Josefine,
Neither does Atila S. Guimarães or Robert de Mattei deny what I am saying here. I have written to them in the past.

NOVEMBER 1, 2016

Atila S. Guimarães and Robert de Mattei wrote books on Vatican Council II not knowing that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II affirms an Ecumenism of Return, Social Reign of Christ the King and no known salvation outside the Church.

Atila S. Guimarães and Robert de Mattei wrote books on Vatican Council II not knowing that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II affirms an Ecumenism of Return, Social Reign of Christ the King and no known salvation outside the Church.

Atila S. Guimarães and Robert de Mattei wrote their books on Vatican Council II while assuming imaginary and hypothetical cases were objectively visible and that these objectively visible cases, were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So they both rejected Vatican Council II as being a break with Tradition after using this irrational premise and conclusion.
For both of them Lumen Gentium 16( saved in invincible ignorance) referred to someone known, who was saved without the baptism of water in the present times.So for them this was an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
For both of them Lumen Gentium 8 refers not to an invisible but known case of people in ther present times(2016) saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. It would have to be in the present times ,otherwise why would Lumen Gentium 8 be an exception to the dogma on salvation ? So this is an exception to the old ecclesiology and an ecumenism of return.Since there was known salvation outside the Church and ecumenism of return has exceptions.With this theology they are liberals.
They did not know that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II does not have a hermeneutic of rupture .
They did not know that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II would not contradict the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).So there could only be an ecumenism of return.All Lutherans in 2016 need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.

They did not know that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II affirms the Social Reign of Christ the King.
They did not know that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II says all Jews and Muslims need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.Since there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma EENS as it was known to Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston.
For both of them Unitatitis Redintigratio 3 refers to an objectively visible case, may be of a Protestant, Anglican or Lutheran, who is/was saved outside the visible limits of the Church.So outside the Church there is objecively known salvation for them.They both use the false premise to reach a non traditional and heretical conclusion.So fault is not there with Vatican Council II but there interpretation of it.They replaced traditional Feeneyism with the new theology.
As I mentioned in a previous blog post for me Vatican Council II is not a break with the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Bellarmine, St.Francis Xavier, the three Church Councils which defined it and the many popes were affirmed it.I do not reject the baptism of desire etc. I just assume that they are invisiblle and hypothetical cases. If they happened they would only be known to God.
So I am affirming the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS along with implicit and invisible for baptism of desire.Similarly being saved in invincible ignorance with or without the baptism of water, for me, is an imaginary and hypothetical case. So it is irrelevant to Feeneyite EENS. Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objecitive mistake. An injustice was done to Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.
For me Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Holy Office in 1949 were in heresy and Fr. Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center were teaching orthodoxy, in as much as the present day traditionalists and sedevacantists, like the liberals, are affirming heresy, though unknowingly.-Lionel Andrades

OCTOBER 22, 2016

Atila S. Guimarães and Robert de Mattei wrote books on Vatican Council II while assuming imaginary and hypothetical cases were objectively visibleeucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/atila-s-guimara…

OCTOBER 21, 2016

Atila S. Guimarães was ignorant of all this when he wrote his bookeucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/atila-s-guimara…

Lionel L. Andrades:
No, I don´t think so. Perhaps the article by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais has an answer to the issue. Faith Imperiled by Reason: Benedict XVI's Hermeneutics, Thursday, March 4, 2010
>>>...In the same sense, in 1854 Pius XII, citing the same Vincent of Lérins in the bull defining the Immaculate Conception, and speaking of the 'dogmas deposited with the Church,' declared that she 'devotes herself to polishing them in such a manner that these dogmas of heavenly doctrine receive proof, light, clarity, but retain fullness, integrity, propriety, and that they increase only in their genus, that is to say, in the same dogma, the same meaning and the same proposition'[DS 2802]. According to this progress in clarity, dogmas do not progress in depth a depth of which the Apostles have already received the plenitude nor in truth, that is to say, in their aptness to that part of his mystery which God has revealed. The progress sought by theology and by the magisterium is that of a more precise expression of the divine mystery as it is, immutable as God is immutable. (page 7)

Benedict XVI reclaims the purification of the Church's past
However uncertain and provisional it may be, this purification of the past is indeed what Benedict XVI reclaims for the Church, and this is a constant in his life. He says it himself: My fundamental impulse, precisely from the Council, has always been to free the very heart of the faith from under any ossified strata, and to give this heart strength and dynamism. This impulse is the constant in my life.[20]
In his speech on December 22, 2005, Benedict XVI enumerates the purifications of the past implemented by Vatican II and he justified them against the reproach of 'discontinuity' while invoking historicism: In the first place, it was necessary to define in a new way the relation between faith and modern sciences [
]. In the second place, it was necessary to define in a new way the link between the Church and the modern State, which accorded a place to citizens of diverse religions and ideologies [

