Communiqué from the General House of the Society of Saint Pius X concerning the Nov. 22, 2018 meeting between Cardinal Ladaria and Fr. Pagliarani
On Thursday, November 22, 2018, Fr. David Pagliarani, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, traveled to Rome at the invitation of Cardinal Luis Ladaria Ferrer, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He was accompanied by Fr. Emmanuel du Chalard. Cardinal Ladaria was assisted by Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.
The meeting took place in the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Its purpose was to allow Cardinal Ladaria and Fr. Pagliarani to meet for the first time and together to take stock of the relations between the Holy See and the Society of Saint Pius X since the election of its new Superior General last July.
During the meeting with the Roman authorities, it was recalled that the fundamental problem is actually doctrinal, and neither the Society nor Rome can escape this fact. Because of this irreducible doctrinal divergence, for the past seven years no attempt to compose a draft of a doctrinal statement acceptable to both parties has succeeded. This is why the doctrinal question remains absolutely essential.
The Holy See says the same when it solemnly declares that no canonical status can be established for the Society until after the signing of a doctrinal document.
Therefore, everything impels the Society to resume theological discussions with the awareness that the Good Lord does not necessarily ask the Society to convince its interlocutors, but rather to bear unconditional witness to the faith in the sight of the Church.
The future of the Society is in the hands of Providence and the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, as is demonstrated by its whole history, from the Society's foundation to this day.
The members of the Society want nothing else but to serve the Church and to cooperate effectively in her regeneration, to the point of giving their lives for her triumph if necessary. But they can choose neither the manner, nor the terms, nor the moment of what belongs to God alone.
Menzingen, November 23, 2018
AMDG
The SSPX and the CDF have been discussing for years. The discussions under Fellay were doctrinal.And it seemed to Rome that their were no doctrinal differences. But the sspx was nevertheless still asked to sign a document accepting Vatican II, and now it's said that are doctrinal differences. It seems to go around in circles. But with the election of Bergoglio we can learn a lesson. THE LESSON IS THAT THE DIFFERENCES ARE NOT DOCTRINAL! I say this because Bergoglio has ironically clarified all. And the reason for my saying that is by observing the strategy of Bergoglio and his closest aides in Rome. They do not durectly challenge Communion, Marriage, or the Priesthood. The Teachings remain the same, but just simply discarded, overlooked, reinterpreted when applied to everyday life. Vatican II, and Bergoglio who is doing nothing different than Vatican II, does not deny the past, but presents the past and the Church's Teaching as Only THEORY, and not applicable to the practical situations of everyday life. This us something that should be discussed. Bergoglio will acknowledge the Teachers of the Law, as experts knowing the Law of God, but not as following his false and deceptive spirit of "Mercy" and "Charity". This is something that you cannot discuss with Rome, because it is not a fixed dogmatic criteria. It is a Pastoral policy that can be flawed and yet subjective.
ReplyDeleteThe SSPX will never accept Vatican II's magisterial teaching on Non Christian faith traditions including the teaching on the continuity of revelation between Judaism and Christianity, Religious Liberty, most of Gaudium et Spes, Sacrosanctum Concilium and the applications of the Council teaching to post Conciliar doctrine and current practice.
ReplyDeleteThey refuse to 'sentire cum ecclesia', preferring their own exotic variants of nostalgia and a pre-Pius XII delusional 'golden age'. The SSPX will be forever 'sui generis' and wilfully self-destructive.
Vatican II was a doctrinal Council not some kind of optional 'pastoral' event. The magisterium of the Popes since the Vatican II are clear about this that's why Fellay and the rest never got anywhere.
The SSPX never invented the phrase "pastoral council" but have taken it from the Popes themselves who described the nature and essence of the council. But, if I may clarify your position, what exactly new doctrine or dogma must a Catholic have believed a day after Vatican II ended, which was not required the day before the council started?
DeleteNot for nothing Peter, but can you point to some source or means by which a Catholic could possibly reconcile the novel content of the Council with the magisterium prior to wherein a significant portion of the conciliar teaching, particularly the ecumenical fluff, was in no uncertain terms condemned? A theologically grounded Catholic cannot accept the novelties of the Council without departing from what was always believed. I’ve never seen anyone nor read anywhere that someone has satisfactorily demonstrated continuity with Tradition with the ecumenical aspects of the Council in particular. I’m not just talking about personal preference either, simply with logic and reason. The Society should not accept those aspects of the Council that depart from what was always held nor should any Catholic.
