Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Catholic Apologetics Which Is Non-Apologetical

Apologetica cattolica che non è apologetica ( Catholic Apologetics Which Is Non-Apologetical )

Solamente la Chiesa Cattolica
-Lionel Andrades

Bishop Sanborn not keeping his promise to report to the Chancery Office

Image result for Photo Bishop Sanborn and Dr., Fastiggi photos
Bishop Donald Sanborn is not following up on this promise.He said  that if he could be shown a continuity in the teachings of the Church before and after Vatican Council II he would 'report to the Chancery office the next morning' and tell the Bishop  that he is no more a sedevacantist.
Image result for Photo breaking a promiseImage result for Photo breaking a promise
Image result for Photo Bishop Sanborn and Dr., Fastiggi photos
' Is there a continuity between pre and post Vatican Council II?,' sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn asks when  answering a question ( Video Ecclesiology Debate: Bp. Donald Sanborn vs. Dr. Robert Fastiggi (2004).See 1:43:31 ). 1
"If there was a continuity," Bishop Sanborn says, then he "would go tomorrow to the Chancery office and submit to the local bishop".
(1:43:34) "We do not want to be in schism", says Bishop Sanborn.
(1:43:36) "We have no problem submitting to the Roman pontiff..."
(1:43.38) "If I was convinced that there was continuity in doctrine...between pre and post Vatican Council II I would go tomorrow morning down to the Chancery Office and submit...I would have no problem. The question is: is there continuity between  pre and post Vatican Council II?"
With Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) there is a continuity in Catholic doctrine.The pre and post Vatican Council II ecclesiology is the same.He has not denied these reports.
He has always interpreted Vatican Council II with Cushingism.So  there was a rupture with Tradition.
Now he knows the difference between Vatican Council II Feeneyism and Cushingism.The same is known to other sedevacantists.So they should have the integrity to announce their decision to leave sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II (Cushingism).
When will Bishop Domald Sanborn report to the Chancery Office as he promised now that he has been shown shown a continuity in Church doctrine before and after Vatican Council II?-Lionel Andrades

1

Ecclesiology Debate: Bp. Donald Sanborn vs. Dr. Robert Fastiggi (2004)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NigK6MhXs6Q




 JUNE 27, 2017


Bishop Donald Sanborn in a crisis
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/06/bishop-donald-sanborn-in-crisis.html


 JUNE 24, 2017


Brother Andre Marie MICM too is teaching error : Bishop Sanborn cannot report at the Chancery office
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/06/brother-andre-marie-micm-too-is.html



Invisible people cannot be visible exceptions to all needing to be members of the Church for salvation : sedevacantists have it wrong

ndhorner
I have to say that much of your posts, probably due to brevity, are hard for me to follow your train of thought. Do you accept feenyism? Are you a sedevacantist? I know you don't agree with cushingite philosophy, but partly why I ask is because if I am confused, I doubt I am the only one.

THEY HAVE IT WRONG







I understand.
I work with different premises.
For me the baptism of desire refers to physically invisible cases and so it is not an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) in 2017.
For traditionalists, sedevacantists, liberals and the magisterium, the baptism of desire(BOD) is an exception to the dogma EENS. So the inference is that BOD is physically visible to be an explicit exception to EENS.Only if it was physically visible would it be an exception to EENS. Only if we know someone saved outside the Church without the the baptism of water, could we say that there is an exception to all needing to be members of the Church to avoid Hell.
So this is a major difference between me and others and it is important to understand.
So for me the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) refer to invisible persons and so they never were and nor are relevant to the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century.
So with my premise ( invisible cases are just invisible) there is a different interpretation of Vatican Council II, EENS, BOD, Nicene Creed, the Catechisms and other magisterial documents.I would be affirming Feeneyite EENS without rejecting Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite), the Catechisms ( Feeneyite), the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite) and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( Feeneyite-first part).
Since Catholics in general use the false premise ( invisible cases are physically visible in the present times) they will be interpreting all these magisterial documents with what I call Cushingism, which creates a rupture with Tradition.
So I can affirm all magisterial documents but they would be interpreted with the theology of Feeneyism. I would also reject all magisterial documents interpreted with the philosophy( invisible people are visible) and theology ( these visible people are saved without the baptism of water and so are exceptions to EENS and examples of salvation outside the Church) of Cushingism.
I do not have to be a sedevacantist sinced Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) is traditional and not a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors and EENS( Feeneyite).
I do not have to be a Feeneyite who affirms EENS with Feeneyism but rejects Vatican Council II since it is interpreted with Cushingism and so is a rupture with Tradition and EENS ( Feeneyite).
So basically what I am saying is that invisible people cannot be visible exceptions to all needing to be members of the Church for salvation.So there are no exceptions to the past ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. The ecclesiology of the Church before and after Vatican Council II is the same for me.

