Rorate Caeili and Fr.Zuhlsdorf's interpretations are politically correct

On the internet only reports which interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the Marchetti inference and which criticize Fr.Leonard Feeney are allowed to be posted and read by the powers that be, on the Left.

Google Fr.Leonard Feeney and you will find reports which refer to the Tragic Errors of Fr.Leonard Feeney and Fr.Leonard Feeney condemned.

 

There are so many reports of mine on Fr.Leonard Feeney which cannot be accessed since I do not support Marchetti's objective error and so this would be an anti Semitic interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There is the unofficial censorship.

 

Even the SSPX and the sedevacantists have obliged and they interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus like the liberals and the Left and so their reports can be found prominently on the Internet.

 

It is like Rorate Caeili and Fr.John Zuhlsdorf saying that Vatican Council II is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is the position of the liberals. So no one really minds on the internet.

However if they said that Vatican Council II is Feeneyite they could be blocked. This could be considered anti Semitic,racist or what not.

So Rorate Caeili and Fr.Zuhlsdorf's interpretations are politically correct.

-Lionel Andrades

 

Fraternita Sacerdotale San Pio X , Albano e in stessa barca di Vescovi di Roma

Fraternita Sacerdotale San Pio X , Albano,Italia e in stessa barca di Vescovi di Roma.Loro usato la inferenza di cardinale Marchetti per interpretare Concilio Vaticano II.

Come e possibile che Concilio Vaticano II e una rottura con Tradizione quando noi non conosciamo nessuno che ha ricevuto salvezza senza il battesimo di aqua in 2015 ?

Come e possibile che Lumen Gentium 16, Unitatis Redintigratio 3, seme di Verbo (AG 11) ecc. sono eccezione esplicita per il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus come spiegato Concili della Chiesa, e santi sulle secoli ?

Dove e questi eccezioni in Roma ? Chi e loro nome e cognome?

-Lionel Andrades

 

 

Fraternita Sacerdotale San Pio X e Marchetti : stessa errore

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/fraternita-sacerdotale-san-pio-x-e.html



February 3, 2015

Bishop Fellay has said that doctrinal questions must be clarified. SSPX USA should clarify this issue. Did Marchetti make an objective error?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/bishop-fellay-has-said-that-doctrinal.html

February 3, 2015

This is an error from the pontificate of Pope Pius XII whom the SSPX respects.They do not call him a modernist pope.

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/this-is-error-from-pontificate-of-pope.html

January 29, 2015

Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) still assumes on its USA website that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/society-of-stpius-x-sspx-still-assumes.html

 

The Hail Mary Pass And Fr. Leonard Feeney MICM

The Hail Mary Pass And Fr. Leonard Feeney MICM
http://youtu.be/JoG2oao-zqY

_____________________________________





July 2, 2010

ROBERT KENNEDY ASKED RICHARD CUSHING TO SUPPRESS FR.LEONARD FEENEY

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2010/07/robert-kennedy-asked-richard-cushing-to.html

 

Back The Winning Horse : Michael Voris raises $50,000 for pastor of Star of the Sea Church

http://youtu.be/Zgqe7PUj-8s


http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/3659/fr_joseph_illo_explains_altar_boysonly_policy_at_san_francisco_parish.aspx

Bishop Fellay has said that doctrinal questions must be clarified. SSPX USA should clarify this issue. Did Marchetti make an objective error?

Fr. Jurgen Wegner is the District Superior of the SSPX (USA)  and Fr. Pierre Duverger, District Secretary of Communications and they are both not answering the TWO QUESTIONS which I have asked them.Perhaps since they want to protect their new seminary and other property.They do not want to be considered anti-Semitic by supporting Feeneyism.So they will affirm the Marchetti error and protect their interests.

TWO QUESTIONS

1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2015 ?

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, in real life, they are not visible for us, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, or Ad Gentes 7 which states 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ?

If Fr. Jurgen Wegner's answer is :

1) No we do not know any case of the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience etc and we cannot physically see them in 2015 and 2) since they are not known; not visible to us they are not explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II - then they are rational.

He would be saying that there are no known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2015.Defacto, objectively, they would not know of any such case.If there was any such case (not exception ), it would only be known to God.If there was such a case of someone saved, or going to be saved, without the baptism of water, it would be a possibility known only to God and unknown to us human beings.Possibilities are not exceptions. Hypothetical cases cannot be defacto exceptions in the present times.

 

Then he would be saying of course that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake when it alleges that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the historical interpretation of the dogma, the 'rigorist interpretation'.

He would be contradiciting the SSPX position on Feeneyism.He would have to acknowledge that this is an error on the SSPX website and the book written by Fr.Francois Laisney ( Is Feenyism Catholic?' ,Angelus Press,SSPX ,USA) . The SSPX USA made a factual mistake.