DeleteA case in point. Pius XI condemned ecumenism particularly when one cites Our Lord’s Prayer ‘that they may be one’ as justification for attending ecumenical gatherings with Protestants. JP II has a whole encyclical, Ut Unum Sunt, that is based on that premise. So who’s right? Pius XI is in line with his predecessors, JP II is not. You cite the conciliar popes as being the authoritative interpreters of the Council which is well enough and very sound theologically, but what if you were to live a couple centuries and a pope came along and contradicted a novel teaching of JP II you had accepted. Who would you believe? Couldn’t a traditionalist accuse you of the same accusation you’re lobbing, picking and choosing ‘magisterial teachings’, and pitting popes against each other? But therein the problem lies, it’s the Church, there can and never should appear magisterial acts that contradict each other. That’s the problem of the Council...it’s replete with a spirit of euphoria over modern man and worse still, departs from Tradition with regard to the Church’s relation to the world and false religions. You actually do the exact thing you accuse the trads of.
The SSPX should not trust Rome whilst madman Bergoglio is in charge.He would seize property from them and render them neutral under the whim of Heretical Rome.No, wait until Bergoglio is gone-to his Maker or otherwise-and discuss again.These are very bad times.
ReplyDeleteNOVEMBER 25, 2018
ReplyDeleteVatican-SSPX doctrinal talks second round : clarification on two points needed
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/vatican-sspx-doctrinal-talks-second.html
There is nothing to clarify. The Teachings are the same and always will. For example, the Vatican knows that outside the Church there is no Salvation. Protestants and Talmudists go to hell. Catholics in mortal sin go to hell. The SSPX and Vatican both accept that. If one of the Talmudists or Protestants are open to heed and properly inform their consciences and accept actualizing graces God gives them, God may count them as Catholic.Exceptions may be made by God, but we have no right to presume God's Grace on the heretics. But you see, this is where Vatican II goes wrong. It puts itself in the place of God to make that false presumption that many or all heretics, sinners or nonbelievers are saved. It is a purely Pastoral action that does not affect Doctrine, but waters it down and confuses it. Likewise, Vatican II says people have "Rights", when in fact "Rights" are just a human invention to prevent Catholics from aggressively converting others [now derogatorily referred to as "Proselytizing"].Man does not have a "Right to be Free", except insofar that lack of "freedom" does not interfere with a person's response to his callings in life from the Creator and to become Catholic. Vatican II was a Pastoral hoax.
ReplyDeleteThank you! Thus, the V II council is exactly what Pope John XXIII declared, and wrote into the the opening documents itself- pastoral.
Delete
ReplyDeleteNote bene Fellay manuevering so when the deal has been revealed -->deal struck years ago> Fr. Pagliarani will become the fall guy so to speak.
Sad to say but SSPX leadership is acting Machiavellian by manipulating the faithful.
Why hide it? So there wouldn´t be a stampede for the door.
What do SSPX leadership and Francis agree on? It is the elephant in the room.
Thus, SSPX leadership has been emasculated and silenced like all the rest.
Read it and weep faithful.
Rash judgements and attributing motivations with blanket statements and without any proof is something both extreme fringes left or right have in common.
ReplyDeleteWell done Anonymous 8:52 AM. You have clearly identified the shameful lack of transparency, accountability and honesty on the part of the SSPX leadership. Their governance is fundamentally flawed and dysfunctional. All along Fellay and his colleagues have been playing the old North Vietnamese game of continuing hostilities while participating in 'negotiations' They knew that there was never a snowflake's chance in Hell of being integrated into the Catholic Church because of their refusal to accept the magisterial doctrine taught in Dignitais Humanae Nostrae, Nostra Aetate as well as whole sections of Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes and Sacrosanctum Concilium. They were never going to accept way the 2800 bishops of Vatican II interpreted their own Conciliar teachings and applied them including the Vernacular Mass.
ReplyDeleteSSPX, at the extreme end of the Trad rejectionist spectrum have resorted to putting up the smoke screen of 'orthodoxy' vs heterodoxy all the while rejecting Vatican II which all the Popes since the Council have affirmed is completely within and even contains the whole Tradition of the Catholic Church.
My prediction is that SSPX will end up being the catholic equivalent of Jonestown.
Your blood stream is probabably the equivalent of Jonestown, Gaybrielle.
DeleteThey were making these kinds of crazy claims last time.