Good News for sedevacantists: Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) is traditional.So the popes are not …

JUNE 27, 2017 Good News for sedevacantists: Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) is traditional.So the popes are not to be blamed Sedevacantists who have gone into sedevacantism because Vatican Council II was heretical and a break with the past centuries …

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

No contradiction or clarification from Fr.Gleize : SSPX in a crisis too


AbGleize

There is no comment from the SSPX on last Saturday's report  Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr. Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong. 1


There is no denial or official statement yet. This is like a bad dream for them. They do not want to talk about it. It is a crisis. They do not know how to handle it. How can they say that they were wrong all along about Vatican Council II (Cushingite) and there is a Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) without the false premise. So the popes from John XXIII to Paul VI were not heretics since Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) is not heretical.
They are facing the same crisis as the sedevacantists.
Bishop Donald Sanborn in a crisis


During the doctrinal talks with the Vatican Fr. Gleize made an objective error and so he could not see the doctrinal mistake of the Vatican side.
In the article he has written on the Remnant Newspaper website he has made  errors. He has been repeating these Cushingite errors since 2009 and refuses to address this issue.There is no denial or explaination from him. He is repeating a standard error of the traditionalists and sedevacantists who are line with the Masons and liberals on these points. I repeat the four points here.

1. The religious liberty of Dignitatis Humanae and the positive secularism of Gaudium et Spes are condemned by Quanta Cura of Pius IX.-Fr.Jean Marie Gleize

Lionel: False. DH is not a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).So it is not a break with the past ecclesiocentrism.Upon the old ecclesiology was based the non separation of Church and State and the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation.
Since there is known salvation outside the Church for Fr.Gleize, as there is for Pope Benedict,Dignitatis Humanae has to be a rupture with EENS (Feeneyite) and the past ecclesiology of the Church.He is a liberal on this issue, without knowing it.It is his irrational theology which creates new doctrine. It is approved by the magisterium.
With Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) Gaudium et Spess 22 are not exceptions to the dogma EENS and the old ecclesiology of the Church. He interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism. So there is a rupture with Tradition.

_____________________________________

2.The new ecumenical ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium is condemned by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis and Humani Generis because of the absolutely false principle which would like to establish a real distinction between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church.
Lionel: With Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) Lumen Gentium 16,14 and 8 does not contradict Mystici Corporis etc. So there is no change in the ecclesiology of the Church before and after Vatican Council II.
Since Fr.Gleize only knows of Vatican Council II( Cushingite)there is a rupture with Tradition.
He refers to a 'false principle' but he does not know what is the false principle specifically He knows that Vatican Council II( Cushingite) is rupture with the past, and one can agree with him.However he has to switch to Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) which supports the old doctrines of the Church.

___________________________________

3. The ecumenism of Unitatis Redintegratio is condemned by Pius XI inMortalium Animos.
Lionel: No.It is not condemned with Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).UR 3 is hypothetical and so it is not an explicit exception, or relevant, to the dogma EENS.
Fr.Gleize needs to explore Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) and then his perspective will change.

__________________________________

4.The collegiality of Lumen Gentium, in that it denies the unicity of the subject of the Primacy, falls under the condemnation of Vatican I.
Lionel: This is his Cushingite interpretation. If there is unity of doctrine and theology with Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite), collegiality is not a problem.There will only be unity when Vatican Council II and EENS is interpreted without invisible cases confused as being visible. 1


Like the liberal Fr.Charles Morerod, Fr.Jean Marie Gleize was interpreting Vatican Council II in particular and all magisterial documents in general with irrational Cushingism philosophy and theology.Instead of using Feeneyite philosophy and theology and exposing the errors of Bishop Morerod, doctrinally, he remained 'on the other side'.He was a liberal.

