Gloria.TV News on the 28th of October 2016 Too Abstract: On Thursday, Pope Francis gave an audience to the John Paul II Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family, which he is trying …More
Gloria.TV News on the 28th of October 2016
Too Abstract: On Thursday, Pope Francis gave an audience to the John Paul II Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family, which he is trying to bring in line with his heterodox teachings. In his talk Francis repeated the abstract accusation of his controversial document Amoris Laetitia, where he claims that – quote – “we have presented a too abstract theological ideal of marriage.” Further he stated that theology is not about truth but about what he called, “pastoral activity.”
The End: The Archbishop of Melbourne has announced that he is closing the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family in Melbourne because of the small number of students. The institute was founded in 2001. It will remain open until the end of the academic year in 2018 so that current students can complete their studies.
Weird Accusation: Rev. Mark Carey, the son of the former Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, has been suspended by the Anglican Diocese of Leeds after a complaint was filed alleging that over 30 years ago he abused a young girl. On October 19, 2016, he was arrested at his home. Carey was released after posting bail, pending further inquiries. Mark Carey, now 51, would have been no more than 17 years old at the time of the alleged crime.
Splendid: From October 22 to October 24 the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X organized its international pilgrimage to Lourdes, France. The splendid event gathered more than 6,000 convinced Catholics.
Too Abstract: On Thursday, Pope Francis gave an audience to the John Paul II Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family, which he is trying to bring in line with his heterodox teachings. In his talk Francis repeated the abstract accusation of his controversial document Amoris Laetitia, where he claims that – quote – “we have presented a too abstract theological ideal of marriage.” Further he stated that theology is not about truth but about what he called, “pastoral activity.”
The End: The Archbishop of Melbourne has announced that he is closing the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family in Melbourne because of the small number of students. The institute was founded in 2001. It will remain open until the end of the academic year in 2018 so that current students can complete their studies.
Weird Accusation: Rev. Mark Carey, the son of the former Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, has been suspended by the Anglican Diocese of Leeds after a complaint was filed alleging that over 30 years ago he abused a young girl. On October 19, 2016, he was arrested at his home. Carey was released after posting bail, pending further inquiries. Mark Carey, now 51, would have been no more than 17 years old at the time of the alleged crime.
Splendid: From October 22 to October 24 the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X organized its international pilgrimage to Lourdes, France. The splendid event gathered more than 6,000 convinced Catholics.
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Josefine:
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
Lionel:
1.Fr.Leonard Feeney said that there were no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
2.For him there were no exceptions of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.
3.…More
Josefine:
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
Lionel:
1.Fr.Leonard Feeney said that there were no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
2.For him there were no exceptions of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.
3.For him hypothetical cases could not be objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the present times.This is something objective and factual.Example, people now in Heaven allegedly saved without the baptism of water are hypothetical cass for us. So they cannot be known exceptions on earth in the present times to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
4.Similarly if someone died allegedly without the baptism of desire in the past centuries, cannot be a known exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2016.
This is Feeneyism for me.
So with Feeneyism:
1.There are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since humanly speaking there cannot be an exceptions. We cannot know someone who will be saved or has been saved without the baptism of water.This is something known only to God.
2.There are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus mentioned in Vatican Council II.There cannot be any.
3.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance mentioned in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) is not a known exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It refers to a hypothetical case which objectively cannot be known.
So with Feeneyism, the conclusion for me, is that there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There cannot be any exceptions known to us on earth.
So in Vatican Council II there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors ( on ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue), the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( outside the Church there is no salvation), the Nicene Creed( I believe in one known baptism for the forgivess of sins and it is the baptism of water.I do not believe in three or more baptisms for the forgiveness of sins. The baptism of desire for example is not a known baptism.I cannot repeat it. I cannot see it being given. I cannot give it to someone.
So if everyone 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.
-Lionel Andrades
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
Lionel:
1.Fr.Leonard Feeney said that there were no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
2.For him there were no exceptions of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.
3.For him hypothetical cases could not be objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in the present times.This is something objective and factual.Example, people now in Heaven allegedly saved without the baptism of water are hypothetical cass for us. So they cannot be known exceptions on earth in the present times to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
4.Similarly if someone died allegedly without the baptism of desire in the past centuries, cannot be a known exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2016.
This is Feeneyism for me.
So with Feeneyism:
1.There are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus since humanly speaking there cannot be an exceptions. We cannot know someone who will be saved or has been saved without the baptism of water.This is something known only to God.
2.There are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus mentioned in Vatican Council II.There cannot be any.
3.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance mentioned in Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) is not a known exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It refers to a hypothetical case which objectively cannot be known.
So with Feeneyism, the conclusion for me, is that there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There cannot be any exceptions known to us on earth.
So in Vatican Council II there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors ( on ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue), the Catechism of Pope Pius X ( outside the Church there is no salvation), the Nicene Creed( I believe in one known baptism for the forgivess of sins and it is the baptism of water.I do not believe in three or more baptisms for the forgiveness of sins. The baptism of desire for example is not a known baptism.I cannot repeat it. I cannot see it being given. I cannot give it to someone.
So if everyone 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.
-Lionel Andrades
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Josefine,
Do you think that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre also made a mistake in theology and lost the truth?
Lionel:
Do you think that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was using Cushingism instead of Feeneyism?
______________________________
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 …More
Josefine,
Do you think that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre also made a mistake in theology and lost the truth?
Lionel:
Do you think that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was using Cushingism instead of Feeneyism?
______________________________
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
Lionel:
Do you think that since they were using Cushingism Vatican Council II was a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So there was known salvation outside the Church. Since there was known salvation outside the Church there are exceptions to an ecumenism of return, the need for the Social Reign of Christ the King and the need for all non Christians to formally convert into the Catholic Church.
Do you think that if they were using Feeneyism Vatican Council II was not a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There was no known salvation outside the Church. Since there was no known salvation outside the Church there are no exceptions to an ecumenism of return, the need to teach the Social Reign of Christ the King and the need for all non Christians to formally convert into the Catholic Church.
_________________________________
Cardinal Ratzinger did not know that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II does not have a hermeneutic of rupture ?
Lionel:
For Cardinal Ratzinger the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries. He said this in the daily Avvenire.
So for him there are exceptions.
This is Cushingism.
In the theological paper of the International Theological Commission on 'Christianity and the World Religions' he says Pope Pius XII corrected the error of Fr.Leonard Feeney on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So for the ITC there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So this is Cushingism.
Do you think that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre also made a mistake in theology and lost the truth?
Lionel:
Do you think that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was using Cushingism instead of Feeneyism?
______________________________
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
Lionel:
Do you think that since they were using Cushingism Vatican Council II was a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So there was known salvation outside the Church. Since there was known salvation outside the Church there are exceptions to an ecumenism of return, the need for the Social Reign of Christ the King and the need for all non Christians to formally convert into the Catholic Church.
Do you think that if they were using Feeneyism Vatican Council II was not a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. There was no known salvation outside the Church. Since there was no known salvation outside the Church there are no exceptions to an ecumenism of return, the need to teach the Social Reign of Christ the King and the need for all non Christians to formally convert into the Catholic Church.
_________________________________
Cardinal Ratzinger did not know that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II does not have a hermeneutic of rupture ?
Lionel:
For Cardinal Ratzinger the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries. He said this in the daily Avvenire.