So the TWO QUESTIONS are not answered by this District Superior and neither by the previous one.

How could Fr.Leonard Feeney be wrong when  there cannot be  any known exceptions?

Neither will they answer this question since they do not want to speak the truth. They do not want to be labelled anti Semitic. Though they are already wrongly labelled anti-semitic by the Jewish Left who misuse this leftist law, to stifle the Catholic Church.

Many Catholic priests in Rome to whom I have spoken to say there are no known exceptions and the Marchetti Letter of 1949 made an objective mistake. It assumed that the dead are visible.It is a fact of life, that we cannot see these exceptions.
Fr. Jurgen Wegner wil not comment.

Bishop Fellay has said that doctrinal questions must be clarified. 1 They should clarify this issue. Did Marchetti make an objective error? -Lionel Andrades

1.
http://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/fellay-doctrinal-questions-must-be-clarified-5120

 

 

January 29, 2015

Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) still assumes on its USA website that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/society-of-stpius-x-sspx-still-assumes.html

 

 

This is an error from the pontificate of Pope Pius XII whom the SSPX respects.They do not call him a modernist pope.

SSPX ,Italy who have posted this report 1 also use the Marchetti inference. They use it in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and then reject the Council.They do not want to discuss this or comment on it. So they have removed my comment along with the article 2 from their website.

Fr.Mauro Tranquilo, their theologian at Albano, Italy who recently spoke at a conference with Prof. Roberto de Mattei is not aware that to claim that the baptism of desire is an exception to the Feenyite version of the dogma, is irrational. He does not realize that hypothetical cases cannot be defacto exceptions in the present times.We do not know any one in 2015 who does not need the baptism of water for salvation.So this was the objective error of the Marchetti letter in 1949 and the magisterium accepted it. So did the SSPX in Italy.

Fr.Mauro Tranquilo assumes also that Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium 16) is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Yet if you read LG 16 it is does not say that there are any known cases in the present times or that these cases are exceptions to the dogma.Yet Fr.Mauro infers that LG 16 refers to known exceptions. LG 16 refers to hypothetical cases.

Even if they are saved without the baptism of water, as he interprets it, they cannot be defacto exceptions in the present times.

This is an error from the pontificate of Pope Pius XII whom the SSPX respects.They do not scall him a modernist pope.

-Lionel Andrades 

1.

http://chiesaepostconcilio.blogspot.it/2015/02/prove-generali-del-vaticano-iii-contro.html

February 2, 2015

2.

Fraternita Sacerdotale San Pio X e Marchetti : stessa errore

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/fraternita-sacerdotale-san-pio-x-e.html

Traditionalists do not have to be on the defensive and say Vatican Council II is a pastoral Council: avoid the premise and the pastoral Council is dogmatic

Comments from The fruits of explicit for us baptism of desire and not implicit for us baptism of desire 1

 

Elaine Cooke said...

Vatican II was pastoral, and nothing was defined that we must believe. However, to say it is without error is preemptive. Many scholars say otherwise.

February 2, 2015 

 Elaine:
However, to say it (Vatican Council II)is without error is preemptive. Many scholars say otherwise.

Lionel:
Interpret Vatican Council II with the Marchetti inference
and there is an obvious error. The scholars have noticed it,yes.

If one avoids the false premise then there is nothing in the Council to contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and Tradition on other religions and ecumenism.

For example all salvation referred to in Vatican Council II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is IMPLICIT, THEORETICAL, INVISIBLE, DEJURE(ACCEPTED IN PRINCIPLE ONLY),SUBJECTIVE FOR US, NOW IN HEAVEN.It is not EXPLICIT, PRACTICALLY KNOWN, VISIBLE,DEFACTO(known in reality),OBJECTIVE, ON EARTH (as compared to Heaven) and REAL (as opposed to hypothetical).
For the Vatican, the religious community the Franciscans of the Immaculate, have to accept a Vatican Council II in which all references to salvation ( imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), seeds of the Word (AG 11), saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16 etc) are EXPLICIT, PRACTICALLY KNOWN, VISIBLE, DEFACTO(known in reality),OBJECTIVE, ON EARTH (as compared to Heaven) and REAL (as opposed to hypothetical). This is wrong! - and the fault is not with Vatican Council II.

1) All references to salvation in Vatican Council II are NOT implicit, invisible and hypothetical for Fr.Fidenzio Volpi, Commissioner of the F.I and Cardinal Braz de Aviz, Prefect of the Congregation for Religious, Vatican. They are IRRATIONALLY explicit, visible in the flesh and seen in real life in 2015.The Sisters of the Immaculate should not be expected to assume that these cases are defacto known to them in the present times.This is irrational and THIS irrationality is independent of Vatican Council II.
I repeat that this is irrational and independent of the Council, whether you consider Vatican Council II pastoral or dogmatic. 