Did Pope Benedict XVI permit Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead the SSPX side in doctrinal talks with the Vatican since he knew that he was a liberal who held there was known salvation outside the Church and so interpreted Vatican Council II with irrational Cushingism instead of the traditional Feeneyism, which the pope also rejected ? He had accepted the New Theology of Rahner and Ratzinger as did Archbishop Lefebvre.
The SSPX-Vatican doctrinal talks were a failure. Both sides were interpreting Vatican Council II with Cushingism. The Vatican would accept the non traditional conclusion and the SSPX would reject the rupture with Tradition, in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
So the talks became a simple formality. Neither of the two sides could say precisely what was the specific change in doctrine, other than it was visible that Vatican Council II( Cushngiite) was a rupture with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors etc.
Fr.Jean Marie Gleize who teaches Ecclesiology at Econe and was the leader of the SSPX group of theologians was 'Pope Benedict's man'.The talks were not going to get any where.
Since for Gleize too EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century since there was a 'development' with Vatican Council II ( Cushingite).Neither would Pope Benedict or Fr. Gleize would say in March 2016 that Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) however would not be a development with the dogma EENS as it was known to the magisterium in the 16th century.The pope through this interview in Avvenire publically announced the heresy and no one from the SSPX raised an objection.
No one is commenting even now.
Bishop Fellay knows there is something wrong.
The dogma "Outside the Church there is no salvation has been changed surreptitiously by confused ideas ( Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 87).Bishop Fellay does not seem aware of the difference between Feeneyism and Cushingism in the interpretation of magisterial documents including Vatican Council II.May be Fr. Jean Marie Gleize too does not understand it.At the Remnant they are unable to do discuss this and no comments are allowed.
-Lionel Andrades





1
Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong
https://gloria.tv/article/W3KdZ2up7V7h4zpXBGgYxhUn2


JUNE 24, 2017


Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/06/frjean-marie-gleize-needs-to-change-his.html


Official statement from SSPX awaited : Fr.Gleize and other theologians have got it wrong
http://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t1301-official-statement-from-sspx-awaited-fr-gleize-and-other-theologians-have-got-it-wrong#9867

2.
https://gloria.tv/article/W3KdZ2up7V7h4zpXBGgYxhUn2




3.


https://gloria.tv/article/4yrerVnfxg7w3xma16RJ7vfAs




Pope Benedict permitted Fr. Jean Marie Gleize to lead in doctrinal talks since he was a liberal ?
https://gloria.tv/article/CM73JiCZQycP3AoZoi8NVakT6


4.
https://www.gloria.tv/article/pch2Vt2rBNPA3wTDnK3JrRW2u

Bishop Donald Sanborn in a crisis

Sermons
There is a crisis for Bishop Donald Sanborn.He is no more a sedevacantist who thinks the popes are in heresy because of Vatican Council II. Yet he cannot give up the sedevacantist seminary mid stream.He cannot abruptly tell the seminarians and faculty that there is no more a reason for sedevacantism based on Vatican Council II. They were all wrong all along like the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX).By changing a premise, we now know, the interpretation of Vatican Council II dramatically changes.So the popes from John XXIII to Paul VI cannot be blamed for a traditional Council.
So what does he do ? Does Bishop Sanborn in conscience ask the seminarians to leave or does he leave the seminary in Florida?
He knows Lumen Gentium 16( invincible ignorance) with Feeneyism(invisible cases are invisible) cannot any more be an exception to the dogma EENS  according to the 16th century missionaries. This is something rational.
But for the students at the Most Holy Trinity Seminary, Florida, Lumen Gentium 16 ( Cushingite-invisible cases are visible) is a rupture with the dogma EENS and so Vatican Council II is heretical.The popes from John XXIII to Paul VI were heretical. So they chose to be sedevacantists. A heretical pope cannot be a pope says Fr.Anthony Cekada who also teaches at this seminary.
For Bishop Donald Sanborn Unitatis Redintigratio 3 is not a rupture with the dogma EENS . So with the old ecclesiology there is the old ecumenism. Vatican Council II is not a problem.
For the students and faculty UR 3 is an example of salvation outside the Church. So there has been created a new ecclesiology with a new ecumenism.This is a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors and EENS ( Feeneyite).So Vatican Council II and the popes were heretics.They felt their sedevacantism was justified.The faculty teach that a heretical pope cannot be a pope.
So what does Bishop Donald Sanborn do now?
Courses
How can he contradict all his the religious formation he has given the seminarians all these years and which he received from Archbishop Lefebvre ?
Does he tell them all to change and that the seminary will not more be sedevacantist?
Or does he look for other reasons to be sedevacantist may be like the faith and moral teachings of Pope Francis?
 Vatican Council II any way  is no more an issue.
In the debate with Dr.Robert Fastiggi he was clear that it was the heresies of Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) which was the reason for his sedevacantism. Since a heretical pope for him could not be a valid pope and the Council( Cushingite) was teaching heresy.
But now how does he clarify the issue of Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite).If he affirms it in public there will be a crisis for the seminary and their community.
He has refused to comment on these blog posts when I have contacted.He has no denial or contradiction. Otherwise he would have explained it for me.After all he can no more infer that invisible people are visible exceptions to Tradition. He now knows it is otherwise.
I am not holding the Feeneyite theology of the St.Benedict Centers, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I have have not been presenting the pros and cons, reasons for and against, for the baptism of desire. I have been saying that there is no baptism of desire case in our reality. It is a non issue with reference to the dogma EENS. So the passages which mention the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance in Vatican Council II( LG 14, AG 7 etc) are superfluous passages. They are references to hypothetical and theoretical cases which are not explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS as it was known to the missionaries in the 16th century. So the magisterium made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and carried over that mistake into Vatican Council II.
It can be corrected once we are aware of the error and do not mistake hypothetical cases as being objective in the present time. This changes the conclusion of Vatican Council II. The Council then is traditional and supports the old ecclesiology of the Church.This is my interpretation of Vatican Council II which I call Feeneyite and so for me the popes cannot be in heresy.The sedevacantists and the SSPX were confused with Vatican Council II ( Cushingite) which they should continue to reject, even if the magisterium does not do so.-Lionel Andrades

