Saturday, March 3, 2018
Hilary White like Cardinal Ladaria interprets Vatican Council II with the for and against EENS method instead of the for and neutral to EENS method.
March 1, 2018
Written by Hilary Whitehttps://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/fetzen-fliegen/item/3760-breaking-now-in-rome-ladaria-the-silent-speaks-defines-promethean-neo-pelagian-and-other-papal-insults
Hilary White like Cardinal Ladaria interprets Vatican Council II with the for and against EENS method instead of the for and neutral to EENS method.So Vatican Council II would be saying for the both of them that there is known salvation outside the Church. Ladaria would accept this and may be Hilary would reject it as do the other traditionalists including Bishop Bernard Fellay.I use the for and neutral to EENS method to interpret Vatican Council II. So the Council is not a break with Tradition for me. So Cardinal Ladaria also conned Hilary into believing that Lumen Gentium 8 was an exception to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.This is why she has not mentioned or criticized this.It is the same with the rest of the traditionalists.
Secondly for Hilary and for Cardinal Ladaria the baptism of desire,baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to known and visible people in the present times. For me they are invisible and unknown people. So for the both of them there are known exceptions to Feeneyite.Not for me.
So again there is a rupture with Tradition for the both of them.Now if Hilary corrected herself on these two points then the interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS would change.She would have looked at the Press Conference on Thursday differently.She would be able to get into specifics on theology and doctrine and not write a general piece which is vague and lacks preciseness.-Lionel Andrades
Hilary White and Massimo Faggioli interpret the Catechism, Vatican Council II and Letter of the Holy Office with hypothetical cases not being hypothetical : so there is a rupture with Tradition (with graphics)
BREAKING NOW IN ROME: Ladaria the Silent Speaks, Accurately Defines “Promethean Neo-Pelagian”
Hilary White like Cardinal Ladaria interprets Vatican Council II with the for and against EENS method instead of the for and neutral to EENS method.So Vatican Council II would be saying for the both of them that there is known salvation outside the Church. Ladaria would accept this and may be Hilary would reject it as do the other traditionalists including Bishop Bernard Fellay.I use the for and neutral to EENS method to interpret Vatican Council II. So the Council is not a break with Tradition for me. So Cardinal Ladaria also conned Hilary into believing that Lumen Gentium 8 was an exception to the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church.This is why she has not mentioned or criticized this.It is the same with the rest of the traditionalists.
Secondly for Hilary and for Cardinal Ladaria the baptism of desire,baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance refer to known and visible people in the present times. For me they are invisible and unknown people. So for the both of them there are known exceptions to Feeneyite.Not for me.So again there is a rupture with Tradition for the both of them.Now if Hilary corrected herself on these two points then the interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS would change.She would have looked at the Press Conference on Thursday differently.She would be able to get into specifics on theology and doctrine and not write a general piece which is vague and lacks preciseness.-Lionel AndradesJANUARY 26, 2018
Hilary White and Massimo Faggioli interpret the Catechism, Vatican Council II and Letter of the Holy Office with hypothetical cases not being hypothetical : so there is a rupture with Tradition (with graphics)
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/hilary-white-and-massimo-faggioli.html
JANUARY 25, 2018
Traditionalists cannot tell Faggioli Vatican Council II can be interpreted in harmony with the past ecclesiology of the Church. This is unknown or unthinkable.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/traditionalists-cannot-tell-faggioli.html
Traditionalists cannot tell Faggioli Vatican Council II can be interpreted in harmony with the past ecclesiology of the Church. This is unknown or unthinkable.
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/traditionalists-cannot-tell-faggioli.html
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/01/traditionalists-cannot-tell-faggioli.html
Traditionalist Veri Catholici interprets Vatican Council II with the for and against EENS method : so does Cardinal Luiz Ladaria
Placuit Deo – The Catholic Responce…
Moving on…
Below is the reproduction of the Veri Catholici Twitter string on the subject and the full commentary on the Placuit Deo Letter of the CDF:
The CDF letter, “Placuit Deo” contains several grave errrors and heresies: In this Thread these will be explained. The document is at
The first grave error, which is implicitly heretical, is the phrase “Christian Salvation”, which implies there is salvation apart from Christ and makes the only Salvation, which is Christ, merely a species of salvation in general.