2) Being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), elements of sanctification and truth (LG 8), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), seeds of the Word (AG 11) are implicit, invisible in personal cases and hypothetical for us all.

The Sisters must not be expected to assume that these cases are visible, explicit and , known in reality in 2015. Yet this error is being imposed on them in the name of Vatican Council II and no one has raised this point yet.

3) Since all salvation referred to in Vatican Council II are probabilities, and not defacto known in personal cases, they are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation)

Yet the Franciscans of the Immaculate priests are expected to assume that these cases are exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation and so infer that this is the teaching of Vatican Council II.

4) In the Catholic diocese of Worcester,USA , the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the community of Fr.Leonard Feeney, have full canonical status.They affirm the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They can do so since all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston (issued by Cardinal Marchetti) are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.They are irrelevant, They have nothing to do with the dogma.
So all religious communities, including the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate, can affirm the dogma on exclusive salvation in accord with Vatican Council II (AG 7).They only have to avoid the premise which causes the break with Tradition and is used by Braz de Avez and Volpi.

Avoid the premise and the pastoral Council is in line with traditional dogma. It is pro tradition.
Traditionalists do not have to be on the defensive here and say Vatican Council to is a pastoral Council.

5) Cardinal João Braz de Aviz and Fr. Fidenzio Volpi, made a Profession of Faith, upon taking their new assignment during the pontificate of Pope Francis. They must have recited the Nicene Creed.In the Nicene Creed they said ' I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin'.
Were they referring to one known baptism, the baptism of water and not three known baptisms water, desire and blood.?
The baptism of desire is not known to us explicitly and martyrdom is only judged by God.

In the Nicene Creed we also pray 'I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church...'.
For Cardinal Braz de Aviz and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi the Holy Spirit teaches the Catholic Church that the dead saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us on earth for them to be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors ( on other religions and Christian communities and churches).For them there  are exceptions also for Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II. So they will support their non traditional view with Vatican Council II.But where is the text in the Council to support this irrationality? There is none. It only exists when the Marchetti inference is used.
 d.

6) The Franciscans of the Immaculate could attend the Novus Ordo or Tridentine Rite Mass and affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Vatican Council II. Ecclesiology has not been changed if the Marchetti error is avoided.

Since there are no explicit, visible,defacto, objective, known exceptions in 2015 to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, there is no basis for 'a theology of religions', 'new ecclesiology', 'ecumenism of non return' and 'development of doctrine' on salvation. There is no reference text in Vatican Council II to support all this new theology.
Cardinal Braz de Aviz and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi do not know the name of anyone saved outside the Catholic Church in 2013-2015.

7) When the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) says God is not limited to the Sacraments , it is referring to cases known only to God and which are invisible, hypothetical, accepted in theory, accepted in principle (de jure) and not explicit and known in personal cases. So these cases are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Yet they are exceptions for Cardinal Braz de Aviz and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi.The fault is there with their interpretation.
 n.
8) When the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 indicates that all who are saved in other religions are saved through Jesus and the Church, these cases are not explicit for Cardinal Braz de Aviz and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi.So they are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and the traditional teaching on other religions and Christians communities and churches. Yet they both mix up what is invisible for what is visible and suggest this is the teaching of Vatican Council II.And no one calls attention to this.
s.
9) Those who know that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Jesus Christ and yet do not enter and are damned (LG 14) and those in invincible ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of their own and who are saved (LG 16) are hypothetical cases and so are not exceptions to Tradition.So where is the fault of Vatican Council II ?

10) Cardinal Braz de Aviz and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi can affirm Vatican Council II in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Nicene Creed when they avoid the Marchetti inference. Vatican Council II would be traditional.
-Lionel Andrades

 

1.

The fruits of explicit for us baptism of desire and not implicit for us baptism of desire

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/the-fruits-of-explicit-for-us-baptism.html

 Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate appeal to the Apostolic Signatura for a clarification ( so many inconsistencies )

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/01/franciscan-sisters-of-immaculate-appeal.html#links

Spoiled Milk : Why does Ignatius Press defend the errant theology of Von Baltazar asks Michael Voris

 

 

 

Why are the folks at Ignatius Press for example always defending the errant theology of Von Baltazar (7:14) ? Why is Fr.Barron favourably disposed to this non Catholic thought which will eventually poison all his other good work asks Michael Voris.

http://youtu.be/zi9XpyLZGj0