ReplyDelete"Lack of transparency" "Mr. Peter W", is nothing to be ashamed of. People do not have a right to know everything. Only the psuedo-Democracies of today pretend to have it, because they by repetition, and indoctrination control the media with their the pro-Enlightenment hierarchy. Those the cancer of Enlightenment cannot brainwash, they use "transparency" as a means and pretext to break through an enemies hidden or secret defenses , and lays the opponent exposed and bare with nothing to retaliate with. Moreover, any minor irregularity is subjected to a hypermagnified scruitiny and artificially-induced guilt complex, and is used as a weapon to hurt the opposition.
ReplyDeleteConstantine, take a minute or two and contemplate what the lack of transparency and accountability in the atrocious scandal of the mass clerical rape of children and the systemic, institutional cover up by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. What they tried for decades and centuries to hush up and hide from public view is now exposed and telegraphed from the roof tops by the laity. It's no 'minor irregularity' that is at stake here but the innocence of tens of thousands of vulnerable children and adults whose human dignity has been mortally wounded by those anointed and commissioned to guard and preserve it.
ReplyDeleteThink about it, Constantine, that it is the civil authorities who have the a more Christ like moral compass than the Church's hierarchy.
Get out from under that elitist rock you have been sheltering you and your primitive honor/shame sentiments.
@Constantine: There appears to be a typo in line six of the first comment. It says "his closest aids in Rome". I believe that the correct version is "his 'closet' aids in Rome".
ReplyDelete@Peter W: Vatican II is just a regurgitation of the writings of Teilhard de Chardin and the evolution of society into a higher form. If that means that there is no personal sin, then you are right. I just don't happen to think so. Christ was crucified as the Redeemer. Take it or leave it. ---Mary, the Mother of God, has promised a corrective action through her appearance at Fatima. Issues with Theodore McCarrick should be a sign that something is way off. Then to have a "one lunged wonderkind" change all of the rules and to throw out Scripture should be a grave warning sign that there is something way out of kilter.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 8:52 am, you read it and weep. There should be hurricane storm warnings up all over every contact with the sea (not the See of St. Peter) in regard to McCarrick and Coccopalmerio. This is worse than Sodom and Gomorrah and the destruction of the innocent. John Paul II called it "the culture of death". Bergoglio calls it a "misunderstood paradise".
ReplyDeleteAnd all JBQ has to offer is the poultice of Christless 3rd Secret and pot head sede-vacantist and adulterous Malachi Martin Christianity. Good grief!
ReplyDeleteOh yes, fancy gay man, you offer so much.
ReplyDeleteI have the original 1905-1913 Catholic Encyclopedia set with index. If you try to look up the word "ecumenism", it doesn't exist. There is however a long article called "unity of Christendom". This article, written long before Vatican II, shows the many failed attempts at "unity of Christendom" down through the ages and how the Church had to defend herself from such. The SSPX is doing what the Church has always done.
ReplyDeleteGerald May said...
ReplyDeleteThe SSPX never invented the phrase "pastoral council" but have taken it from the Popes themselves who described the nature and essence of the council. But, if I may clarify your position, what exactly new doctrine or dogma must a Catholic have believed a day after Vatican II ended, which was not required the day before the council started?
Lionel:
After the Council Catholics were expected to believe, according to the common interpretation, that there was salvation outside the Church.
Before the Council, or before the Letter of the Holy Office 1949, Catholics believed outside the Church there is no salvation.
Since outside the Church there was salvation for Fr. Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre, after the Council Catholics were expected to believe in a new ecumenism. There was the Anonymous Christian and 'known' salvation in the Protestant religion.
After the Council, since there was known salvation outside the Church, with now a new doctrine on salvation and faith having been created, mixed marriages were no more considered a mortal sin. Pope Paul VI permitted them with dispensation citing UR 3 in Vatican Council II. In other words there were known non Catholics saved outside the Church.
So the non Catholic spouse in a mixed marriage could be saved in his religion was the new understanding also of marriage.
After the Council, since there was known salvation outside the Church for Cardinal Ratzinger, and the other ecclesiastics, there was no more the need for traditional mission programs. Since non Catholics were allegedly being saved in their religion.
So there was also no need to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the King etc.
The understanding of Church(ecclesiology) had changed. There was also a new theology based on the baptism of desire etc being known exceptions to the traditional, but obsolete, understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
-Lionel Andrades
TL;DR
Delete
ReplyDeletePeter.W
Well done Anonymous 8:52 AM. You have clearly identified the shameful lack of transparency, accountability and honesty on the part of the SSPX leadership.(It is just ignorance )...
Lionel:The issue is ignorance.
Vatican Council II in Ad Gentes 7 says all need faith and baptism for salvation. All. The word all is used. We now know that the baptism of desire, the baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance refere to hypothetical cases. and not objectively visible non Catholics saved outside the Church. So BOD, BOB and I. I do not contradict traditional EENS nor Ad Gentes 7.
