacto exceptions to the dogma. So LG 16 would be irrelevant to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
3.We believe the saints are in Heaven but we cannot postulate that those who are martyrs are there with or without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church and so are exceptions to EENS.
______________

Here's a list of Church sources proclaiming BOD and BOB. When you can answer them all; then we can have a discussion. 
Lionel:
Not a single one of them !  - says BOD and BOB are explicit or that they are exceptions to EENS.
This is the inference of Bishop Sanborn and Fr.Anthony Cekada.
I have pointed this out to Fr. Cekada a long time back but he still will not remove that article.
You do not have a single source to support your position. Not a single reference!
This is liberalism.

-Lionel Andrades





No comment from Bishop Donald Sanborn over some two years : questions still not being answered . It is with heresy that they offer the Tridentine Rite Mass. They interpret Vatican Council II in schism with the past popes

OCTOBER 9, 2015

Bp. Sanborn and Fr. Cekada have been informed. They are not in ignorance.Why must they make the same error as Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger?
Immagine correlata

Comments from Sedevacantist community in Florida still remaing in hiding like diocesan priests in Rome and do not answer questions on the Faithhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/10/sedevacantist-community-in-florida.html

AnonymousIntroibo Ad Altare Dei said...
Here are your points answered:

1.
The entire issue has nothing to do with EENS and everything to do with HOW membership in the Church is obtained. You can receive BOW(Baptism of Water) OR BOB(Baptism of Blood without BOW) OR BOD(Baptism of Desire without BOW). The Feeneyites will admit ONLY BOW (or they fancy BOW must follow BOB or BOD; which is not true because BOB and BOD are sufficient in and of themselves). BOB and BOD have been taught by the Church since the beginning. To deny them as sufficient for Church membership is a mortal sin against the Faith. It is heresy. See http://www.romancatholicism.org/bod-quotes.html

2. You are obsess with "exceptions." You don't understand the problem which is why you can't comprehend the answer. To deny BOD as sufficient in and of itself is heretical. If someone said hypothetically, "Christ could commit sin" it is not an exception to his sinlessness since we can't see Him commit sin nor do we know of any sin He committed. We can't see Him in Heaven.WRONG! It is heresy because it says IT IS POSSIBLE. The hypothesis alone is enough to bring the censure of heresy. Christ, Who is God, cannot commit sin, and whether there are actual cases or not, does not matter. Likewise, to deny the efficacy of BOD without BOW is heresy even if only hypothetical. It doesn't matter that we can't see the dead, etc. The hypothesis alone is enough to be guilty of heresy.

3. They are in mortal sin. He is not wrong. LG 16 is an heretical hypothesis as explained above.
October 8, 2015 at 1:39 PM

 Immagine correlata
Here are your points answered:

1. The entire issue has nothing to do with EENS and everything to do with HOW membership in the Church is obtained. You can receive BOW OR BOB (without BOW) OR BOD (without BOW).

Lionel:
So are you saying that BOD (with or without the baptism of water) is invisible for us and so is not an exception to the dogma EENS? Is Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada actually saying this ? ( March 2018.No he is still not saying this. It is obvious but they cannot say it. Since then their entire drama has to end).
__________________

The Feeneyites will admit ONLY BOW (or they fancy BOW must follow BOB or BOD; which is not true because BOB and BOD are sufficient in and of themselves).
Lionel:
It is a dogma of the church that all need the baptism of water for salvation.
It is not a dogma of the Church that BOD is sufficient and must exclude the baptism of water.
Anyway these cases are hypothetical.You and Bishop Sanborn do not know of any specific case. So how can you assume in principle that there are persons saved as such or going to be saved as such when you do not know and cannot know of any specific case?. How can you make a theoretical rule when no one in the history of the Church could know of any case? (March 2018: No comment from Bishop Sanborn or his community on this point).

__________________

BOB and BOD have been taught by the Church since the beginning.
Lionel:
I repeat BOB and BOD is not an issue. But at issue is whether these cases are invisible or visible. You provided a whole list of BOD cases and I mentioned that not a single one states that they are explicit and so an exception to the dogma.So Fr.Cekada cannot cite them as a reference. They are not exceptions or relevant to the Feeeneyite version of EENS.
Not a single of the BOD references cited, claim that BOD is explicit,objective and visible to us humans. None . Yet this is what is implied by Fr. Cekada in his article.He has done all his research on this subject assuming BOD is explicit. Then he condemns the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary for not accepting explicit BOD as an exception to the dogma. He even ludicrously calls it a mortal sin.
So I have to keep asking you again and again is BOD explicit or implicit, visible or invisible and not one of you from the community at Florida will respond.
You still have not answered is LG 16 explicit or implicit ?
(March 2018. About three years have passed and still no one will answer this question. )