]. This was bound in the third place to the problem of religious tolerance, a question which needed a new definition of the link between the Christian faith and the religions of the world. It is clear Benedict XVI concedes that in all these sectors of which the collection forms a singular question, there could emerge a certain form of discontinuity in which, nevertheless, once the diverse distinctions between concrete historical circumstances and their demands were established, it would appear that the continuity of principles had not been abandoned. In this process of novelty in continuity
Benedict XVI justifies himself we should learn to understand more concretely first of all that the decisions of the Church concerning contingent facts
for example, certain concrete forms of liberalism must necessarily be themselves contingent because they refer to a specific reality, in itself changeable: It was necessary to learn to recognize that, in such decisions, only the principles express the enduring aspect, while remaining inthe background and motivating decisions from within. On the other hand, the concrete forms are not as permanent; they depend on the historical situation and canthus be submitted to changes.Benedict XVI illustrates his proof by the example of religious liberty: Vatican Council II
he says with the new definition of the relation between the faith of the Church and certain essential elements of modern thought, has revisited and likewise corrected certain historical decisions, but in this apparent discontinuity, it has in turn maintained and deepened its essential nature and its true identity. Vatican Council II, recognizing and making its own through the decree on religious liberty an essential principle of the modern State, has captured anew the deepest patrimony of the Church.[21]
When hermeneutics begins to distort history
If only Benedict XVI would allow me to protest this distortion of history! The popes of the 19th century have condemned religious liberty, not only on account of the indifferentism of its promoters, but in itself:
because it is not a natural right of man: Pius IX said that it is not a 'proprium cujuscumque hominis jus,'[22] and Leo XIII said that it is not one of the 'jura quae homini natura dederit.'[23]
and because it proceeds from 'an altogether distorted idea of the State,'[24] the idea of a State which would rather not have the duty of protecting the true religion against the expansion of religious error. These two motives for condemnation are absolutely general; they follow from the truth of Christ and of his Church, from the duty of the State to recognize it, and from its indirect duty to promote the eternal salvation of the citizens, not, indeed, by constraining them to believe in spite of themselves, but by protecting them against the influence of socially professed error, all things taught byPius IX and Leo XIII. (page 9)<<<
de.scribd.com/…/Faith-Imperiled…

Josefine,
Do you think that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre also made a mistake in theology and lost the truth?

Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre did not know : with Feeneyism Vatican Council II affirms an Ecumenism of Return, Social Reign of Christ the King and no known salvation outside the Church

Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre did not know that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II does nothave a hermeneutic of rupture .
They did not know that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II would not contradict the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).So there could only be an ecumenism of return.All Lutherans in 2016 need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.

They did not know that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II affirms the Social Reign of Christ the King.
They did not know that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II says all Jews and Muslims need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.Since there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma EENS as it was known to Fr.Leonard Feeney of Boston. -Lionel Andrades

Yes theology is about truth but Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger did not know the following?

Cardinal Ratzinger did not know that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II does not have a hermeneutic of rupture ?

Cardinal Ratzinger did not know that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II does not have a hermeneutic of rupture ?
He did not know that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II would not contradict the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS), and so would be saying there could only be an ecumenism of return and all Lutherans in 2016 would need to formally be incorporated into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell?
He did not know that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II affirms the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King?
He did not know that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II would be saying all Jews and Muslims need 'faith and baptism' for salvation ? -Lionel Andrades

OCTOBER 30, 2016

With Feeneyite Vatican Council II the Catholic Church affirms the Social Reign of Christ the Kingeucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/with-feeneyite-…

OCTOBER 30, 2016

Feeneyite Vatican Council II says Lutherans are on the way to Hell
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/feeneyite-vatic…

OCTOBER 29, 2016

If all of them would accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by Fr. Leonard Feeney then Vatican Council II would pastorally be in harmony with Tradition
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/if-all-of-them-…

OCTOBER 29, 2016

IF WE GO BACK TO THE INTERPRETATION OF EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS ACCORDING TO FR.LEONARD FEENEY THEN PASTORALLY VATICAN COUNCIL II WILL HAVE THE HERMENEUTIC OF CONTINUITY
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/if-we-go-back-t…

Too abstract: "...Further he stated that theology is not about truth but about what he called, “pastoral activity.”

On the contrary... theology is only about truth, and pastoral activity - or charity - is an integral part of it.
Just as God must allow free will for there to be love, there must also be judgment for those who continually make the choice of wickedness with their free will.
"I am the true vine, and My Father is the keeper of the vineyard. He cuts off every branch in Me that bears no fruit, and every branch that does bear fruit, He prunes to make it even more fruitful." John 15,1-2