So for him there are exceptions.
This is Cushingism.
In the theological paper of the International Theological Commission on 'Christianity and the World Religions' he says Pope Pius XII corrected the error of Fr.Leonard Feeney on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So for the ITC there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
So this is Cushingism.
6 more comments from Lionel L. Andrades
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
IRRATIONAL PREMISE
The irrational premise is that invisible things or persons are visible.
RATIONAL PREMISE
The rational premise is that invisible things or persons are visible.
_______________________
IRRATIONAL PREMISE
The irrational premise is that hypothetical cases are objectively visible in 2016.
RATIONAL PREMISE
The rational premise is that hypothetical cases are objectively invisible in 2016. …More
IRRATIONAL PREMISE
The irrational premise is that invisible things or persons are visible.
RATIONAL PREMISE
The rational premise is that invisible things or persons are visible.
_______________________
IRRATIONAL PREMISE
The irrational premise is that hypothetical cases are objectively visible in 2016.
RATIONAL PREMISE
The rational premise is that hypothetical cases are objectively invisible in 2016.
___________________________
IRRATIONAL PREMISE
The irrational premise is that the baptism of desire refers to personally known cases in 2016.
RATIONAL PREMISE
The rational premise is that the baptism of desire refers to an unknown cases in 2016.There is no personally known case.
__________________________
IRRATIONAL PREMISE
The irrational premise is assuming there are objectively seen and known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in 2016.
RATIONAL PREMISE
The rational premise is assuming others (in general) cannot see invisible cases in the present and the past.It is assuming that the baptism of desire refers to an unknown and invisible case in the present or past.
_______________________________________
When an irrational premise is used I refer to it as Cushingism.
When there is a rational premise, I refer to it as Feeneyism.
The irrational premise is that invisible things or persons are visible.
RATIONAL PREMISE
The rational premise is that invisible things or persons are visible.
_______________________
IRRATIONAL PREMISE
The irrational premise is that hypothetical cases are objectively visible in 2016.
RATIONAL PREMISE
The rational premise is that hypothetical cases are objectively invisible in 2016.
___________________________
IRRATIONAL PREMISE
The irrational premise is that the baptism of desire refers to personally known cases in 2016.
RATIONAL PREMISE
The rational premise is that the baptism of desire refers to an unknown cases in 2016.There is no personally known case.
__________________________
IRRATIONAL PREMISE
The irrational premise is assuming there are objectively seen and known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in 2016.
RATIONAL PREMISE
The rational premise is assuming others (in general) cannot see invisible cases in the present and the past.It is assuming that the baptism of desire refers to an unknown and invisible case in the present or past.
_______________________________________
When an irrational premise is used I refer to it as Cushingism.
When there is a rational premise, I refer to it as Feeneyism.
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
jOSEFINE
NOVEMBER 2, 2016
Could you identify the irrational premise and conclusion for me ?
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/could-you-ident…
Do you agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion?
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/do-you-agree-th…More
jOSEFINE
NOVEMBER 2, 2016
Could you identify the irrational premise and conclusion for me ?
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/could-you-ident…
Do you agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion?
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/do-you-agree-th…
NOVEMBER 2, 2016
Could you identify the irrational premise and conclusion for me ?
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/could-you-ident…
Do you agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion?
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/do-you-agree-th…
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Josefine:
Do you agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion?
Lionel:
IRRATIONAL PREMISES
The irrational premise is that invisible things or persons are visible.
The irrational premise is that hypothetical cases are objectively visible in 2016.
The irrational premise is that the baptism of desire refers to personally known …More
Josefine:
Do you agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion?
Lionel:
IRRATIONAL PREMISES
The irrational premise is that invisible things or persons are visible.
The irrational premise is that hypothetical cases are objectively visible in 2016.
The irrational premise is that the baptism of desire refers to personally known cases in 2016.
The irrational premise is assuming there are objectively seen and known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in 2016.
The irrational premise is assuming others could see invisible cases in the present and the past.It was assuming that the baptism of desire refers to a known case in the past.
_______________________________________
CONCLUSIONS
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSION:
So every one does not need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church in 2016 since there are exceptions.There are known people saved without the baptism of water.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION:
So every one does need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church in 2016 since there are no exceptions.There are no known cases of people saved without the baptism of water.
___________________________________
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSION
So every Protestant does not need to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation because there are known cases in 2016 for Protestants saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3).
RATIONAL CONCLUSION
So every Protestant does need to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation as taught by the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus because there are known cases in 2016 of Protestants saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3).
___________________________________
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSION
The Catholic Church has rejected Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus since there are known cases in 2016 of persons saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION
The Catholic Church has not rejected Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus since there are no known cases in 2016 of persons saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.There are no visible exceptions.
_________________________________
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSION
Pope Benedict XVI said that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries since there is a development with Vatican Council II, LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to known cases in 2016 and so they are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION
Pope Benedict XVI said that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries since there is a development with Vatican Council II, LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to known cases in 2016 and so they are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The pope was wrong. Since there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2016.
____________________________________
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSION
Archbishop Augustine di Noia told Edward Pentin that not every one needs to enter the Church since Vatican Council II (LG 8) says there are 'elements of sanctification and truth' in other religions.So it is implied that LG 8 refers to known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water, which are exceptions to all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION
Archbishop Augustine di Noia told Edward Pentin that not every one needs to enter the Church since Vatican Council II (LG 8) says there are 'elements of sanctification and truth' in other religions.So it is implied that LG 8 refers to known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water, which are exceptions to all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
He was wrong. There are no known cases in 2016 of person saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth'.So there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Vatican Council II (LG 8).
________________________________
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSION
Since invisible cases are visible in the present times and there are visible cases of the baptism of desire etc every one does not need to be a formal member of the Church, with faith and baptism, as was taught by Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION
Since invisible cases are NOT visible in the present times and there are NO visible cases of the baptism of desire etc every one does need to be a formal member of the Church, with faith and baptism, as was taught by Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Do you agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion?
Lionel:
IRRATIONAL PREMISES
The irrational premise is that invisible things or persons are visible.
The irrational premise is that hypothetical cases are objectively visible in 2016.
The irrational premise is that the baptism of desire refers to personally known cases in 2016.
The irrational premise is assuming there are objectively seen and known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in 2016.
The irrational premise is assuming others could see invisible cases in the present and the past.It was assuming that the baptism of desire refers to a known case in the past.
_______________________________________
CONCLUSIONS
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSION:
So every one does not need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church in 2016 since there are exceptions.There are known people saved without the baptism of water.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION:
So every one does need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church in 2016 since there are no exceptions.There are no known cases of people saved without the baptism of water.
___________________________________
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSION
So every Protestant does not need to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation because there are known cases in 2016 for Protestants saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3).
RATIONAL CONCLUSION
So every Protestant does need to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation as taught by the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus because there are known cases in 2016 of Protestants saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3).
___________________________________
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSION
The Catholic Church has rejected Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus since there are known cases in 2016 of persons saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION
The Catholic Church has not rejected Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus since there are no known cases in 2016 of persons saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.There are no visible exceptions.
_________________________________
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSION
Pope Benedict XVI said that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries since there is a development with Vatican Council II, LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to known cases in 2016 and so they are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION
Pope Benedict XVI said that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries since there is a development with Vatican Council II, LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to known cases in 2016 and so they are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The pope was wrong. Since there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in 2016.