Lionel: Cardinal Luiz Ladaria s.j could defend himself. He could say that Archbishop Lefebvre and now the SSPX Bishops believe there is salvation outside the Church. So if there is salvation outside the Church then it is possible that Christians can be saved.
He also reads Vatican Council II with the for and against EENS method as do the traditionalists.So he quoted Lumen Gentium 8 as opposing the old exclusive ecclesiology of the Church. All the traditionalists agree with him on this point and they criticize. This is laughable and true except that it is so serious.
With the for and neutral to EENS method of reading Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium 8 does not contradict EENS according to the missionaries of the 16th century.But this point is not noted by this traditionalist blogger VC.
________________________
Second, the English translation follows the usage of godless Atheists in denying the honorific capitalization to the Divine Nature, the Mediator etc., which Catholics are accustomed to
Lionel: Un -clear.
_____________________
Third, the letter falls into the error of Gnosticism/Heraclitus’ metaphysics when it says, “The teaching on salvation in Christ must always be deepened.” As if there is something insufficient or ineffective in the plain preaching of the Gospel contained in Scripture and Tradition
Lionel : You will have to admit Cardinal Ladaria could say that there is no unity on doctrine on salvation even among the traditionalists and conservatives. For the SSPX the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS and so they imply that there are known people saved outside the Church. For the traditionalists at the St. Benedict Centers there are no physically visible cases of the baptism of desire and there are no exceptions to EENS. For both groups LG 14( case of the catechumen) and LG 16( invincible ignorance) are exceptions to Feeneyite and so they reject Vatican Council II. So all of them like the two popes interpret hypothetical cases as being non hypothetical, invisible people being non invisible. Cardinal Ladaria is doing the same. This blogger VC is unaware of this error.
_____________________
Fourth, the Letter falls into gender confusion when it says, “Holding fast to the gaze of the Lord Jesus, the Church turns toward all persons with a maternal love” Because the Church is feminine and Christ is masculine and that colors their vision.
Lionel: This is an opinion. It is not a dogmatic or doctrinal issue.No clear statement has been made here.
______________
Fifth, the Letter establishes a new deposit of the faith (“the greater tradition of the faith and with particular reference to the teachings of Pope Francis”) which is both objectively and ontologically different from that of Scripture and Sacred Tradition
Lionel: But Pope Francis is interpreting Vatican Council II with the same for and against EENS approach as the traditionalists. Then he concludes that there is no more past ecclesiology of the Church since there are exceptions. The traditionalists also agree that there are exceptions. So Cardinal Ladaria has not made the change out of thin air. There is a particular theological basis for the change.It is commonly used also by traditionalists and the blogger (VC) too.
___________________________
These 5 points show that the Letter is formally Gnostic, while claiming to denounce “Gnosticism”. This is a very deceptive and dangerous document. We warn all the Faithful to reject it!...
Lionel: The basis of the Gnosticism seems Vatican Council II interpreted with an irrational premise which is also the general way the traditionalists including the blogger VC interprets Vatican Council II.
I use the for and neutral to EENS approach and the interpretation of Vatican Council II changes. It becomes traditional.This is unknown to VC.So he does not correct this error of Cardinal Luiz Ladaria and the two popes.
_____________________
Sixteenth, in V, n. 12, the Letter fails to correctly identify the Catholic Church and scrupulously omits the word “Catholic” and thus gives support to the error that there is good hope for salvation outside the Catholic Church.
Lionel: This is the position of the SSPX. See their website on Feeneyism. There is hope for salvation outside the Church with BOD,BOB and I.I for them.
This was the mistake of Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre.
-Lionel Andrades
Continued https://sarmaticusblog.wordpress.com/2018/03/02/placuit-deo-the-catholic-responce/#comments
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria takes the cake : What has 'the river of interpretations of Lumen Gentium 8 subsist it ' to do with EENS when they are all hypothetical and invisible cases?