With EENS intact we are back to the past ecclesiology with Vatican Council II. So there can only be an ecumenism of return. Since there is no known salvation in the present times mentioned in Lumen Gentium, Nostra Aetate, Gaudium et Specs etc, the priority is being a member of the Catholic Church with faith and baptism(AG 7, LG 14) for salvation. So there is the necessity to proclaim the Social Reign of Christ the Kingover all political legislation with the non separation of Church and State.
So Vatican Council II supports Tradition.
The SSPX bishops and priests have to understand this and then inform the 2800 bishops about it.
________________________
SSPX, at the extreme end of the Trad rejectionist spectrum have resorted to putting up the smoke screen of 'orthodoxy' vs heterodoxy all the while rejecting Vatican II which all the Popes since the Council have affirmed is completely within and even contains the whole Tradition of the Catholic Church.
Lionel: Vatican Council II is in harmony with the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and so encompasses the whole Tradition of the Catholic Church.
However Vatican Council II interpreted with a false premise by the present two popes and the Left, is a false Council and must continue to be rejected by the SSPX.This is the Council with the false and irrational interpretation of the CDF, Ecclesia Dei and the cardinals and bishops who offer Mass in the vernacular.
________________________________
My prediction is that SSPX will end up being the catholic equivalent of Jonestown.
Lionel. The SSPX must interpret Vatican Council II rationally. They would also have to accept EENS without BOD, BOB andI.I being exceptions.Then they must point out to the Vatican, that Vatican Council II is not an issue. They affirm the Council along with the dogma EENS according to the Magisterium of the 16th century.
The liberals and the Left will then have to reject Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades
ReplyDeleteThe Mass is valid but the priest is in known heresy and so the Mass is a sacrilege for him. : Pope Francis and Archbishop Guido Pozzo
To understand me it must be clear for you that the baptism of desire(BOD) , baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
BOD, BOB and I.I were exceptions to EENS for Archbishop Lefebvre and they still are for the SSPX bishops and priests.
This has to be clear.
Since if BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions to EENS you imply that they refer to known non-Catholics saved outside the Church.They would have to be known and seen. Invisible people cannot be exceptions to EENS for example in 2018.
Similarly possibilities of salvation outside the Church are only theoretical for us. No one could have seen a St. Emerentiana in Heaven without the baptism of water.Possibilities are not real people and we need real people for them to be exceptions.
Thirdly, the ordinary means of salvation is faith and baptism. It is not BOD, BOB and I.I.
So Archbiship Lefebvre and Pope Pius XII made a mistake in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.
The same mistake was repeated by Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits at Vatican Council II. They should not have mentioned BOD, BOB and I.I. Also they should not have mentioned LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc along with orthodox passages on salvation.They put them both together.
LG 8 etc are hypothetical only.They cannot be relevant or exceptions to the orthodox passages in Vatican Council II which support traditional EENS.
Once this is clear in your mind you will realize that Pope Francis and Archbishop Guido Pozzo and numerous others, interpret EENS and Vatican Council II with the error. They assume hypothetical and unknown people are objective exceptions to EENS. They also wrongly assume that LG 8 etc are exceptions to traditional EENS and the past ecclesiology.
So their whole theology is de- railed because of the philosophical mistake( invisible people are visible).
They interpret the Creeds with this irrationality. They misinterpret the Catechisms as a rupture with Tradition. They interpret the Catechism of Pope Pius X as a rupture with the Syllabus of Errors etc.
The Mass is valid but the priest is in known heresy and so the Mass is a sacrilege for him.
-Lionel Andrades
NOVEMBER 27, 2018
ReplyDeletePope Francis' Holy Mass is a sacrilege for him even if it is valid : public mortal sins of faith, rejection of de fide doctrine with an irrational premise and inference
Image result for Photo of Pope Francis at Mass
To understand how the present two popes and the ecclesiastics at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) are in heresy and offer Holy Mass in sacrilege it is important to think clearly on some subjects.
It needs to be kept in mind that the baptism of desire ( BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) never ever were exceptions t the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is fundamental.
Once this is understood it will be easier to see that in Vatican Council II, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer also to only hypothetical and theoretical cases. They are not references to non Catholics physically visible in 2018.They are not known people in the present times saved outside the Church.
Once this is clear and accepted we can interpret Catholic doctrine and theology clearly and rationally. We can avoid heresy and also observe that the Mass being offered by the two popes and ecclesiastics in general is a sacrilege for them.