____________________________________
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSION
Archbishop Augustine di Noia told Edward Pentin that not every one needs to enter the Church since Vatican Council II (LG 8) says there are 'elements of sanctification and truth' in other religions.So it is implied that LG 8 refers to known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water, which are exceptions to all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION
Archbishop Augustine di Noia told Edward Pentin that not every one needs to enter the Church since Vatican Council II (LG 8) says there are 'elements of sanctification and truth' in other religions.So it is implied that LG 8 refers to known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water, which are exceptions to all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
He was wrong. There are no known cases in 2016 of person saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth'.So there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus in Vatican Council II (LG 8).
________________________________
IRRATIONAL CONCLUSION
Since invisible cases are visible in the present times and there are visible cases of the baptism of desire etc every one does not need to be a formal member of the Church, with faith and baptism, as was taught by Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
RATIONAL CONCLUSION
Since invisible cases are NOT visible in the present times and there are NO visible cases of the baptism of desire etc every one does need to be a formal member of the Church, with faith and baptism, as was taught by Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Josefine
Could you identify the irrational premise and conclusion for me,so that I am sure you understand me and agree with me ?
premise
1.
LOGIC
a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.
"if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true"
1.
base an argument, theory, or undertaking on.
"the reforms were premised on our findings"
The …More
Josefine
Could you identify the irrational premise and conclusion for me,so that I am sure you understand me and agree with me ?
premise
1.
LOGIC
a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.
"if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true"
1.
base an argument, theory, or undertaking on.
"the reforms were premised on our findings"
The irrational premise is that invisible things or persons are visible.
The irrational premise is that hypothetical cases are objectively visible in 2016.
The irrational premise is that the baptism of desire refers to personally known cases in 2016.
The irrational premise is assuming there are objectively seen and known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in 2016.
The irrational premise is assuming others could see invisible cases in the present and the past.It was assuming that the baptism of desire refers to a known case in the past.
_______________________________________
CONCLUSIONS
So every one does not need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church in 2016 since there are exceptions.There are known people saved without the baptism of water.
So every Protestant does not need to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation because there are known cases in 2016 for Protestants saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3).
The Catholic Church has rejected Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus since there are known cases in 2016 of persons saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.
Pope Benedict XVI said that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries since there is a development with Vatican Council II, LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to known cases in 2016 and so they are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Archbishop Augustine di Noia told Edward Pentin that not every one needs to enter the Church since Vatican Council II (LG 8) says there are 'elements of sanctification and truth' in other religions.So it is implied that LG 8 refers to known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water, which are exceptions to all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
Since invisible cases are visible in the present times and there are visible cases of the baptism of desire etc every one does not need to be a formal member of the Church, with faith and baptism, as was taught by Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Could you identify the irrational premise and conclusion for me,so that I am sure you understand me and agree with me ?
premise
1.
LOGIC
a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.
"if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true"
1.
base an argument, theory, or undertaking on.
"the reforms were premised on our findings"
The irrational premise is that invisible things or persons are visible.
The irrational premise is that hypothetical cases are objectively visible in 2016.
The irrational premise is that the baptism of desire refers to personally known cases in 2016.
The irrational premise is assuming there are objectively seen and known cases of being saved in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water in 2016.
The irrational premise is assuming others could see invisible cases in the present and the past.It was assuming that the baptism of desire refers to a known case in the past.
_______________________________________
CONCLUSIONS
So every one does not need to be incorporated into the Catholic Church in 2016 since there are exceptions.There are known people saved without the baptism of water.
So every Protestant does not need to formally enter the Catholic Church for salvation because there are known cases in 2016 for Protestants saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church'(UR 3).
The Catholic Church has rejected Feeneyite extra ecclesiam nulla salus since there are known cases in 2016 of persons saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire.
Pope Benedict XVI said that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was for the 16th century missionaries since there is a development with Vatican Council II, LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to known cases in 2016 and so they are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Archbishop Augustine di Noia told Edward Pentin that not every one needs to enter the Church since Vatican Council II (LG 8) says there are 'elements of sanctification and truth' in other religions.So it is implied that LG 8 refers to known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water, which are exceptions to all needing to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.
Since invisible cases are visible in the present times and there are visible cases of the baptism of desire etc every one does not need to be a formal member of the Church, with faith and baptism, as was taught by Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
November 2, 2016
To understand what I am saying you have to identify the false premise and conclusion
To understand what I am saying you have to identify the false premise and conclusion.
Then you have to re-interpret Vatican Council II without this irrational premise and non traditional conclusion.
Presently about everyone supports the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston, …More
November 2, 2016
To understand what I am saying you have to identify the false premise and conclusion
To understand what I am saying you have to identify the false premise and conclusion.
Then you have to re-interpret Vatican Council II without this irrational premise and non traditional conclusion.
Presently about everyone supports the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston, which used a false premise to create a non traditional result.
When the Letter from Rome said that the baptism of desire (BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were exceptions to EENS and so not everyone needed to enter the Church for salvation,it made a wrong inference.
It inferred that there were known cases of the BOD and I.I in 1949.This is implied.SInce only if there are known cases there could be exceptions.
The Letter inferred that there were known and visible non Catholics saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
So it presumed:
1.There were physically visible cases of the BOD and being saved in I.I.
2.There were hypothetical cases which were explicit, objectively visible.
3.There were physically visible cases of BOD and I.I without the baptism of water.
So the conclusion was:
There were 'known exceptions', 'practical exceptions' to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS (Feeneyite).
This is the false premise( invisible cases are physically visible) and conclusion( these 'visible' cases are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS) which is common in the Catholic Church as the Arian heresy was once common in the past.
This is a magisterial heresy since 1949 and it has not been corrected by popes and cardinals since the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.
The error of there being known- to-us cases of BOD and I.I was generally accepted and so it was incorporated into Vatican Council II.Even more hypothetical cases were added.It was assumed that there were different possibilities of being saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church e.g 'seeds of the Word'(AG 11).There is also the 'visible for us' LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc.
So like with EENS, we have to identify the irrational premise and conclusion also with Vatican Council II.
We re-interpret Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical. So they are no more exceptions to EENS.
The result is that Vatican Council II cleared of the irrational premise and conclusion,is what I call Vatican Council II, Feeneyite.
Presently everyone else is affirming Vatican Council II, Cushingite.It includes the premise and non traditional conclusion.Hypothetical cases are assumed to be explicitly visible in 2016.Then it is concluded that Vatican Council II(Cushingite) is a rupture with EENS( Feeneyite).
It is also concluded by the liberals that Vatican Council II (Cushingite) is in harmony with a new EENS ( Cushingite).This EENS(C) is based upon invisible cases being visible one earth, hypothetical cases being personally known, practical exceptions to Tradition.
With such sophisticated logic the enemies of the Church did away with the dogma EENS.They created a Vatican Council II based on an irrationality and error.A false logic.For Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr.Karl Rahner S.J it was the new theology.
It's now redundant.The redundancy has begun.We have found the missing link.Feeneyism is the missing link which will bring it down.The Catholic Church will return back to its traditional and rational salvation theology and philosophy.-Lionel Andrades
To understand what I am saying you have to identify the false premise and conclusion
To understand what I am saying you have to identify the false premise and conclusion.