http://www.mostholytrinityseminary.org/bpsanbornbio.html

JUNE 27, 2017


Good News for sedevacantists: Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) is traditional.So the popes are not to be blamed

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/06/good-news-for-sedevacantists-vatican.html

JUNE 27, 2017

When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/06/when-sedes-and-trads-can-accept-that.html




Sedes and trads have chosen the interpretation of the Masons and liberals : they deny Jesus as He was known before Pius XII
https://gloria.tv/article/7Ag7fL9tbmttDQcqQn7d9VxrL

Good News for sedevacantists: Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) is traditional.So the popes are not to be blamed

Sedevacantists who have gone into sedevacantism because Vatican Council II was heretical and a break with the past centuries now have good news.We have found the missing link which will help them to come back into the Church.

For example the Most Holy Family Monastery, USA does not have to reject Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) since for them the Council(Cushingite)  is a break with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They have to observe instead that if they accept that Pope Pius XII made an objective error and he over looked the mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, they have a new way to interpret the Council(Feeneyite). With the Council(Feeneyite) traditional once again they would have no opposition to the popes since John XXIII.
Image result for Photo  Bishop Donald Sanborn
Similarly Bishop Donald Sanborn  does not have to reject Vatican Council II but observe that his concept of Feeneyism was based on a false premise. So Vatican Council II is not a rupture with the dogma EENS.Since the baptism of desire is invisible and not visible, as he  wrongly interpreted it.
photo of Bishop Mark Pivarunas
Bishop Mark A.Pivarunus ,Superior General of the CMRI must realize that his concept of the baptism of desire was wrong.There are no cases of the baptism of desire in 2017. Hypothetical cases cannot be explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS. So there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict EENS. Pope Pius XII made a mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office.
The liberal theologians were wrong to assume that Mystici Corporis, Quanta Cura etc refer to visible cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.Vatican Council II (Cushingite) is no more a reason to go into sedevacantism since we now know of a Vatican Council II (Feeneyite).
Image result for Photos  Fr.Anthony Cekada
Fr.Anthony Cekada must realize that his long list of baptism of desire references are meaningless since none of them are objective cases. They cannot be relevant to EENS.Vatican Council II is in the clear.
They can continue to oppose Vatican Council II (Cushingite) but Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) is traditional.So the popes are not to be blamed.
-Lionel Andrades

Image result for Photos Christopher Ferrara


Image result for Photos Roberto de Mattei

When sedes and trads can accept that Pius XII made a mistake then popes since John XXIII are no more in heresy

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/06/when-sedes-and-trads-can-accept-that.html