In this year of the 100 anniversary of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, 'the dogma of the faith has been lost' even with the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and other traditionalists denying it

In this year of the 100 anniversary of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, 'the dogma of the faith has been lost' even with the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and other traditionalists denying it, to protect their religious communities from hostile forces.

It was always known that the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) did not accept the dogma  extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) since for them invisible cases of the baptism of desire were visible exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. This was the interpretation of the liberal theologians which Archbishop Lefebvre had accepted.

But now even the St.Benedict Centers, when they say every one needs to enter the Church with no exceptions, mean, there are exceptions mentioned for them in Vatican Council II.

LG 16,LG 8, UR 3, GS 22 etc are exceptions to traditional EENS for them and so they reject Vatican Council II. This Vatican Council II which they reject I call Cushingite Vatican Council II.

But when they reject Vatican Council II(Cushingite) they are implying that LG 16 etc must refer to known people saved outside the Church and so LG 16 becomes an exception to Feeneyite EENS.

They are not interpreting Vatican Council II with LG 16 not being an exception to EENS since, it is obvious,  LG 16 refers to hypothetical cases, unknown people.Invisible people in our reality cannot be exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. This interpretation of Vatican Council II in which LG 16 refers to hypothetical and invisible people I call Vatican Council II, Feeneyite.If the traditionalists affirmed Vatican Council II Feeneyite then the Council would not be a rupture with the dogma EENS and the past exclusivist ecclesiology of the Catholic Church.

The SBC could then affirm EENS Feeneyite as they do now and also Vatican Council II Feeneyite and there would be no contradiction. The dogma of the faith would not be lost.

But they are not doing this since they do not want to oppose the political Left and their liberal bishops.

They are accepting Vatican Council II Cushingite which is a rupture with EENS Feeneyite and so 'the dogma of the faith has been lost'.The communities are recognized and encouraged by their leftist bishops who reject EENS(Feeneyite) and probably do not know about Vatican Council II(Feeneyite).

So in this 100th year anniversary, the dogma of the faith which Our Lady mentioned and which is EENS for me (and also for John Salza)Vatican Council II Cushingite is being accepted by the St. Benedict Centers and Vatican Council II Feeneyite not affirmed.

Even the followers of Fr. Leonard Feeney are compromising with the bad times.

The St.Benedict Center, Still River,Massachusetts, was granted canonical status since they did not oppose the interpretation of Vatican Council II EENS of the bishop of Worcester and they did not affirm Vatican Council II(Feeneyite).

The St. Benedict Center, Richmond, New Hampshire has been recognized as a society, and possibly in future will be  given canonical status, since they do not oppose the Vatican Council II(Cushingite) of the bishop of Manchester.They also do not affirm Vatican Council II Feeneyite.Neither do they ask the bishop to do the same.

So the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary have a difficult choice since they want to maintain their present status in the Church and they are opposed by enemies of the Church.

The St.Benedict Centers past and present, have made many sacrifices for Jesus and His Church they have held firm to the truth with reference to the dogma EENS.They were always correct on EENS but were misled by the traditionalists, on the subject of Vatican Council II. They rejected the error of Archbishop Lefebvre on EENS but accepted his error on Vatican Council II.

If Archbishop Lefebvre interpreted Vatican Council II with Feeneyism as a theology then the Council would not be an issue for him.

So now when the SBC affirm Vatican Council II (Cushingite) and do not ask their bishops to affirm Vatican Council II(Feeneyite), and neither do it themself, they are saying that LG 16, LG 8 etc are exceptions to Tradition.This is the only interpretation of the Council which they know.It is a rupture with Feeneyite EENS. They have to accept it for canonical recognition and so the Council is a rupture with EENS only because of their interpretation.
And the dogma of the faith has been lost. There is a new version of EENS and Vatican Council II. It is Cushingite and it is magisterial.

-Lionel Andrades

Joseph Shaw interprets Vatican Council II according to the Left and links it to the liturgy

Positio 32: Islam and the Extraordinary Form

The question of this paper is the question of Catholics’ engagement with Islam: intellectual, cultural, and personal. Such engagement is today, for many Catholics in the West, as well as in Africa and the Islamic world, an unavoidable practical reality. It can be positive, insofar as it fosters mutual understanding, and, going beyond this, an exchange of ideas up to and including evangelisation: the proclamation of the Gospel which is the mission of the Church.[1] Above all, as noted by the Second Vatican Council Declaration Nostra aetate, this process must be founded on a proper ‘esteem’ (aestimatio) for Muslims, and an acknowledgement of those elements of truth found in Islam.[2] 1

 

 

Prof.Joseph Shaw's interpretation of Vatican Council with reference to Islam is based on the Jewish Left model, it is Vatican Council II(Cushingite) instead of Vatican Council II(Feeneyite).It is a break with the ecclesiology of the Latin Mass in the Middle Ages. It is a leftist interpretation of Islam and Vatican Council II and he is linking it to the Mass.
In the Middle Ages when the Jesuits offered the Tridentine Rite Mass they knew that the Mohammadan religion was not a path to salvation.Vatican Council II also indicates that Muslims need 'faith and baptism'(AG 7), which is the only way to salvation.

There is no Catholic missionary activity for him since he is a Cushingite like the English bishops who offer the Traditional Latin Mass and support Masonic initiatives.

He mentions secular liberalism and Protestantism since his Cushingite philosophy and theology is a rupture with the old exclusivist ecclesiology of the Church upon which depended an ecumenism of return and outside the Church there is no known salvation.

 

Above all, as noted by the Second Vatican Council Declaration Nostra aetate, this process must be founded on a proper ‘esteem’ (aestimatio) for Muslims, and an acknowledgement of those elements of truth found in Islam.[2]

 

We humans do not know of any elements of truth by which we can say that a Mohammadan will be saved in his religion or that he does not have to convert.This is a the liberal left interpretation of Vatican Council II. Why is he mentioning this with reference to the liturgy?

 

It is naturally only through discussion that any necessary reform or correction can take place.

 

In the discussion will he be able to say that the Catholic Church in Vatican Council II(AG 7) says Islamism and Judaism are not paths to salvation and their members need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell? This is what the missionaries in the 16th century would say when they offered the Latin Mass.And this can also be said today by a priest who offers Mass in Italian or English.The old ecclesiology with Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) is not restricted to any particular Rite or liturgy.

-Lionel Andrades

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.

 

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/12/fiuv-position-paper-islam.html#more