Then you have to re-interpret Vatican Council II without this irrational premise and non traditional conclusion.
Presently about everyone supports the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston, which used a false premise to create a non traditional result.
When the Letter from Rome said that the baptism of desire (BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) were exceptions to EENS and so not everyone needed to enter the Church for salvation,it made a wrong inference.
It inferred that there were known cases of the BOD and I.I in 1949.This is implied.SInce only if there are known cases there could be exceptions.
The Letter inferred that there were known and visible non Catholics saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
So it presumed:
1.There were physically visible cases of the BOD and being saved in I.I.
2.There were hypothetical cases which were explicit, objectively visible.
3.There were physically visible cases of BOD and I.I without the baptism of water.
So the conclusion was:
There were 'known exceptions', 'practical exceptions' to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS (Feeneyite).
This is the false premise( invisible cases are physically visible) and conclusion( these 'visible' cases are exceptions to Feeneyite EENS) which is common in the Catholic Church as the Arian heresy was once common in the past.
This is a magisterial heresy since 1949 and it has not been corrected by popes and cardinals since the pontificate of Pope Pius XII.
The error of there being known- to-us cases of BOD and I.I was generally accepted and so it was incorporated into Vatican Council II.Even more hypothetical cases were added.It was assumed that there were different possibilities of being saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church e.g 'seeds of the Word'(AG 11).There is also the 'visible for us' LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc.
So like with EENS, we have to identify the irrational premise and conclusion also with Vatican Council II.
We re-interpret Vatican Council II with hypothetical cases just being hypothetical. So they are no more exceptions to EENS.
The result is that Vatican Council II cleared of the irrational premise and conclusion,is what I call Vatican Council II, Feeneyite.
Presently everyone else is affirming Vatican Council II, Cushingite.It includes the premise and non traditional conclusion.Hypothetical cases are assumed to be explicitly visible in 2016.Then it is concluded that Vatican Council II(Cushingite) is a rupture with EENS( Feeneyite).
It is also concluded by the liberals that Vatican Council II (Cushingite) is in harmony with a new EENS ( Cushingite).This EENS(C) is based upon invisible cases being visible one earth, hypothetical cases being personally known, practical exceptions to Tradition.
With such sophisticated logic the enemies of the Church did away with the dogma EENS.They created a Vatican Council II based on an irrationality and error.A false logic.For Cardinal Ratzinger and Fr.Karl Rahner S.J it was the new theology.
It's now redundant.The redundancy has begun.We have found the missing link.Feeneyism is the missing link which will bring it down.The Catholic Church will return back to its traditional and rational salvation theology and philosophy.-Lionel Andrades
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Josefine,
What is the irrational premise and conclusion for you?
I think some Vatican bishops and cardinals know it.But they are keeping quiet.
What is the irrational premise and conclusion for you?
I think some Vatican bishops and cardinals know it.But they are keeping quiet.
Lionel L. Andrades:
Josephine
Do you agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion?
Could you indentify the irrational premise and conclusion for me,so that I am sure you understand me and agree with me ?
...
Lionel L. Andrades yesterday
Josefine,
Do you think that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre also made a mistake in theology and …More
Lionel L. Andrades:
Josephine
Do you agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion?
Could you indentify the irrational premise and conclusion for me,so that I am sure you understand me and agree with me ?
...
Lionel L. Andrades yesterday
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 did not know that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II does not have a hermeneutic of rupture ?
...
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…
...
You wrote that 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,
and the Vatican Council II would pastorally be in harmony with Tradition if all of them -the Vatican and the SSPX - would accept the interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr. Leonard Feeney.
I think it is very unprobably that the Vatican will anytime accept his interpretation, because they claim an Ecumenical Council decree on religious liberty and freedom of conscience. Therefore they have given up on the mission.
Josephine
Do you agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion?
Could you indentify the irrational premise and conclusion for me,so that I am sure you understand me and agree with me ?
...
Lionel L. Andrades yesterday
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 did not know that with Feeneyism Vatican Council II does not have a hermeneutic of rupture ?
...
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…
...
You wrote that 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,
and the Vatican Council II would pastorally be in harmony with Tradition if all of them -the Vatican and the SSPX - would accept the interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus by Fr. Leonard Feeney.
I think it is very unprobably that the Vatican will anytime accept his interpretation, because they claim an Ecumenical Council decree on religious liberty and freedom of conscience. Therefore they have given up on the mission.
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
ON CONFERENCES:
OCTOBER 12, 2012
SSPX DISTRICT ITALY CONFERENCE ON VATICAN COUNCIL II TO USE THE FALSE PREMISE
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/sspc-district-i…
MAY 28, 2012
The Latin Mass Society Conference in London speakers in confusion; SSPX could be letting another chance go by
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/latin-mass-soci…
ON ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE
ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE WAS …More
ON CONFERENCES:
OCTOBER 12, 2012
SSPX DISTRICT ITALY CONFERENCE ON VATICAN COUNCIL II TO USE THE FALSE PREMISE
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/sspc-district-i…
MAY 28, 2012
The Latin Mass Society Conference in London speakers in confusion; SSPX could be letting another chance go by
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/latin-mass-soci…
ON ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE
ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE FALSE PREMISE ?
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/archbishop-marc…
Archbishop Lefebvre was correct in rejecting Vatican Council II(Cushingism version): the Magisterium was not aware of the false premise during the excommunication
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/archbishop-lefe…
Both SSPX groups are having it out among themself and interpreting Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Archbishop Gerhard Muller with the Richard Cushing Error
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/sspx-are-having…
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was in perfect agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney without the Richard Cushing Error
So much of the SSPX writings on Vatican Council II are now obsolete with this new finding.
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/archbishop-marc…
DID ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE AND CARDINAL WALTER KASPAR USE THE SAME WRONG PREMISE IN INTERPRETING VATICAN COUNCIL II ?
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/did-archbishop-…
RECONCILIATION OF THE SOCIETY OF ST.PIUS X (SSPX) IS NOW POSSIBLE
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/reconciliation-…
ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE DID NOT POINT OUT THE VISIBLE-DEAD ERROR TO CARDINAL OTTAVIANI NEITHER DID THEY MAKE IT KNOWN
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/archbishop-lefe…
ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE FALSE PREMISE ?
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/archbishop-marc…
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not know the reason why Vatican Council II was modernist. It was there before him but he could not see it.
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/archbishop-marc…
NO SSPX RESPONSE TO TWO QUESTIONS ON RORATE CAELI
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/no-sspx-respons…
CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER AND ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SSPX PROBLEM BY IDENTIFYING THE WRONG PREMISE
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/cardinal-joseph…
Did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre know that implicit desire,invincible ignorance etc were not known to us and irrelevant to the dogma?
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/did-archbishop-…
OCTOBER 12, 2012
SSPX DISTRICT ITALY CONFERENCE ON VATICAN COUNCIL II TO USE THE FALSE PREMISE
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/sspc-district-i…
MAY 28, 2012
The Latin Mass Society Conference in London speakers in confusion; SSPX could be letting another chance go by
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/latin-mass-soci…
ON ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE
ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE FALSE PREMISE ?