Since they reason that BOD, BOB and I.I refer to known non Catholics saved outside the Church, EENS is obsolete.It is rejected.
They reject traditional traditional EENS and this was confirmed by Pope Benedict ( March 1,2016 Avvenire). In public he heretically said that the dogma EENS was no more, for him, like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century.
He also confirmed that Vatican Council II was a rupture with the dogma EENS as it was interpreted in the 16th century.
So Pope Benedict and Pope Francis do not interpret LG 8 etc in Vatican Council II as not being an exception to EENS. I is an exeption for them. It is a rupture with the past.A break with Tradition.
-Lionel Andrades
Continued
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/to-understand-how-present-two-popes-and.html
NOVEMBER 27, 2018
ReplyDeletePope Francis' Holy Mass is a sacrilege for him even if it is valid : public mortal sins of faith, rejection of de fide doctrine with an irrational premise and inference
To understand how the present two popes and the ecclesiastics at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) are in heresy and offer Holy Mass in sacrilege it is important to think clearly on some subjects.
It needs to be kept in mind that the baptism of desire ( BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) never ever were exceptions t the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is fundamental.
Once this is understood it will be easier to see that in Vatican Council II, LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc, refer also to only hypothetical and theoretical cases. They are not references to non Catholics physically visible in 2018.They are not known people in the present times saved outside the Church.
Once this is clear and accepted we can interpret Catholic doctrine and theology clearly and rationally. We can avoid heresy and also observe that the Mass being offered by the two popes and ecclesiastics in general is a sacrilege for them.
Since they reason that BOD, BOB and I.I refer to known non Catholics saved outside the Church, EENS is obsolete.It is rejected.
They reject traditional traditional EENS and this was confirmed by Pope Benedict ( March 1,2016 Avvenire). In public he heretically said that the dogma EENS was no more, for him, like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century.
He also confirmed that Vatican Council II was a rupture with the dogma EENS as it was interpreted in the 16th century.
So Pope Benedict and Pope Francis do not interpret LG 8 etc in Vatican Council II as not being an exception to EENS. I is an exeption for them. It is a rupture with the past.A break with Tradition.
I instead affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with EENS. I am not rejecting Vatican Council II.-Lionel Andrades
Continued
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/to-understand-how-present-two-popes-and.html
German bishops are ripe for schism
ReplyDeleteThe German bishops are openly rejecting the Church's teaching on mortal sin and the Eucharist and are giving the Eucharist to Protestants and the divorced and remarried.
For them there are exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation , based on the their irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II .
If you would tell them Protestants cannot receive the Eucharist they would tell you , like Pope Benedict, that there is salvation outside the Church according to Vatican Council II( UR 3 etc).So if ecclesiology can be changed says the German Cardinal Walter Kasper then why not mortal theology. Everything us open to change theologically.
The German Pope Benedict confirmed this in 2016 when he said that EENS was no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century.Pope Benedict also cited Vatican Council II as being responsible for this change.The German bishops think the same.
Now the new Superior General of the SSPX seems to realize that there is a precise mistake in Vatican Council II.It was unknown to Bishop Bernard Fellay and Archbishop Lefebvre.There are literally thousands of reports on the Internet on this subject.The reports says there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II.Catholics have been mis-reading Vatican Council II.The German bishops too have been mis-reading the Council.A rational reading of the Council support the past ecclesiology of the Church and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
So now when the German bishops can no more cite UR 3 as an exception to the strict interpretation of EENS then what do they do they do?
Where are the citations in Vatican Council II to reject EENS and the past ecclesiology?
There are none . There were none.
What will be their reaction when the rank and file German Catholic points this out to them?
How can they say they were wrong about Vatican Council these 50 years? How can they say Protestants are outside the Church according to Vatican Council II since they don't have Catholic faith with the baptism of water in the Catholic Church( AG 7, LG 14)?
So when this is told to them by the media in Germany will they revert to the old irrational interpretation of the Council ?
Will they excommunicate those Catholics who endorse Vatican Council II but interpret it rationally?
Where will Cardinal Ladaria be in all this? Will he convert the German bishops or will he continue to support the error as he does presently ?
Will Archbishop Guido Pozzo offer Mass in Germany with the obsolete interpretation of Vatican Council II, since it is politically correct?
Will the two popes agree theological or will the German bishops just quit the Church in a schism, supported by the Left ? -Lionel Andrades
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/german-bishops-are-ripe-for-schism.html
ReplyDeletequasi Opus Dei Prelature cometh controlled by fill-in-the-blank.