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria takes the cake : What has 'the river of interpretations of Lumen Gentium 8 subsist it in have 'to do with extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) when they are all hypothetical and invisible case?
When the lady journalist from the Associated Press observed that after Dominus Iesus many people believed that the Church was saying that it had the superiority and exclusiveness in salvation.So she asked if this was still the teaching of the Church today. Does the Church still teach that outside the Church there is no salvation like in the past centuries,is what she was asking.
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria in trying to answer that question looked at the Public Relations Director on his left and laughed and said with arms extended that there could be 'a river of interpretations' of Lumen Gentium 8 which says that the true Church subsists it in the Catholic Church and that there are elements of sanctification and truth in other religions.
Cardinal Ladaria, even if there are many liberal interpretations of LG 8( subsist it in) for you, what have these hypothetical and theoretical cases, speculative possibilities, to do with the question by the journalist? How can unknown and invisible people, in our reality, be exceptions to the centuries old teaching on exclusive salvation in the Church?
How long more will you continue with this deception?
WHY WAS LUMEN GENTIUM 8 CITED ?
We do not know any one saved in another religion in 2018 because that religion subsist it in the Catholic Church. We do not know any one who is saved in another religion with 'elements of sanctification and truth'. So why was Lumen Gentium 8 cited as an exception, when that journalist asked about outside the Church there is no salvation ?
According to the old teaching Protestants are outside the Church and are on the way to Hell. Where are the known exceptions in 2018? How can we tell that someone is not living in mortal sin outside the Church ? How can we tell that a particular non Catholic will be saved without Catholic faith and instead with elements of sanctification and truth, or imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3) or seeds of the Word (AG 11). This can only be known to God. The norm for salvation is 'faith and baptism'. The norm is not LG 8 etc.
According to the old teaching there can only be an ecumenism of return.So how can Lumen Gentium 8 which refers to speculative possibilities known only to God, be relevant to the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church ?
How long more will the cardinals and bishops at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith continue with these falsehoods and deception?
INJUSTICE DONE TO ABP. LEFEBVRE
INJUSTICE DONE TO ABP. LEFEBVRE
An injustice was done by the CDF(1949) when they excommunicated Fr.Leonard Feeney even though there were no known exceptions to EENS at that time of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.The Jesuits expelled him and the Archbishop put restrictions on the priests.
Also an injustice was done by the CDF when they excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for correctly saying that Vatican Council II interpreted with LG 16,LG 8, LG 14, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc as being known and visible people saved outside the Church, was a rupture with the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church. There was no clarification or correction from the CDF saying that Vatican Council II could also be interpreted without the invisible people are visible in the present times, false premise.
For me Fr. Leonard Feeney was orthodox and the CDF and the Jesuits were heretical.Since there are no objective exceptions to EENS for us human beings and they postulated that there were exceptions.
Also for me Vatican Council II with LG 16 etc referring to hypothetical cases only, does not contradict the exclusive understanding of salvation in the Catholic Church.So Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the Apostolic teaching and that of the Church Fathers saying the Catholic Church has superiority and exclusiveness in salvation.
CDF IN SCHISM AND HERESY
CDF IN SCHISM AND HERESY
So for me Cardinal Ladaria, like the present two popes is in schism. They are interpreting Vatican Council II as a rupture with the past ecclesiology of the Church and have changed the meaning of the dogma EENS, as having exceptions.So for me there is EENS and Vatican Council II without the premise and without exceptions. While for them there is Vatican Council II and EENS with exceptions. They use the hermeneutic of rupture with the past.
NICENE CREED REINTERPRETED
NICENE CREED REINTERPRETED
Since BOD,BOB and I.I refer to known people saved outside the Church they have changed the meaning of the Nicene Creed. It now says, for them, 'I do not believe in only one known baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but three or more, they are the baptisms of desire, blood, invincible ignorance, elements of sanctification and truth etc, all which exclude the baptism of water in the Church.'