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/archbishop-marc…
Archbishop Lefebvre was correct in rejecting Vatican Council II(Cushingism version): the Magisterium was not aware of the false premise during the excommunication
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/archbishop-lefe…
Both SSPX groups are having it out among themself and interpreting Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Archbishop Gerhard Muller with the Richard Cushing Error
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/sspx-are-having…
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was in perfect agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney without the Richard Cushing Error
So much of the SSPX writings on Vatican Council II are now obsolete with this new finding.
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/archbishop-marc…
DID ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE AND CARDINAL WALTER KASPAR USE THE SAME WRONG PREMISE IN INTERPRETING VATICAN COUNCIL II ?
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/did-archbishop-…
RECONCILIATION OF THE SOCIETY OF ST.PIUS X (SSPX) IS NOW POSSIBLE
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/reconciliation-…
ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE DID NOT POINT OUT THE VISIBLE-DEAD ERROR TO CARDINAL OTTAVIANI NEITHER DID THEY MAKE IT KNOWN
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/archbishop-lefe…
ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE FALSE PREMISE ?
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/archbishop-marc…
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did not know the reason why Vatican Council II was modernist. It was there before him but he could not see it.
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/archbishop-marc…
NO SSPX RESPONSE TO TWO QUESTIONS ON RORATE CAELI
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/no-sspx-respons…
CARDINAL JOSEPH RATZINGER AND ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SSPX PROBLEM BY IDENTIFYING THE WRONG PREMISE
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/cardinal-joseph…
Did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre know that implicit desire,invincible ignorance etc were not known to us and irrelevant to the dogma?
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/did-archbishop-…
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
The Third Annual SSPX Conference in Portland, Oregon
Lionel:
The conference is irrelevant to what I write here. It will be another exercise in ignorance, like the ones before.I have shown elsewhere how Bishop Bernard Fellay uses the irrational premise and conclusion on line in a Letter to Friends and Benefactors.
__
BISHOP BERNARD FELLAY ASSUMES THEORETICAL POSSIBILITIES KNOWN ONLY TO GOD ARE …More
The Third Annual SSPX Conference in Portland, Oregon
Lionel:
The conference is irrelevant to what I write here. It will be another exercise in ignorance, like the ones before.I have shown elsewhere how Bishop Bernard Fellay uses the irrational premise and conclusion on line in a Letter to Friends and Benefactors.
__
BISHOP BERNARD FELLAY ASSUMES THEORETICAL POSSIBILITIES KNOWN ONLY TO GOD ARE EXPLICIT IN THE PRESENT TIMES AND RELEVANT TO EENS
The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)
Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church, which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949". -Bishop Bernard Fellay (April 13, 2014 ) Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82
www.dici.org/…/letter-to-frien…
________________________________________________________
SEPTEMBER 11, 2016
Cardinal Muller, Archbishop Di Noia and Bishop Fellay's theology is based on invisible cases being visible, what is not seen as being seen
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/cardinal-muller…
Lionel:
The conference is irrelevant to what I write here. It will be another exercise in ignorance, like the ones before.I have shown elsewhere how Bishop Bernard Fellay uses the irrational premise and conclusion on line in a Letter to Friends and Benefactors.
__
BISHOP BERNARD FELLAY ASSUMES THEORETICAL POSSIBILITIES KNOWN ONLY TO GOD ARE EXPLICIT IN THE PRESENT TIMES AND RELEVANT TO EENS
The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)
Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church, which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949". -Bishop Bernard Fellay (April 13, 2014 ) Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82
www.dici.org/…/letter-to-frien…
________________________________________________________
SEPTEMBER 11, 2016
Cardinal Muller, Archbishop Di Noia and Bishop Fellay's theology is based on invisible cases being visible, what is not seen as being seen
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/cardinal-muller…
3 more comments from Lionel L. Andrades
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
The ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric."
It must be also a Christocentric ecclesiology.
Lionel:
It is presently Christocentric in the Catholic Church. It is also Christocentric in other Christian communities.
Only being Christocentric is vague and confusing.The Jehovah's Witnessess accept Jesus but with different doctrines. Lutherans do not accept the Catholic Eucharist. Other …More
The ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric."
It must be also a Christocentric ecclesiology.
Lionel:
It is presently Christocentric in the Catholic Church. It is also Christocentric in other Christian communities.
Only being Christocentric is vague and confusing.The Jehovah's Witnessess accept Jesus but with different doctrines. Lutherans do not accept the Catholic Eucharist. Other Christians approve of contraception and divorce.
In the past the Catholic Church was always Christocentric with an exclusivist ecclesiology.
With the innovation of the false premise and conclusion the Catholic Church only remains Christocentric and so no more supports an ecumenism of return.
It must be also a Christocentric ecclesiology.
Lionel:
It is presently Christocentric in the Catholic Church. It is also Christocentric in other Christian communities.
Only being Christocentric is vague and confusing.The Jehovah's Witnessess accept Jesus but with different doctrines. Lutherans do not accept the Catholic Eucharist. Other Christians approve of contraception and divorce.
In the past the Catholic Church was always Christocentric with an exclusivist ecclesiology.
With the innovation of the false premise and conclusion the Catholic Church only remains Christocentric and so no more supports an ecumenism of return.
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
"The clarification by this official is important for the present SSPX canonical issue.Since it means that Vatican Council II does not contradict the SSPX position on other religions and ecumenism.
Lionel:
Josefine, there can only be a clarification if they agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion?
This is the central thesis …More
"The clarification by this official is important for the present SSPX canonical issue.Since it means that Vatican Council II does not contradict the SSPX position on other religions and ecumenism.
Lionel:
Josefine, there can only be a clarification if they agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion?
This is the central thesis of what I am saying.
Lionel:
Josefine, there can only be a clarification if they agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion?
This is the central thesis of what I am saying.
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Josephine
Do you agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion?
Could you indentify the irrational premise and conclusion for me,so that I am sure you understand me and agree with me ?
Do you agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion?
Could you indentify the irrational premise and conclusion for me,so that I am sure you understand me and agree with me ?
Lionel L. Andrades:
"The clarification by this official is important for the present SSPX canonical issue.Since it means that Vatican Council II does not contradict the SSPX position on other religions and ecumenism.
The ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric."
It must be also a Christocentric ecclesiology.
Let's wait what comes out at this conference:
Portland again hosts a conference …More
Lionel L. Andrades:
"The clarification by this official is important for the present SSPX canonical issue.Since it means that Vatican Council II does not contradict the SSPX position on other religions and ecumenism.
The ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric."
It must be also a Christocentric ecclesiology.
Let's wait what comes out at this conference:
Portland again hosts a conference on Catholic tradition, featuring Bishop Bernard Fellay, Fr. Jurgen Wegner, and Mr. James Vogel, MA.
The Third Annual SSPX Conference in Portland, Oregon will focus on the fascinating, turbulent, historical year of 1976. The conference will take place on November 12th, 2016, and features Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX; ...
The conference, "1976: Archbishop Lefebvre Claims the Rights of Tradition" promises to be a historically and culturally fascinating event.
sspx.org/…/third-annual-ss…
"The clarification by this official is important for the present SSPX canonical issue.Since it means that Vatican Council II does not contradict the SSPX position on other religions and ecumenism.
The ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric."
It must be also a Christocentric ecclesiology.
Let's wait what comes out at this conference:
Portland again hosts a conference on Catholic tradition, featuring Bishop Bernard Fellay, Fr. Jurgen Wegner, and Mr. James Vogel, MA.