Lionel continues to think and act as though he has been anointed by God to be the trumpeter signalling the Eschaton.
ReplyDeleteHe’s not a deceitful Hut, at least.
DeleteNor is he a possible liberal Novus Ordo effeminate priest, deacon, CCE or Adult Formation director.
DeleteSo much for the logician, epistemologist, psychologist self-promotion. How quickly all nonsense is exposed as bogus and you retreat to the default position of hysteria, projection and lunatic schismatic drivel. Get help.
ReplyDeleteGet some gender dysphoria therapy.
DeleteEven wondered why you reactively charge in to rescue these poor bloody afflicted clowns like May and others who demonstrate that they are incapable of mounting a rational argument?
ReplyDeleteovember 28, 2018
ReplyDeleteThis is the doctrine the two popes reject : valid Holy Mass but in sacrilege
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/this-is-doctrine-two-popes-reject-valid.html
Gaybriel's abundant rage stems, in tiny part from the knowledge that Malachi Martin was the geneticist and paleontologist that he, Gaybriel, couldn't even dream of being; that Malachi had the intellectual honesty and Catholic sense to seek release from his Jesuit vows; that Malachi performed exorcisms; and that Malachi's sins against the Sixth commandment were heterosexual in nature.
ReplyDeleteThat should have read "semiticist," not " geneticist". Darned spellcheck feature.
ReplyDeleteNOVEMBER 29, 2018
ReplyDeleteSedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr.Anthony Cekada at the Most Holy Trinity Seminary, in Florida, USA offer Holy Mass in sacrilege
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/bishop-donald-sanborn-and-franthony.html
And Barnum can't spell but that's another story.
ReplyDeleteSpelling is the exclusive province of enraged leftist elites.
ReplyDeleteAnd a mix of wild reactive tantrums and fits of pique are mainly the province of Alt Right uberCatholics who's fragile ideology is imploding on them.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteLionel:
I am a Feeneyite.
I accept Vatican Council II.
I also accept Pope Francis as pope.
I also affirm the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.
I affirm other magisterial documents(All the Creeds, Vatican Council II and the Catechisms).
I attend Mass in English, Italian and Latin.
For me the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century were also Feeneyite.So was St. Thomas Aquinas and the popes.
The popes affirmed the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS like me and BOD, BOB and I.I were hypothetical cases for them, and for me, and so BOD,BOB and I.I were not exceptions to what the secular media call the rigorist interpretation of the dogma EENS.
-Lionel Andrades
Monday, December 3, 2018
ReplyDeleteSo I am not saying anything new and neither am I rejecting Vatican Council II. I am citing Magisterial documents and affirming the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.
I have to keep repeating again and again that what I write here is the teachings of the Catholic Church according to Vatican Council II and not just a personal view.
It is a personal interpretation of Magisterial documents in harmony with Tradition, in harmony with the past Magisterium.It is not the interpretation of Vatican Council II according to the leftist media.It is also not the interpretation of Pope Benedict, Pope Francis, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) and Ecclesia Dei.
My interpretation is based on the text of Vatican Council II and the Catechisms interpreted rationally.
Their interpretation of Vatican Council II etc is based on a false premise( physically invisible non Catholics are visible) and false inference( they are visible examples of salvation outside the Church).So I can cite Vatican Council II to support my traditional view.While they can only cite the Council with an irrationality e.g personally known non Catholics saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance (Lumen Gentium 16) are alleged objective exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).Or, there are known Protestants saved outside the Catholic Church in 'imperfect communion' with the Church (Unitatis Redintigratio 3). They are non-anonymous Christians who are exceptions to an ecumenism of return.
They have to presume what is unknown as being known and what is invisible as being invisible to cite Vatican Council II.
So on March 1, 2018 Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj at the Placuet Deo Press Conference cited visible for him cases of non Catholics saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8) as an exception to EENS.
In response to the question by the Associated Press journalist he could have said that the Catholic Church today still holds its traditional understanding of having the superiority and exclusiveness in salvation and the hypothetical and theoretical reference in LG 8 is not an exception.
He did not say this since he wanted a hermeneutic of rupture and the only way he could cite LG 8 was with the false premise and inference.
So for me the Catholic Church in the past and today is Feeneyite.It supports the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS, the past ecclesiology and only an ecumenism of return.
Mission is traditional since all need faith and baptism for salvation ( Ad Gentes 7) and we know most people on earth go to Hell, since they die without faith and baptism.
Since outside the Church there is no salvation, the priority is that everyone become Catholic to save their soul.So it is important to have the non separation of Church and State and the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King in all political legislation of a Catholic State.
