Lionel L. Andrades If (B) FSSPX acts and understands in accordance with Tradition and keeps Dogmas and traditional ecclesiology. (C) Francis does not act and understand Tradition and does not keep Dogmas in modern ecclesiology. Then B is not equal to C. You claim that B and C both have ENNS Cushing error (A). If you claim that accepting the EENS error (A) is the sole and main responsibility for crisis and correction condition then since B and C are not equally in evil acts and infection by crisis thereby A can not be the sole cause of crisis since B is not in crisis as is C.

In final conclusion: there are other existing errors to be corrected and heresies to be refuted in order to restore Catholic ecclesiology in Roman-Catholic Church.

It seems you have adopted Horkheimer's (neo-marxist) method of critical theory to undermine all authority of Churchmen who do not comply and advocate Feeyinism.
Lionel: I am precise. I say that invisible baptism of desire cannot be a visible exception to the dogma EENS.This is something and objective which you have agree with me in the past.The present Rector of the St. Anselm University agrees to.
_______________________________________________________

As consequence of erroneous presumption that adherence to Feeynite interpretation is the sole solution to the greatest crisis witnessed in CC history.
Lionel: Precisely.It is a major cause of the crisis in the Church.Since the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a foundational dogma. You change it and you automatically change other doctrine.
______________________________________________________

Especially, I observe you make ardent attacks on authority of FSSPX priests unresponsive to the Feeynite interpretation whilst yourself ignore major Council VII errors not derived from Cushing.
Lionel: I refer to invisible baptism of desire not being a visible exception to the dogma EENS. The FSSP priests like the SSPX priests assume invisible baptism of desire is a visible exception t the dogma EENS. So they also have a faulty interpretation of Vatican Council II.It is the same with the Polish bishops.
____________________________________________________

Thereby, it is the false idea of reducing crisis to only one error as its cause and consequently adopting abstract thinking that its reversal will restore fully right ecclesiology in Church.
Lionel: Precisely. Just one error.Try and see. There can also be a Vatican Council II Feeneyite which is traditional and which is unknown to Fr. Schmidberger.
I have mentioned that Archbishop Gullickson has said that there are no known exceptions to the dogma EENS. I have mentioned this so many times. When will the SSPX dare to comment and admit that they were wrong all these years? When will they have the integrity to say that Archbishop Lefebvre made an objective error even on Vatican Council II?
___________________________________________________

Since there were many heresies refuted in Magisterium actively affecting the present Church and causing breakage of other Dogmas before Cushing error made all amounting to the crisis.
Lionel: This is your opinion and a vague one.
___________________________________________________

Most importantly, philosophical concept errors which have emerged out of revolutions over last 500 years are the main cause of erroneous theological interpretation confirmed in magisterial documents.
Lionel. Pl. be precise for this to be meaningful.
_____________________________________________________

The present errors/ heresies (modernism, protestantization, neo-gnosticism) have all surfaced during period of true interpretation of ENNS, before the Cushing error being published.
Lionel: I am specific in what I write.
________________________________________________________

Therefore it is the logical contradiction to account present crisis to the sole error made after erroneous fundamentals being layed for today's chaos.
Lionel: Pl. be specific. There cannot be any logical conclusion when you are not specific.
_______________________________________________________

Thereon, through this "sole error correction concept" one could falsely deduct that heresies and errors before Cushing's mistake are nonexistent and irrelevant inasmuch do not partake in crisis and in consequence all real errors would disappear after adherence to Feeynite interpretation.
Lionel: I am precise.Pl.do not speak vaguely of the past.
_______________________________________________________

In summary, this sole concept solution is contradictory to reality, prudence and logic. Lastly, accordingly to your concept if Cushing EENS error would be solely responsible for the present crisis than no heresies of the past causing present crisis could have surfaced since Cushing error was nonexistent during their establishment.
Lionel: Define the Cushing Error and related it to Vatican Council II, Catholic Mission, Church Ecclesiology, New Ecumenism, Separation of Church and State....
The solution is simple.
I have given the example of watering the root and the whole tree is nourished. This is what I mean still. Correct the false premise and the interpretation of Vatican Council II changes.
Now Fr. Stefano Visintin osb, former Dean and Theology at the Pontifical University of St. Anselm, Rome says that the baptism of desire was never an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So what has Fr. Schmidberger to say about this ?
Is invisible baptism of desire a visible exception to EENS for him?

Lionel L. Andrades It seems you have adopted Horkheimer's (neo-marxist) method of critical theory to undermine all authority of Churchmen who do not comply and advocate Feeyinism. As consequence of erroneous presumption that adherence to Feeynite interpretation is the sole solution to the greatest crisis witnessed in CC history. Especially, I observe you make ardent attacks on authority of FSSPX priests unresponsive to the Feeynite interpretation whilst yourself ignore major Council VII errors not derived from Cushing. Thereby, it is the false idea of reducing crisis to only one error as its cause and consequently adopting abstract thinking that its reversal will restore fully right ecclesiology in Church. Since there were many heresies refuted in Magisterium actively affecting the present Church and causing breakage of other Dogmas before Cushing error made all amounting to the crisis.

Most importantly, philosophical concept errors which have emerged out of revolutions over last 500 years are the main cause of erroneous theological interpretation confirmed in magisterial documents. The present errors/ heresies (modernism, protestantization, neo-gnosticism) have all surfaced during period of true interpretation of ENNS, before the Cushing error being published. Therefore it is the logical contradiction to account present crisis to the sole error made after erroneous fundamentals being layed for today's chaos. Thereon, through this "sole error correction concept" one could falsely deduct that heresies and errors before Cushing's mistake are nonexistent and irrelevant inasmuch do not partake in crisis and in consequence all real errors would disappear after adherence to Feeynite interpretation. In summary, this sole concept solution is contradictory to reality, prudence and logic. Lastly, accordingly to your concept if Cushing EENS error would be solely responsible for the present crisis than no heresies of the past causing present crisis could have surfaced since Cushing error was nonexistent during their establishment.

Fr.Schmidberger is still sleeping or wants to remain politically correct with Pope Benedict.
September 27, 2012

eucharistandmission.blogspot.ro/…/frfranz-schmidb…
eucharistandmission.blogspot.ro/…/frfranz-schmidb…