JANUARY 12, 2017
Does Fr.Manelli have to affirm a lie to remain in good standing within the Catholic Church, Enrico Tuccillo ?
The attorney of Fr.Stefano Manelli F.I has issued a video and statement mentioning all the charges against his client have been dropped. Enrico Tuccillo has called for unity and love among the two communities of the Franciscans of the Immaculate. I assume the lawyer is a Catholic.He wants to see an end to this division.It is a division created by the Masons.
Fr.Paolo Siano F.I a Franciscan Friar of the Immaculate had done extraordinary research on the Freemason Society.The Masonic Lodge in Italy,which has begun communicating with the Vatican ecclesiastics,has cited the work of Fr.Siano as restricting dialogue between the Masons and the Church, during the pontificate of Pope Francis.
That the Masons are in dialogue is a point to note.Can there be a dialogue with those who support Satan?
However it makes me wonder of the legal advocate of Fr.Stefano Manelli can dialogue with the Vatican ?
There were questions I had asked the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate to ask the Apostolic Signature.1 The same questions can be put to Vatican officials by the lawyer of Fr. Manelli,Enrico Tuccillo.
1) All references to salvation in Vatican Council II are implicit, invisible and hypothetical for Fr.Fidenzio Volpi and Cardinal Braz de Aviz, Prefect of the Congregation for Religious, Vatican. They are not explicit, visible in the flesh and seen in real life in 2014.
a) The Sisters of the Immaculate are not expected to assume that these cases are defacto known to them in the present times'?
Does Fr.Manelli have to assume that these cases are defacto known to him in the present times? If yes, then this would be a deception and a lie?
2) Being saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), elements of sanctification and truth (LG 8), good and holy things in other religions (NA 2), imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), seeds of the Word (AG 11) are implicit, invisible in personal cases and hypothetical for us all.
a) The Sisters are not expected to assume that these cases are visible, explicit and , known in reality in 2014 for them?
If the Vatican expects this of Fr. Manelli and the Franciscans of the Immaculate this would be enforcing a lie?
3) Since all salvation referred to in Vatican Council II are probabilities, and not defacto known in personal cases, they are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism for salvation)
a) The Sisters are not expected to assume that these cases are exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation ?
If this lie is being enforced in the religious community it is not Catholic or just.Is it legal?
4) In the Catholic diocese of Worcester,USA , the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the community of Fr.Leonard Feeney who have full canonical status affirm the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
All salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
a) All religious communities, including the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate can affirm the dogma on exclusive salvation in accord with Vatican Council II (AG 7) ?
The community must be free to affirm the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church without penalties placed upon them. They must not be forced to reject the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) by using a false premise.This would be a lie.
5)The Prefect of the Congregation for Religious, Cardinal João Braz de Aviz and the Apostolic Commissioner Fr. Fidenzio Volpi, made a Profession of Faith, upon taking their new assignment during the pontificate of Pope Francis. They must have recited the Nicene Creed.
In the Nicene Creed they said ' I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin'.
a) They were referring to one known baptism, the baptism of water and not three known baptisms water, desire and blood.?
The baptism of desire is not known to us explicitly and martyrdom is only judged by God ?
b) In the Nicene Creed we pray 'I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church...'.
For Cardinal Braz de Aviz and Fr.F.Volpi the Holy Spirit teaches the Catholic Church that the dead saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us on earth for them to be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors ( on other religions and Christian communities and churches) and Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism) ?
This also applies to the popes and cardinals in 2017.
6) So the Sisters can attend the Novus Ordo or Tridentine Rite Mass affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Vatican Council II ? Ecclesiology has not been changed?
a) Since there are no explicit, visible,defacto, objective, known exceptions in 2014 to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, there is no basis for 'a theology of religions', 'new ecclesiology', 'ecumenism of non return' and 'development of doctrine' on salvation?
Does the legal advocate as a Catholic have to accept all these falsehoods?
7) Cardinal Braz de Aviz and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi do not know the name of anyone saved outside the Catholic Church in 2013-2014?
This can be confirmed also in 2017 with Vatican officials.
8) When the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) says God is not limited to the Sacraments , it is referring to cases known only to God and which are invisible, hypothetical, accepted in theory, accepted in principle (de jure) and not explicit and known in personal cases.
a) So these cases are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus for Cardinal Braz de Aviz and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi?.
Do Fr.Manelli and the lay members of the Manelli family have to accept this? Would this not be a lie and deception?
9) When the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 indicates that all who are saved in other religions are saved through Jesus and the Church, these cases are not explicit for Cardinal Braz de Aviz and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi ?
a) So they are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and the traditional teaching on other religions and Christians communities and churches ?
They are not exceptions one assumes for the rational members of the Vatican Curia.
10) Those who know that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Jesus Christ and yet do not enter and are damned (LG 14) and those in invincible ignorance of the Gospel through no fault of their own and who are saved (LG 16) are hypothetical cases, which are not exceptions to Tradition?
11) Do Cardinal Braz de Aviz and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi affirm Vatican Council II in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Nicene Creed?
Does Fr.Manelli have to affirm a lie to remain in good standing within the Catholic Church?