So I am not saying anything new and neither am I rejecting Vatican Council II. I am citing Magisterial documents and affirming the traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.
Image result for Photo St.Francis Xavier
It is the present two popes and the CDF who have brought a theological innovation in the Church by using an irrational premise and inference. It is they who must announce that invisible cases of the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are not objective exceptions to EENS as it was known in the 16th century.
I hold the same understanding of mission and salvation as St.Francis Xavier whose feast day it is today. I support my view with Vatican Council II. The Council (AG 7) says all need to be members of the Church with faith and baptism for salvation. This includes those who know about Jesus and the Church and those who do not.-Lionel Andrades
Tell the reader what's really on your mind, Lionel?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeletePeter W,
This is on my mind.
If Irenaus, Ann, Steve Skojec, David Domet,Tancred and others in an organized way announce that the baptism of desire(BOD),baptism of blood(BOB) and invincible ignorance(I.I) refer to hypothetical cases only and they are not visible non Catholics saved outside the Church in 2018 then other Catholics would agree with them. They would repeat the obvious. We cannot physically see any exception to the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ( EENS).
Then the SSPX and FSSP priests could also agree that there are no practical exceptions to EENS in 2018 or over the last 50 years for us human beings.
Then Ecclesia Dei would also have to repeat what is common sense.There are no BOD, BOB and I.I cases in our reality.
This would mean Cardinal Ladaria would also have to admit that he personally does not know any man or woman saved outside the Church with BOD, BOB and I.I. Neither does he know of anyone saved with 'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8).
Then when the bloggers, the SSPX, FSSP and other traditionalists and the CDF agree that there are no known cases of BOD, BOB and I.I in our reality and neither do they know of any any one saved outside the Church mentioned in Vatican Council II and that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3,NA 2, GS 22 etc are not exceptions to EENS, then the two popes would also have to agree on the obvious.
BOD,BOB and I.I are 'zero cases' says the apologist John Martignoni. Many priests here in Rome agree with him.
Then the German bishops would also soon be told by Catholics in Germany that there are no physically visible exceptions to EENS mentioned in Vatican Council II and that it is obvious BOD, BOB and I.I are not objective exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake and the mistake was repeated in Vatican Council II.
So then what will the German, British, American, Maltese and Swiss bishops do ? Are they going to affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS?
Will the German bishops choose schism?
Will the two popes agree with each other and Cardinal Ladaria?
What will be the position of Cardinals Burke and Brandmuller on this issue?
Can a pope who says he will not accept BOD, BOB and I.I as being exceptions to EENS and he will not accept Vatican Council II as not being a rupture with the past ecclesiology - still be a pope ?-Lionel Andrades
DECEMBER 4, 2018
ReplyDeleteSo can a pope who says he will not accept BOD, BOB and I.I as being in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and not an exception, be a pope ? If he rejects Vatican Council II as being a continuity with the traditional interpretation of EENS and an ecumenism of return - can he still be a pope ?
Can a pope who says he will not accept BOD, BOB and I.I as being exceptions to EENS and he will not accept Vatican Council II as not being a rupture with the past ecclesiology - still be a pope ?
Can a pope who says he will not accept BOD, BOB and I.I as being exceptions to EENS and he will not accept Vatican Council II as not being a rupture with the past ecclesiology - still be a pope ? This is the sensational question the sedevacantists will not answer and are all at sea.
The sedes and trads like the liberals have always assumed that the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) referred to exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and so they really were explicit and objective non Catholics saved outside the Church. Fr. Feeney was wrong and Pope Pius XII was correct.
But what if BOD, BOB and I.I refer to only invisible and hypothetical ?
Then Fr. Feeney was correct and Pope Pius XII and Archbishop Lefebvre were wrong.
It means hypothetical cases can obviously not be practical exceptions to the dogma EENS in 2018.We cannot name or see someone saved outside the Church. So the popes made a mistake here.
But it gets worse for them.
If hypotheticals are not exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of EENS then Vatican Council II , LG 8 etc, does not contradict Feeneyite EENS.
Whoops! This is big trouble.
It means the Council does not contradict the past ecclesiology of the Church and an ecumenism of return.It is back to no salvation outside the Church for the popes, cardinals and bishops.
This is a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II and EENS but how can they use it, how can they say, they may ask themselves, that all Jews and Muslism in 2018 are oriented to Hell unless they enter the Catholic Church with faith and baptism(AG 7, LG 14) ? LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc are not exceptions.