They have changed the interpretation of the past popes in Mystici Corporis, Catechism of Pope Pius X, Trent etc.Since they interpret references to BOD, BOB and I.I as being known people saved outside the Church. So they become a rupture with the Feeneyite and traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS, which says there are no exceptions.
Similarly the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) is interpreted as a rupture with the past because of this mixing up of what is invisible as being visible, unknown as being known, hypothetical as being objective, implicit as being explicit.
RECANTATION NEEDED
RECANTATION NEEDED
Cardinal Luiz Ladaria needs to correct his error in public. A recantation is in order.
I affirm all these magisterial documents but I interpret them with the for and neutral to EENS method. I avoid the false premise with Feeneyite theology and so the ecclesiology of the Church before and after Vatican Council II is the same for me.I affirm Vatican Council II ( premise-free) and the strict interpretation of EENS along with the Syllabus of Errors.I affirm the Catechism of the Church (1994) in harmony with the Catechism of the Council of Trent.
I afirm the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which affirms Feeneyite EENS and I reject the second part which contradicts the first part by assuming BOD,BOB and I.I refer to known people saved outside the Church.
I AFFIRM MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS
I AFFIRM MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS
So like Cardinal Ladaria I affirm all Magisterial documents, but he interprets them with Cushingism( hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but visible in the present times) and I use Feeneyism( hypothetical cases are just hypothetical).So since our premises are different our conclusions are traditional or non traditional, heretical or orthodox.
-Lionel Andrades
MARCH 3, 2018
Jesuit Cardinal Ladaria review the case of Jesuit Fr.Leonard Feeney he was set up by your office
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/jesuit-cardinal-ladaria-review-case-of.html
MARCH 2, 2018
Cardinal Ladaria made a major mistake at the Press Conference for Placuit Deo
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2018/03/cardinal-ladraian-made-major-mistake-at.html
Jesuit Cardinal Ladaria review the case of Jesuit Fr.Leonard Feeney he was set up by your office .
Jesuit Cardinal Ladaria review the case of Jesuit Fr.Leonard Feeney he was set up by your office.
Jesuits review the Fr.Leonard Feeney case there are no known cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) in 2018. There were none in 1960-65 or 1949. BOD, BOB and I.I never were exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) as it was known to St. Ignatius of Loyola and St.Francis Xavier.
This was a set up.
Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for his orthodoxy on Catholic theology and doctrine.
The Holy Office made an objective mistake since people allegedly saved and now in Heaven with BOD,BOB and I.I cannot be objective examples on earth of salvation outside the Church.
Pope Pius XII did not defend Fr. Leonard Feeney and so the error was carried over into Vatican Council II by the liberal cardinals.
Now last Thursday Cardinal Luiz Ladaria at the Press Conference on Placiuto Deo, the Letter on the new, non exclusive understanding of salvation in the Catholic Church, responded to a question by a lady journalist from the Associated Press.He presented Lumen Gentium 8,Vatican Council II as an exception to the old exclusivist understanding of salvation in the Catholic Church.How can non existing people in 2018 be relevant to EENS? He is repeating the error of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(Holy Office) made in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case, the Boston Heresy case of the Archbishop ,the CDF and the Jesuits.
Lumen Gentium 8 refers to hypothetical and theoretical cases and if they happened they would only be known to God. For there to be an exception in 2018, for example, to the teaching on all needing to formally enter the Church, the exception would have to be a person living, someone alive. Then it could be said ,'Look at this man, Mr. ZYZ he has been saved outside the Church and he is here before us. He is an exception to the old teaching which says all need to be incorporated into the Church with 'faith and baptism' and which is also repeated in Vatican Council II(AG 7). So the dogma EENS is now superfluous. It is a thing of the past. They made a mistake in the past.'
But for us human beings there cannot be any such person. Since people who are saved are seen only in Heaven. So a concrete case does not exist on earth.
This was the mistake made in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case by the Jesuits, the Holy Office and the Archdiocese of Boston.
-Lionel Andrades
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
