Where is the honest priest, where is the honest traditionalist ? From Sanborn to Salza no one answers if LG 16 refers to someone who is physically visible or invisible
JULY 29, 2017
Where is the honest priest, where is the honest traditionalist ? From Sanborn to Salza no one answers if LG 16 refers to someone who is physically visible or invisible
Where is the honest priest, where is the honest traditionalist ? After discussing this issue with a traditionalist from Germany on Youtube he will still not answer if Lumen Gentium 16 on invincible ignorance, refers to a physically invisible case or a physically visible case. Of course we both know the answer and the conclusion. But he wants to protect the error of the Society of St. Pius X on their website titled The Three Errors of the Feeneyites. He also does not want to admit that there was a general error on Vatican Council II. Fathers Laisney, Pfeiffer,Hesse, Pierpaolo Petrucci and the SSPX bishops, LG 16 as referring to physically visible cases.So Vatican Council II(LG 16 etc) is a rupture with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).Then they blame the Council. "Can we see people in Heaven ?" I once asked John Salza. He would not answer. He knew the answer but we both knew what would be the inference which would follow and he did not want to displease the SSPX and other traditionalists.He refused to answer if LG 16 was visible or invisible for him.It was the same with Robert Siscoe. Similarly the sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn would not answer if LG 16 is visible or invisible.After some six months of answering their questions we could not conclude with an answer to this question.They did not want to be quoted.The Dimond brothers at the MHFM act as if they still do not know what I am talking about. Their whole concept of Vatican Council II is based on invisible people being visible.So they do not know from where I am coming from. It was the same with the German traditionalist and supporter of the SSPX who cited the official website of the SSPX.He really was admitting that physically visible cases of LG 16 etc were physically visible exceptions to the dogma EENS.This was always his interpretation of Vatican Council II. Now he does not want to disappoint his friends or admit that he and they were wrong all these years.He does not want to speak the truth in public though many times he admitted the answer honestly during a long discussion.He will not answer if LG 16 refers to invisible or visible people and for the SSPX and Fr. Hesse was LG 16 visible or invisible. These are two different premises and the conclusions would also be different.-Lionel Andrades
FEBRUARY 5, 2014 If Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct or wrong, still imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3) and the baptism of desire are not explicit for us : no clarification still from SSPX Italyeucharistandmission.blogspot.ro/…/if-frleonard-fe…
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.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider could affirm the Social Reign of Christ the King and the old ecumenism without rejecting Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) : instead Bishop Fellay is asked to reconcile with Vatican Council (Cushingite) and EENS(Cushingite) which is heretical eucharistandmission.blogspot.ro/…/bishop-athansiu…