So it means all Protantants, Pentecostals and Orthodox Christians are are on the way to Hell since outside the Church there is no salvation and they do not have Catholic faith with the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.
This is a rational and traditional interpretation of de fide teaches of the Church, including those in the Creeds.
The German bishops will rebel.
Will one pope say there are no known exceptions in Vatican Councl II to EENS and the other pope say that this is un-acceptable ?
Will the CDF and the SSPX admit they made a mistake on Catholic doctrine, over the last 50 and more years?
Will some cardinals affirm Vatican Council II in harmony with the strict interpretation of EENS and say that not to do so would violate the Principle of Non Contradiction.
Can a pope or cardinal who rejects this teaching be accused of being in heresy and so not eligibile to be pope ?
Who is going to say that according to Vatican Council II and EENS all non Catholics are oriented to Hell and so Mohammad was lost as are all Muslims today ? This is how I interpret the Council and EENS.
But Cardinal Koch,Cardinal Kasper and Pope Benedict believe all Jews do not need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.They can no more cite Vatican Council II.
So can a pope who says he will not accept BOD, BOB and I.I as being in harmony with extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and not an exception, be a pope ? If he rejects Vatican Council II as being a continuity with the traditional interpretation of EENS and an ecumenism of return - can he still be a pope ?
-Lionel Andrades
ReplyDeleteSchism with the past popes is the norm in the Church and the traditionalists like the present popes are a part of it.It requires courage and sacrifice not to be in schism and they do not have it.
It is non-schismatic with the past popes to say Vatican Council II is II is in harmony with EENS.
But the schismatic norm today is to say that the Council is break with the past.
It is not schismatic to say that the Catechisms when they mention the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I), do not contradict the Syllabus of Errors on an ecumenism of return.But it is schismatic and common today to say that the Catechisms contradict the Syllabus of Errors.
This was the norm for Pope Pius XII and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the popes and traditionalists since those pre Vatican Council II times.
Today to be non schismatic, a Catholic has to say that he affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and also hypothetical and invisible cases of BOD, BOB and I.I.
Instead Steve Skojec at the blog 1Peter5 and Hilary White will reject the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS and support visible- for- them BOD,BOB and I.I. It is the same with Ann Barnhardt and Louie Verrecchio.
Bro. Andre Marie MICM and Bro. Thomas Augustine MICM along with the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary communities interpret Lumen Gentium 8, Vatican Council II as being an exception to Feeneyite EENS. This is schism.
Pope Benedict has said that EENS today is no more like it was for the missionaries in the 16th century.This too is schism.He is saying in public that EENS today is a rupture with the past Magisterium and he supports it.This is also public heresy.
Michael and Peter Dimond like Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada interpret Vatican Council II with an irrational premise and inference to create a schismatic version of the Council. Then they wrongly blame the Council.
So for traditionalists, sedevacantists and liberals the new philosophy is that invisible non Catholics are physically visible. Their new theology is that these visible on earth non Catholics are examples of known salvation outside the Church.There are known non Catholics saved outside the Church and in their religion. So traditional EENS is discarded.On the salvation issue they are in schism with the past popes.
We don't read Chris Ferrara, Michael Matt and Roberto Mattei saying non Catholics need to convert into the Church for salvation and there are no exceptiions,today .Why not? Since there are exceptions for them.Practical exceptions.
If Patrick Archbold wrote the truth it would be schismatic for the political Left, who defacto maintain Catholics in schism.
So for Pope Benedict and Pope Francis not to be in schism, they would have to say that BOD,BOB and I.I do not contradict EENS. Neither does LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc contradict EENS.So the past ecclesiology, an ecumenism of return and the proclamation of the Social Reign of Christ the King is still intact after Vatican Council II.But the popes choose schism.
When John Salza and Robert Siscoe like Bishop Fellay support Pope Francis, they are schismatic.
I choose not to be in schism with the past popes and so for me Vatican Council II does not contradict EENS and neither does BOD,BOB and I.I refer to known non Catholics saved outside the Church.So for me Fr. Leonard Feeney was rational and traditional on EENS while the Holy Office(CDF) 1949 was in heresy and schism.It is the same with the CDF today.It is schismatic on EENS and Vatican Council II.
No one can accuse me of being in heresy since I am affirming all Magisterial documents but in a non schismatic way. John Lament, Thomas Pink, John Rao and Joseph Shaw also affirm all magisterial documents but with an irrational premise and inference to produce a schismatic conclusion.
Fr.Davide Pagliarani, the new Superior General of the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) should use my approach in the second round of doctrinal talks with the CDF.
-Lionel Andrades