January 17, 2014
Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate appeal to the Apostolic Signatura for a clarification
February 3, 2015
Traditionalists do not have to be on the defensive and say Vatican Council II is a pastoral Council: avoid the premise and the pastoral Council is dogmatic
AUGUST 23, 2016
Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate are being forced to lie
DECEMBER 27, 2016
Vatican Council II is based on a lie, it is a kind of a theme.eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/vatican-council…
DECEMBER 14, 2016
Catholic professors in Rome now tell lies : pontifical universities don't want to be quoted on a philosophical subject
DECEMBER 13, 2016
PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS FOR A PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY : ASK HIM ABOUT MISTAKES IN VATICAN COUNCIL II
DECEMBER 13, 2016
Troppi errori nel Concilio Vaticano II
Cardinals and bishops do not know the name of anyone saved outside the Catholic Church in 2016. Yet the FMC and FFI had to assume that there are such persons. This is another LIE.
The FSSP and the Institute of Christ the King are allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass since they have chosen to compromise.They have chosen to lie.
I interpret the following terms with Feeneyism and Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz and Fr.Sabino Ardito do so with Cushingism(so does the SSPX)
I use Feeneyism and Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz and Fr.Sabino Ardito use Cushingism.
For me the Baptism of Desire is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.For me Invincible Ignorance is Feeneyite and for them it isCushingite.For meVatican Council II is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.
For me Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.
For me the Nicene Creed is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.
For me the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.
I avoid the New Theology, while they uses it.
For me the Catechism of the Catholic Church is Feeneyite and for them it is Cushingite.-Lionel Andrades
Feeneyism: It is the old theology and philosophical reaoning which says there are no known exceptions past or present, to the dogma EENS.There are no explicit cases to contradict the traditional interpretation of EENS.
Cushingism: It is the new theology and philosophical reasoning, which assumes there are known exceptions, past and present, to the dogma EENS, on the need for all to formally enter the Church.It assumes that the baptism of desire etc are not hypothetical but objectively known.In principle hypothetical cases are objective in the present times.
Baptism of Desire (Feeneyite): It refers to the hypothetical case of an unknown catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is an invisible case in our reality it is not relevant to the dogma EENS.
Baptism of Desire (Cushingite): It refers to the known case of a catechumen who desires the baptism of water but dies before he receives it and is saved. Since this is a visible case or the SSPX it is relevant to the dogma EENS.
Invincible Ignorance ( Feeneyite): This refers to the hypothetical case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.
Invincible Ignorance (Cushingite): This refers to the explicit case of someone allegedly saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church, since he was in ignorance.Since it is an exception to the dogma EENS it is assumed to be objectively known in particular cases.This reasoning is irrational.
Council of Florence: One of the three Councils which defined the dogma EENS.It did not mention any exceptions.It did not mention the baptism of desire. It was Feeneyite.
Liberal theologians: They reinterpreted the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, as objective cases, known in the present times.
Vatican Council II (Cushingite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Cushingism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer not to hypothetical but known cases in the present times. So Vatican Council II emerges as a break with the dogma EENS.
Vatican Council II (Feeneyite): It refers to the interpretation of Vatican Council II with Feeneyism.LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to hypothetical cases, which are unknown personally in the present times.So Vatican Council II is not a break with EENS, the Syllabus of Errors, ecumenism of return, the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite-one baptism),the teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political legislation and the non separation of Church and State( since all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell).
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston.: It assumed hypothetical cases were defacto known in the present times. So it presented the baptism of desire etc as an explicit exception, to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.It censured Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.Since they did not assume that the baptism of desire referred to a visible instead of invisible case.The Letter made the baptism of desire etc relevant to EENs.From the second part of this Letter has emerged the New Theology.
Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( Feeneyite). It means accepting the Letter as Feeneyite based on the first part .It supports Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston.The traditional interpretatiion of the dogma EENS does not mention any exceptions.
Letter of the Holy Office ( Cushingite). It is based on the second part of the Letter.It rejects the traditional interpretation of EENS. Since it considers the baptism of desire ( Cushingite-explicit) and being saved in invincible ignorance ( Cushingite-explicit cases) as being exceptions to EENS ( Feeneyite).It worngly assumes hypothetical cases are objectively visible and so they are exceptions to the first part of the Letter.
Baltimore Catechism: It assumed that the desire for the baptism of an unknown catechumen, who dies before receiving it and was saved, was a baptism like the baptism of water. So it was placed in the Baptism Section of the catechism. In other words it was wrongly assumed that the baptism of desire is visible and repeatable like the baptism of water or that we can administer it like the baptism of water.(The Baltimore Catechism is accepted with the confusion).
Catechism of Pope X: It followed the Baltimore Catechism and placed the baptism of desire in the Baptism Section.
Nicene Creed ( Cushingite) ; It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins' and means there are more than three known baptisms. They are water, blood, desire, seeds of the Word etc.
Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite): It says 'I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins and means there is one known baptism the baptism of water.
New Theology: It refers to the new theology in the Catholic Church based on hypothetical cases being objective in the present times.So it eliminates the dogma EENS.With the dogma EENS made obsolete the ecclesiology of the Church changes. There is a new ecclesiology which is a break with Tradition.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Cushingite): .It refers to the dogma but with exceptions.All do not need to defacto convert into the Church in the present times, since there are exceptions.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus ( Feeneyite): It refers to the dogma as it was interpreted over the centuries.There are no known exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church, with faith and baptism, to avoid Hell.
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Cushingite): CCC 1257 contradicts the Principle of Non Contraduction. Also CCC 848 is based on the new theology and so is a rupture with the dogma EENS( Feeneyite).
Catechism of the Catholic Church ( Feeneyite): CCC 1257 does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction since there are no known exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation. There are no known exceptions, since God is not limited to the Sacraments.
When CCC 846 states all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church,CCC 846 does not contradict the dogmatic teaching on all needin to formally enter the Church. CCC 846 does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which states all need faith and baptism for salvatioon.