Good News for sedevacantists: Vatican Council II( Feeneyite) is traditional.So the popes are not to be blamed
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 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 dogmaextra 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. 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. 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). 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
If the sedevacantists correct the error of the new Prefect of the CDF then Vatican Council II would be in harmony with Feeneyite EENS and the Council will no more be heretical. Then they will not have to blame the popes from John XXIII. Presently the sedes and trads are using the irrational premise which Cardinal Ladaria promotes. So the Council is a rupture with Tradition. The fault lies with them …More
If the sedevacantists correct the error of the new Prefect of the CDF then Vatican Council II would be in harmony with Feeneyite EENS and the Council will no more be heretical. Then they will not have to blame the popes from John XXIII. Presently the sedes and trads are using the irrational premise which Cardinal Ladaria promotes. So the Council is a rupture with Tradition. The fault lies with them and the CDF magisterium and not Vatican Council II. See the following link
Lionel L. Andrades: that helps. I am actually going through a perennial philosophy course from Br. Francis (late student of Fr. Feeney right now, so I can see your points and do have tendency to agree. I do have one more question though, Tradition holds that from the martyrs of Sebastea, one was a last minute converted soldier, who replaced one of the original group of 40 whom had apostasized and …More
Lionel L. Andrades: that helps. I am actually going through a perennial philosophy course from Br. Francis (late student of Fr. Feeney right now, so I can see your points and do have tendency to agree. I do have one more question though, Tradition holds that from the martyrs of Sebastea, one was a last minute converted soldier, who replaced one of the original group of 40 whom had apostasized and died. Does this make any difference? (honest question, I am not trying to change your viewpoint, but to rather, more understand it)
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 …More
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.
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.