The Third Annual SSPX Conference in Portland, Oregon will focus on the fascinating, turbulent, historical year of 1976. The conference will take place on November 12th, 2016, and features Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX; ...
The conference, "1976: Archbishop Lefebvre Claims the Rights of Tradition" promises to be a historically and culturally fascinating event.
sspx.org/…/third-annual-ss…
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Josefina.
With this blog post of Fr.Ray Blake there are comments of mine under the title Catholic Mission.
marymagdalen.blogspot.de/2012/09/sspxs-problems.html
Catholic Mission said...
SSPX ASK FOR THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE THE FALSE PREMISE AND NOT JUST VATICAN COUNCIL II.
The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) cannot criticize a Vatican Council II in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors and the salvation …More
Josefina.
With this blog post of Fr.Ray Blake there are comments of mine under the title Catholic Mission.
marymagdalen.blogspot.de/2012/09/sspxs-problems.html
Catholic Mission said...
SSPX ASK FOR THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE THE FALSE PREMISE AND NOT JUST VATICAN COUNCIL II.
The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) cannot criticize a Vatican Council II in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors and the salvation dogma.
They have a right to criticize a Council with a false premise ( the dead are visible on earth) that leads to a new doctrine and new conclusions. Without the dead are visible to us theory the Council has an interpretation which is traditonal.So how can the SSPX criticize this interpretation?
With the false premise the Council becomes a break from tradition. So obviously the SSPX should criticize the false premise which leads to this break from tradition.
The criticism should not be just of the Council but of the new irrational premise of being able to see the dead visible .
The liberal interpretation of the Council is based on this false premise of the visible dead, so Lumen Gentium 16 is seen as an exception to the salvation dogma and the Syllabus of Errors.
The SSPX could focus on Lumen Gentium 16 . Can we see cases on earth saved in invincible ignroance and a good conscience? We cannot!
So the liberals cannot use LG 16 to create a Council with a break from Tradition. i.e the dogma and the Syllabus.
Yet this is also the interpretation for the SSPX. They also can only see the Council with a false premise. So they criticize the Council in general and not the false premise in particular.There is a blanket criticism of Vatican Council II without identifying the premise of the visible dead saved on earth, which is a complete irrationality and is repsonsible for the interpretation of the Council which the SSPX criticizes.
It was Cardinal Richard Cushing and the American Jesuits in Boston who used this premise at Vatican Council II and created confusion and ambiguity.Identify this premise and one can have a traditional Vatican Council II. All the complications and critical reports on Vatican Council II can be traced to this one simple wrong premise.
Without the false premise Vatican Council II (AG 7) says outside the Church there is no salvation. If you use this as a premise then you interpret Vatican Council II texts differently.-Lionel Andrades
4/10/12 2:59 pm
Catholic Mission said...
November 29, 2012
Vatican Council II does not contradict itself or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. We cannot see the dead.- Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,Vatican
Today morning I had an appointment at the office of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,Vatican with an official representing Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera. It was raining at St.Peter's Square where work on the crib has begun.
Yesterday I visited the office and asked for 10 minutes to ask two questions on Catholic doctrine related to the liturgy.
Today we spoke in English.We agreed that we could not see the dead. The dead saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience, seeds of the Word, imperfect communion with the Church, elements of sanctification etc were known only to God. So these cases could not be cited as exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.He agreed that Vatican Council II does not contradict itself.Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7.Neither does Vatican Council II contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or, Tradition in general.
So is this an impediment for the priest offering Mass, if it is known and denied in public?
If the priest knowingly denies Vatican Council II(AG 7), the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Nicene Creed (I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins) then this was an issue for the local bishop. The Congregation leaves this issue for the bishop to decide he said.
He offers Mass daily, he said, and he knows that the dead are not visible and these cases are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and neither does Vatican Council II contradict itself or the dogma on exclusive salvation.
He said he wanted to restrict himself to the liturgy only, as instructed by Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and so did not want to talk about the doctrinal issue of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX).
The message was clear - a priest, bishop or cardinal who offers Holy Mass should not deny Vatican Council II (AG 7),the Nicene Creed and the thrice defined dogma with alleged explicit implicit salvation.
No Magisterial text states that the deceased saved are visible to us on earth or that they are defacto, explicit exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation. This is falsely implied by the media.
The clarification by this official is important for the present SSPX canonical issue.Since it means that Vatican Council II does not contradict the SSPX position on other religions and ecumenism.
The ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric.
Vatican Council II is not a break from the past since implicit salvation is never explicit; there is no known salvation outside the church in 2012.
This is an issue based on universal reason (we cannot see the dead) and not on theology.-Lionel Andrades
29/11/12 8:54 pm
Catholic Mission said...
Doctrinally the SSPX is in agreement with Vatican Council II without the false premise: if they don’t genuflect before the Chief Rabbi is another issue
The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) must continue to reject the Jewish Left version of Vatican Council II which uses the dead man walking premise.
The ADL-approved Vatican Council II is modernist, irrational and non traditional.
It’s built upon the straw man logic of implicit salvation being visible to us as ‘seeds of the word’, ‘invincible ignorance’, a good conscience’, ‘imperfect communion with the church’, ‘elements of sanctification’, ‘good and holy’ non Catholics who are saved etc.
The leftist version of Vatican Council II assumes that these are personally known cases in the present times (2013).So for the left they become exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They are for the Left, exceptions to the traditional teaching of the Church, on other religions.
The SSPX today, like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, correctly rejected this false, irrational and non traditional version of Vatican Council II.
Without the false premise, on which the leftist version of the Council depends, Vatican Council II is doctrinally in agreement with the SSPX position on other religions. It is this rational version of Vatican Council II which the SSPX could accept.
With the support of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, and the military and political support of Israel and its allies, leftist rabbis, ADL and leaders of Jewish organisations, who are opposed by conservative Jews, are threatening the Vatican and telling Catholics what they should believe and what they should reject.
On March 10, 2009, concerning his remission of the excommunication of the four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, Pope Benedict XVI said : "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers -- even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty -- do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."
Judging from media reports, the pope is referring to the Jewish Left version of Vatican Council II which the SSPX must accept and which contains the false premise of being able to see the dead saved in invincible ignorance etc.
Without the false premise which creates a new version of Vatican Council, the Council is traditional and in accord with the SSPX values on other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty.
-Lionel Andrades
With this blog post of Fr.Ray Blake there are comments of mine under the title Catholic Mission.
marymagdalen.blogspot.de/2012/09/sspxs-problems.html
Catholic Mission said...
SSPX ASK FOR THE RIGHT TO CRITICIZE THE FALSE PREMISE AND NOT JUST VATICAN COUNCIL II.
The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) cannot criticize a Vatican Council II in agreement with the Syllabus of Errors and the salvation dogma.
They have a right to criticize a Council with a false premise ( the dead are visible on earth) that leads to a new doctrine and new conclusions. Without the dead are visible to us theory the Council has an interpretation which is traditonal.So how can the SSPX criticize this interpretation?
With the false premise the Council becomes a break from tradition. So obviously the SSPX should criticize the false premise which leads to this break from tradition.
The criticism should not be just of the Council but of the new irrational premise of being able to see the dead visible .
The liberal interpretation of the Council is based on this false premise of the visible dead, so Lumen Gentium 16 is seen as an exception to the salvation dogma and the Syllabus of Errors.