______________________________________

To deny them as sufficient for Church membership is a mortal sin against the Faith. It is heresy.
Lionel:
BOD and BOB does not have to be denied since for me they are always invisible and theoretical they are not exceptions to the dogma EENS. They are irrelevant to the dogma.So they are not being denied.
However it is heresy to say that they are explicit and then imply that they are exceptions to EENS and to the Nicene Creed which says I believe in one baptism for the forgivessness of sin and not three known baptisms.
(March 2018.Some three years have passed and no one has responded. It is with heresy that they offer the Tridentine Rite Mass. They interpret Vatican Council II in schism with the past popes.)
_______________________

See http://www.romancatholicism.org/bod-quotes.html
Immagine correlata

2. You are obsess with "exceptions."
Lionel: 
When Fr. Cekada says the community of Fr. Leonard Feeney must accept BOD without the baptism of water he is referring to an exception.So I have to respond.
He implies that there is a known case of someone saved with the baptism of desire in the present times ( 2015). It would have to be in the present times to be relevent to EENS. Then he assumes that this 'explicit' case is there in Heaven without the baptism of water. So he wants the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to accept this fantasy. His reasoning is based on an irrational premise and inference.
You support all this ! (March 2018. This is still there theology with exceptions to EENS.)

__________________________

You don't understand the problem which is why you can't comprehend the answer. To deny BOD as sufficient in and of itself is heretical.
Lionel:
When you refer to BOD specify if it is expliict BOD or implicit BOD to which you refer.
To suggest BOD is explicit is nonsense. Common sense tells us BOD cases are in Heaven and so they cannot be explicit on earth.
Numerous times I have mentioned this point but you have not answered . This is a common sense question.Can you see the dead-saved now in Heaven with BOD? Is LG 16 an exception to EENS? (March 2018: Three years and they still teach error at the sedevacantist seminary).

________________

If someone said hypothetically, "Christ could commit sin" it is not an exception to his sinlessness since we can't see Him commit sin nor do we know of any sin He committed. We can't see Him in Heaven.WRONG! It is heresy because it says IT IS POSSIBLE. The hypothesis alone is enough to bring the censure of heresy. Christ, Who is God, cannot commit sin, and whether there are actual cases or not, does not matter. 
Lionel:
No one is making this claim
However Fr. Cekada has written that the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary are in mortal sin, since they do not accept visible in the flesh for us BOD. Does this make sense ? 
What if the Sisters said that they accept implicit for us and explicit for God only BOD. What would be his reaction? Would he say, "No! You must accept visible for us BOD otherwise I do not have any case against you".(March 2018: Still not comment from Fr.Anthony Cekada)

___________________________________

Likewise, to deny the efficacy of BOD without BOW is heresy even if only hypothetical.
Lionel:
The dogmatic teaching on EENS is de fide.It says all need the baptism of water for salvation. This is not my opinion.
If you claim BOD excludes the baptism of water you are denying the dogma like the liberals. This is heretical for me.It would also be your opinion. 
The second important point is, even if it was your opinion, either way, with or without the baptism of water, you are referring to an invisible, non existing case out of our reality.(March 2018. Yes or No ? Still not answer.)

_____________________

It doesn't matter that we can't see the dead, etc.
Lionel.
It matters when Fr. Cekada assumes BOD is visible, and Bishop Sanborm assumes LG 16 and LG 8 cases refer to explicit people, known people. Since if these cases were not explicit Vatican Council II for them would not be an exception to the old ecclesiology based on EENS.
But it is an exception. So it matters when they infer that the
y can see the dead.(March 2018: No denial or apology from the sedevacantists. Some three years have passed.)

3. They are in mortal sin. He is not wrong. LG 16 is an heretical hypothesis as explained above.
Lionel:
Is LG 16 ( invincible ignorance)a heretical hypothesis when it is explicit or implicit?
Why cannot Fr. Cekada answer this?
For me LG 16 refers to an invisible case and so it  is not an explicit exception to EENS. It is an not an exception to the old ecclesiology based on EENS.So Vatican Council II does not contradict the old ecclesiology. Since there cannot be an explicit exception( LG 16, LG 8 etc).
For Fr. Cekada and the Florida seminary LG 16 and LG 8 refer to explicit cases and so VC2 becomes a break with the old ecclesiology. They condemn VC2 when the fault lies with them not making the correct explicit-implicit distinction.
Like Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada's formation under Archbishop Lefebvre, all three of them innocently have used an irrationality to interpret VC2. So the result is heretical and so they reject VC2.
Archbishop Lefebvre was correct that VC2 was heretical but he did not know that it was because of the invisible-visible distinction. This was not known to the Magisterium too. So they did not help him. Instead they wrongly excommunicated him.
In his mind Vatican Council II was heretical and he was correct.It was heretical with explicit LG 16, LG 8 instead of implicit LG 16 and LG 8.

Bp. Sanborn and Fr. Cekada have been informed. They are not in ignorance.Why must they make the same error as Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger?(March 2018: They are using the New Theology of the modernists and were not aware of it. Now that they have been informed they do not want to admit they are wrong.They continue to teach seminarians this irrationality. It is the same with the pontifical seminaries and universities in Rome.)
-Lionel Andrades