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2016

Feeneyism is the missing link

If we go back to the interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salusaccording to Fr.Leonard Feeney then pastorally Vatican Council II will have the hermeneutic of continuity.
If all of them would accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted by Fr. Leonard Feeney then Vatican Council II would pastorally be in harmony with Tradition.Yes we've finally found the missing link.What causes the hermeneutic of rupture ? When has Vatican Council II a hermeneutic of continuity?
The whole Church rejects Feeneyism and so Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition.
Feeneyism for me is not accepting any exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) since there are no physically known exceptions in the present times.There cannot be any objective exception for us human beings, past or present.
Hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance cannot be exceptions to EENS in Feeneyism.
So a Feeneyite for me would read the text of Vatican Council II and not confuse LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 as being objectively visible in 2016. So they would not be relevant, or an exception, to the dogma EENS as interpreted by Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston or the 16th century missionaries.
Vatican Council II has a continuity with the dogma EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the rest of Tradition.
Feeneyism would accept the first part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which supports Fr. Leonard Feeney and reject the second part which contradicts the first part.
Feeneyism is the missing link.
Feeneyite your interpretation of Vatican Council II and get back to the old ecclesiology.The Council is pro-Tradition. The teachings of the Catholic Church on salavtion are the same before and after Vatican Council II.
There can only be an ecumenism of return in Vatican Council II. Since UR 3 etc are hypothetical and so do not contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.
All non Catholics with no exception need to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation, to avoid Hell,since there are no known exceptions outside the Church. There cannot be an Anonymous Christian since there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS ; there are no known cases of someone being saved outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church to contradict the traditional exclusivist ecclesiology.
So if we attend the Novus Ordo Mass or the Traditional Latin Mass the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church is still the same.The new theology has been eliminated since it was based on there being known salvation outside the Church.Ratzinger-Rahner move over.
With Feeneyism we have a rational way to interpret Vatican Council II.No more gymnastics. No more assuming there are visible people on earth who have died with the baptism of desire and without the baptism of water and they are relevant to the dogma on salvation.There are none.
This puts the liberals on the defensive. Once Catholics know that Vatican Council II can be interpreted with Feeneyism there is now an alternative for them.One which they may not like.Also now the liberals have no citations from Vatican Council II to support their 'progressivist' interpretation.We now know that LG 16 is always, always hypothetical.It is always only a possibility and never a known reality.So the liberals cannot any more cite LG 16 as an exception to Feeneyite EENS. Wikipedia would have to correct the on line error.
This means the SSPX and the traditionalists are in a smiling position.Canonically Vatican Council II should no more be a hurdle.The whole game plan has changed. The doctrinal scenario has changed.Vatican Council II is traditional and right up their tree.It is Ecclesia Dei and the CDF who need to affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with Tradition,and they'll have to do it with Feeneyism.
Times have changed.
-Lionel Andrades

I know what I am saying will be new for you.It will be new for most Catholics

I know what I am saying will be new for you.
It will be new for most Catholics

Yes. Vatican Council II is a break with Tradition only if you use an irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Try it and see.
Give me an example from Vatican Council II. Where does Vatican Council II contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?
If Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus then there is no change in the teachings on ecumenism, other religions and the Social Reign of Christ the King.
Give me an example please.

__________________________
Vatican Council II is not a break with Tradition in itself.

It is only a break with Tradition if:-

1.It is assumed that hypothetical cases are not hypothetical but objectively visible in 2016.

2.It is assumed that Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy and not Cardinal Cushng the Archbishop of Boston.

3.It is assumed that Cushingism is the acceptable new theology which replaces Feeneyism.

If you and I are discusing something and I use a different premise then our conclusion will be different. This is what happened with Vatican Council II and it can be corrected.

You read Vatican Council II with a premise at Lumen Gentium 16, for example. I do not.

You assume it(LG 16) refers to known cases of someone saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water. I do not.

So for you Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.Not for me.
-Lionel Andrades

Further he stated that theology is not about truth but about what he called, “pastoral activity.”
For the two popes theology is not about truth since they use a false premise to discard the old theology.
With an irrational premise and conclusion they interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.
By wrongly reasoning that hypothetical cases are objectively visible in 2016 Pope Francis discards the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.
So pastorally all Jews, Muslims and other non Catholics do not have to formally enter the Church for salvation in 2016 since there are 'known exceptions' for the pope.
He is being honest here.
He is being honest and there is no criticism from the SSPX or cardinals and bishops since the odds are that they are telling the same lie, they are hiding the truth, since they do not want to be called Feeneyites.
The Jewish Left will then accuse them of being racist and anti-Semitic and demand that the Vatican give them the same treatment they have given out to Bishop Richard Williamson, who has not violated andy moral or faith law of the Church, and yet is not recognised by the two popes.

' You don't know theology!' - Ross Douthat and Edward Pentin told
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/you-dont-know-t…
Possibly Prof. Massimo Faggioli thinks Fr.S.Visintin, Dean of Theology at St.Anselm, Rome is a 'criminal' and does not know theology, like Ross Douthat
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/possibly-prof-m…

Nearly a year and sedevacantists will not answer if LG 16 refers to an invisible case : SSPX lay supporter suggests it is an invisible case but does not want to be quoted

eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/nearly-year-and…