The SSPX could focus on Lumen Gentium 16 . Can we see cases on earth saved in invincible ignroance and a good conscience? We cannot!
So the liberals cannot use LG 16 to create a Council with a break from Tradition. i.e the dogma and the Syllabus.
Yet this is also the interpretation for the SSPX. They also can only see the Council with a false premise. So they criticize the Council in general and not the false premise in particular.There is a blanket criticism of Vatican Council II without identifying the premise of the visible dead saved on earth, which is a complete irrationality and is repsonsible for the interpretation of the Council which the SSPX criticizes.
It was Cardinal Richard Cushing and the American Jesuits in Boston who used this premise at Vatican Council II and created confusion and ambiguity.Identify this premise and one can have a traditional Vatican Council II. All the complications and critical reports on Vatican Council II can be traced to this one simple wrong premise.
Without the false premise Vatican Council II (AG 7) says outside the Church there is no salvation. If you use this as a premise then you interpret Vatican Council II texts differently.-Lionel Andrades
4/10/12 2:59 pm
Catholic Mission said...
November 29, 2012
Vatican Council II does not contradict itself or the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. We cannot see the dead.- Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,Vatican
Today morning I had an appointment at the office of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,Vatican with an official representing Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera. It was raining at St.Peter's Square where work on the crib has begun.
Yesterday I visited the office and asked for 10 minutes to ask two questions on Catholic doctrine related to the liturgy.
Today we spoke in English.We agreed that we could not see the dead. The dead saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience, seeds of the Word, imperfect communion with the Church, elements of sanctification etc were known only to God. So these cases could not be cited as exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.He agreed that Vatican Council II does not contradict itself.Lumen Gentium 16 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7.Neither does Vatican Council II contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or, Tradition in general.
So is this an impediment for the priest offering Mass, if it is known and denied in public?
If the priest knowingly denies Vatican Council II(AG 7), the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Nicene Creed (I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins) then this was an issue for the local bishop. The Congregation leaves this issue for the bishop to decide he said.
He offers Mass daily, he said, and he knows that the dead are not visible and these cases are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and neither does Vatican Council II contradict itself or the dogma on exclusive salvation.
He said he wanted to restrict himself to the liturgy only, as instructed by Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and so did not want to talk about the doctrinal issue of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX).
The message was clear - a priest, bishop or cardinal who offers Holy Mass should not deny Vatican Council II (AG 7),the Nicene Creed and the thrice defined dogma with alleged explicit implicit salvation.
No Magisterial text states that the deceased saved are visible to us on earth or that they are defacto, explicit exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation. This is falsely implied by the media.
The clarification by this official is important for the present SSPX canonical issue.Since it means that Vatican Council II does not contradict the SSPX position on other religions and ecumenism.
The ecclesiology of Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric.
Vatican Council II is not a break from the past since implicit salvation is never explicit; there is no known salvation outside the church in 2012.
This is an issue based on universal reason (we cannot see the dead) and not on theology.-Lionel Andrades
29/11/12 8:54 pm
Catholic Mission said...
Doctrinally the SSPX is in agreement with Vatican Council II without the false premise: if they don’t genuflect before the Chief Rabbi is another issue
The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) must continue to reject the Jewish Left version of Vatican Council II which uses the dead man walking premise.
The ADL-approved Vatican Council II is modernist, irrational and non traditional.
It’s built upon the straw man logic of implicit salvation being visible to us as ‘seeds of the word’, ‘invincible ignorance’, a good conscience’, ‘imperfect communion with the church’, ‘elements of sanctification’, ‘good and holy’ non Catholics who are saved etc.
The leftist version of Vatican Council II assumes that these are personally known cases in the present times (2013).So for the left they become exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They are for the Left, exceptions to the traditional teaching of the Church, on other religions.
The SSPX today, like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, correctly rejected this false, irrational and non traditional version of Vatican Council II.
Without the false premise, on which the leftist version of the Council depends, Vatican Council II is doctrinally in agreement with the SSPX position on other religions. It is this rational version of Vatican Council II which the SSPX could accept.
With the support of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, and the military and political support of Israel and its allies, leftist rabbis, ADL and leaders of Jewish organisations, who are opposed by conservative Jews, are threatening the Vatican and telling Catholics what they should believe and what they should reject.
On March 10, 2009, concerning his remission of the excommunication of the four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, Pope Benedict XVI said : "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers -- even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty -- do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."
Judging from media reports, the pope is referring to the Jewish Left version of Vatican Council II which the SSPX must accept and which contains the false premise of being able to see the dead saved in invincible ignorance etc.
Without the false premise which creates a new version of Vatican Council, the Council is traditional and in accord with the SSPX values on other religions, ecumenism and religious liberty.
-Lionel Andrades
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Josefine:
I come to the second phase of this “hot” year. Pope Paul VI received Archbishop Lefebvre in Castelgandolfo, at 10:30 am on September 11. This is the central event of the second phase. Why did this audience take place? Why such a meeting? It is clear that Archbishop Lefebvre desired it. He said, in Besancon, “I am ready to kneel at the feet of the Holy Father.” He also said, “Not all of …More
Josefine:
I come to the second phase of this “hot” year. Pope Paul VI received Archbishop Lefebvre in Castelgandolfo, at 10:30 am on September 11. This is the central event of the second phase. Why did this audience take place? Why such a meeting? It is clear that Archbishop Lefebvre desired it. He said, in Besancon, “I am ready to kneel at the feet of the Holy Father.” He also said, “Not all of the bridges with Rome have been burned.” It is likewise certain that Paul VI could not make any gesture at all. The suspension a divinis had provoked very great indignation, and the Pope’s image had suffered from it... <<<
Lionel:
They were both interpreting Vatican Council II based on the irrational reasoning from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.
They were both using Cushingism. For them all hypothetical cases mentioned in Vatican Council II(NA 2, LG 16 etc) referred to objectively known cases.So they were exceptions to the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors. There was a major break with Tradition.
I come to the second phase of this “hot” year. Pope Paul VI received Archbishop Lefebvre in Castelgandolfo, at 10:30 am on September 11. This is the central event of the second phase. Why did this audience take place? Why such a meeting? It is clear that Archbishop Lefebvre desired it. He said, in Besancon, “I am ready to kneel at the feet of the Holy Father.” He also said, “Not all of the bridges with Rome have been burned.” It is likewise certain that Paul VI could not make any gesture at all. The suspension a divinis had provoked very great indignation, and the Pope’s image had suffered from it... <<<
Lionel:
They were both interpreting Vatican Council II based on the irrational reasoning from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.
They were both using Cushingism. For them all hypothetical cases mentioned in Vatican Council II(NA 2, LG 16 etc) referred to objectively known cases.So they were exceptions to the dogma EENS and the Syllabus of Errors. There was a major break with Tradition.
2 more comments from Lionel L. Andrades
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Josefina
"Do you think Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops used the irrational premise and conclusion?"
I am asking you the same question, but before we judge someone we should first check what they have said.
Lionel:
Do you agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion?
Could you indentify the irrational premise and …More
Josefina
"Do you think Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops used the irrational premise and conclusion?"
I am asking you the same question, but before we judge someone we should first check what they have said.
Lionel:
Do you agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion?
Could you indentify the irrational premise and conclusion for me,so that I am sure you understand and agree with me ?
The interpretation of Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and conclusion I call Cushingism.
In general Vatican Council II is being interpreted with Cushingism and so we can see the results you have mentioned.
"We see her (the Church) destroyed every day, under our very eyes; the seminaries empty—this beautiful seminary in Lille, which was filled with seminarians. Where are the seminarians? Who are these seminarians, now? Do they know they’re going to become priests? Do they know what they’re going to do when they become priests?"
Lionel:They are all interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism. So the Council is a break with the past.The false premise and conclusion is being used not only in pontifical universities and seminaries in Rome but also at Econe, Switzerland. It is taught by Fr Jean Marie Gleaze of the SSPX there.He has never contradicted me. I assume he knows that I am correct and does not want to admit that the SSPX was all this time wrong.
___________________________
He also very often used the question-answer form—for instance, in this passage on dialogue with the Freemasons:
Engage in a dialogue with people who want to kill Our Lord Jesus Christ again...? We cannot accept such a dialogue. We know what came out of the first dialogue between Eve and the devil. We were lost because of her... because she entered into a dialogue with the devil. You just don’t engage in a dialogue with the devil. You don’t engage in a dialogue with the Communists. There can’t be any dialogue with error."
Thus presented very simply but also with a half-incantatory fascination, Archbishop Lefebvre’s reaction, found a loud echo throughout the world.
Lionel:The doctrinal dialogue conducted by the SSPX with the Vatican under the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI had both groups using Cushingism and not knowing it.
There is not article in which Archbishop Lefebvre affirms Feeneyism instead of Cushingism.Since he did not notice the irrational premise and conclusion.
____________________________
"Do you think Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops used the irrational premise and conclusion?"
I am asking you the same question, but before we judge someone we should first check what they have said.
Lionel:
Do you agree that there can be an interpretation of Vatican Council II with or without an irrational premise and conclusion?
Could you indentify the irrational premise and conclusion for me,so that I am sure you understand and agree with me ?
The interpretation of Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and conclusion I call Cushingism.
In general Vatican Council II is being interpreted with Cushingism and so we can see the results you have mentioned.
"We see her (the Church) destroyed every day, under our very eyes; the seminaries empty—this beautiful seminary in Lille, which was filled with seminarians. Where are the seminarians? Who are these seminarians, now? Do they know they’re going to become priests? Do they know what they’re going to do when they become priests?"
Lionel:They are all interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism. So the Council is a break with the past.The false premise and conclusion is being used not only in pontifical universities and seminaries in Rome but also at Econe, Switzerland. It is taught by Fr Jean Marie Gleaze of the SSPX there.He has never contradicted me. I assume he knows that I am correct and does not want to admit that the SSPX was all this time wrong.
___________________________
He also very often used the question-answer form—for instance, in this passage on dialogue with the Freemasons:
Engage in a dialogue with people who want to kill Our Lord Jesus Christ again...? We cannot accept such a dialogue. We know what came out of the first dialogue between Eve and the devil. We were lost because of her... because she entered into a dialogue with the devil. You just don’t engage in a dialogue with the devil. You don’t engage in a dialogue with the Communists. There can’t be any dialogue with error."
Thus presented very simply but also with a half-incantatory fascination, Archbishop Lefebvre’s reaction, found a loud echo throughout the world.
Lionel:The doctrinal dialogue conducted by the SSPX with the Vatican under the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI had both groups using Cushingism and not knowing it.
There is not article in which Archbishop Lefebvre affirms Feeneyism instead of Cushingism.Since he did not notice the irrational premise and conclusion.
____________________________
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies, Dietrich Von Hildebrand and other traditionalists allowed the Church to continue on a wrong theological way
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/archbishop-marc…More
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies, Dietrich Von Hildebrand and other traditionalists allowed the Church to continue on a wrong theological way
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/archbishop-marc…
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/archbishop-marc…
Lionel L. Andrades:
"Do you think Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops used the irrational premise and conclusion?"
I am asking you the same question, but before we judge someone we should first check what they have said.
"We see her (the Church) destroyed every day, under our very eyes; the seminaries empty—this beautiful seminary in Lille, which was filled with seminarians. Where are the …More
Lionel L. Andrades:
"Do you think Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops used the irrational premise and conclusion?"
I am asking you the same question, but before we judge someone we should first check what they have said.
"We see her (the Church) destroyed every day, under our very eyes; the seminaries empty—this beautiful seminary in Lille, which was filled with seminarians. Where are the seminarians? Who are these seminarians, now? Do they know they’re going to become priests? Do they know what they’re going to do when they become priests?"
He also very often used the question-answer form—for instance, in this passage on dialogue with the Freemasons:
"Engage in a dialogue with people who want to kill Our Lord Jesus Christ again...? We cannot accept such a dialogue. We know what came out of the first dialogue between Eve and the devil. We were lost because of her... because she entered into a dialogue with the devil. You just don’t engage in a dialogue with the devil. You don’t engage in a dialogue with the Communists. There can’t be any dialogue with error."
Thus presented very simply but also with a half-incantatory fascination, Archbishop Lefebvre’s reaction, found a loud echo throughout the world.
I come to the second phase of this “hot” year. Pope Paul VI received Archbishop Lefebvre in Castelgandolfo, at 10:30 am on September 11. This is the central event of the second phase. Why did this audience take place? Why such a meeting? It is clear that Archbishop Lefebvre desired it. He said, in Besancon, “I am ready to kneel at the feet of the Holy Father.” He also said, “Not all of the bridges with Rome have been burned.” It is likewise certain that Paul VI could not make any gesture at all. The suspension a divinis had provoked very great indignation, and the Pope’s image had suffered from it... <<<
sspx.org/en/hot-summer-1976…
+
marymagdalen.blogspot.de/2012/09/sspxs-problems.html
"Do you think Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops used the irrational premise and conclusion?"
I am asking you the same question, but before we judge someone we should first check what they have said.
"We see her (the Church) destroyed every day, under our very eyes; the seminaries empty—this beautiful seminary in Lille, which was filled with seminarians. Where are the seminarians? Who are these seminarians, now? Do they know they’re going to become priests? Do they know what they’re going to do when they become priests?"
He also very often used the question-answer form—for instance, in this passage on dialogue with the Freemasons:
"Engage in a dialogue with people who want to kill Our Lord Jesus Christ again...? We cannot accept such a dialogue. We know what came out of the first dialogue between Eve and the devil. We were lost because of her... because she entered into a dialogue with the devil. You just don’t engage in a dialogue with the devil. You don’t engage in a dialogue with the Communists. There can’t be any dialogue with error."
Thus presented very simply but also with a half-incantatory fascination, Archbishop Lefebvre’s reaction, found a loud echo throughout the world.
I come to the second phase of this “hot” year. Pope Paul VI received Archbishop Lefebvre in Castelgandolfo, at 10:30 am on September 11. This is the central event of the second phase. Why did this audience take place? Why such a meeting? It is clear that Archbishop Lefebvre desired it. He said, in Besancon, “I am ready to kneel at the feet of the Holy Father.” He also said, “Not all of the bridges with Rome have been burned.” It is likewise certain that Paul VI could not make any gesture at all. The suspension a divinis had provoked very great indignation, and the Pope’s image had suffered from it... <<<
sspx.org/en/hot-summer-1976…
+
marymagdalen.blogspot.de/2012/09/sspxs-problems.html