The Franciscans of the Immaculate
May History record well: These terrible days. 15 Cloisters Dissolved: What Remains of the Order of the Franciscans of the Immaculate? eponymousflower.blogspot.com Destruction of the Order of the …More
May History record well: These terrible days.
15 Cloisters Dissolved: What Remains of the Order of the Franciscans of the Immaculate?
eponymousflower.blogspot.com
Destruction of the Order of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate
marymagdalen.blogspot.com
15 Cloisters Dissolved: What Remains of the Order of the Franciscans of the Immaculate?
eponymousflower.blogspot.com
Destruction of the Order of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate
marymagdalen.blogspot.com
- Report
Social media
Change post
Remove post
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
What about the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate who were once considered 'crypto Lefebvrists' why is there no dialogue with them? : Francis-Fellay talks
What about the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate who were once considered 'crypto Lefebvrists' why is there no dialogue with them?
The Franciscan Friars want to offer the Traditional Latin Mass, only like the SSPX. They also want to affirm …More
What about the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate who were once considered 'crypto Lefebvrists' why is there no dialogue with them? : Francis-Fellay talks
What about the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate who were once considered 'crypto Lefebvrists' why is there no dialogue with them?
The Franciscan Friars want to offer the Traditional Latin Mass, only like the SSPX. They also want to affirm the old ecclesiology, just like the SSPX.
Why is there no dialogue with these priests who are not allowed to offer the TLM and their canonical status is irregular ?.
Like the SSPX and Pope Francis they interpret Vatican Council II with the theology of Cushingism instead of Feeneyism. Like the SSPX they reject Vatican Council II interpreted with Cushingism and are unaware of the Feeneyite alternative.
Meanwhile Pope Francis accepts Vatican Council II interpreted with irrational Cushingism, which makes the Council a break with Tradition, and in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).No one has told him that there is a choice and that his irrational interpretation of the Council cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate and the SSPX say that they accept the dogma EENS like the 16 century missionaries, but in reality they reject the dogma theologically, by assuming that there is known salvation outside the Church.For them theologically, hypothetical cases are objective exceptions to EENS.LG 16, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to not invisible but visible cases.They are following the objective error of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
The two popes reject the dogma EENS and say there is a development of doctrine with Vatican Council II.This is first class heresy based upon on irrational inference. The interpretation of Vatican Council II is based on the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology, which assumes there are known people in Heaven or on earth saved without the baptism of water.
The two popes like the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculate accept the new theology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which indicates there are known cases of the baptism of desire etc which are objective exceptions to the traditional Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma.It was Cardinal Richard Cushing who brought in an innovation but they criticize Fr.Leonard Feeney.
The error or mistaking hypothetical cases as being explicit was then placed in Vatican Council II (LG 14, LG 8 etc).There was an objective mistake made in the Letter of the Holy Office and based upon this mistake it was concluded in Vatican Council II( LG 14; LG 8), that there is known salvation outside the Church.
If the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immmaculate interpret Vatican Council II without this irrational premise, the Council will be in harmony with the 16 century interpretation of EENS. This would be objectionable to the two popes and the political Left which controls Catholic theology.
It would mean in Religion Class Catholic school children would affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS in harmony with Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite version).
It would also mean in Ecclesiology classes at the pontifical universities in Rome there would be no known exceptions to the old ecclesiology, the centuries old ecclesiology based on EENS.It would be saying all Jews and Muslims need to formally enter the Church with no exception, to avoid Hell. LG 14 ( those who know) refers to a hypothetical case.Also there being salvation outside the Church refers to a hypothetical case. So LG 14 and LG 8 are not exceptions to the strict interpretation of EENS.
It would also mean all 'heretics and schismatics'(Council of Florence, Cantate Dominio,1441), all Christians, need to formally enter the Catholic Church with Catholic Faith( AG 7, LG 14) for salvation.
Simply by considering LG 16 as invisible and not visible (this is common sense) would cause a major change in the Catholic Church. It would be a return to the old ecclesiology, which is supported by the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculate.This was the original ecclesiology associated with the Traditional Latin Mass and the Greek Byzantine Mass.
-Lionel Andrades
What about the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate who were once considered 'crypto Lefebvrists' why is there no dialogue with them?
The Franciscan Friars want to offer the Traditional Latin Mass, only like the SSPX. They also want to affirm the old ecclesiology, just like the SSPX.
Why is there no dialogue with these priests who are not allowed to offer the TLM and their canonical status is irregular ?.
Like the SSPX and Pope Francis they interpret Vatican Council II with the theology of Cushingism instead of Feeneyism. Like the SSPX they reject Vatican Council II interpreted with Cushingism and are unaware of the Feeneyite alternative.
Meanwhile Pope Francis accepts Vatican Council II interpreted with irrational Cushingism, which makes the Council a break with Tradition, and in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).No one has told him that there is a choice and that his irrational interpretation of the Council cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.
The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate and the SSPX say that they accept the dogma EENS like the 16 century missionaries, but in reality they reject the dogma theologically, by assuming that there is known salvation outside the Church.For them theologically, hypothetical cases are objective exceptions to EENS.LG 16, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to not invisible but visible cases.They are following the objective error of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
The two popes reject the dogma EENS and say there is a development of doctrine with Vatican Council II.This is first class heresy based upon on irrational inference. The interpretation of Vatican Council II is based on the Rahner-Ratzinger new theology, which assumes there are known people in Heaven or on earth saved without the baptism of water.
The two popes like the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculate accept the new theology of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which indicates there are known cases of the baptism of desire etc which are objective exceptions to the traditional Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma.It was Cardinal Richard Cushing who brought in an innovation but they criticize Fr.Leonard Feeney.
The error or mistaking hypothetical cases as being explicit was then placed in Vatican Council II (LG 14, LG 8 etc).There was an objective mistake made in the Letter of the Holy Office and based upon this mistake it was concluded in Vatican Council II( LG 14; LG 8), that there is known salvation outside the Church.
If the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immmaculate interpret Vatican Council II without this irrational premise, the Council will be in harmony with the 16 century interpretation of EENS. This would be objectionable to the two popes and the political Left which controls Catholic theology.
It would mean in Religion Class Catholic school children would affirm the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS in harmony with Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite version).
It would also mean in Ecclesiology classes at the pontifical universities in Rome there would be no known exceptions to the old ecclesiology, the centuries old ecclesiology based on EENS.It would be saying all Jews and Muslims need to formally enter the Church with no exception, to avoid Hell. LG 14 ( those who know) refers to a hypothetical case.Also there being salvation outside the Church refers to a hypothetical case. So LG 14 and LG 8 are not exceptions to the strict interpretation of EENS.
It would also mean all 'heretics and schismatics'(Council of Florence, Cantate Dominio,1441), all Christians, need to formally enter the Catholic Church with Catholic Faith( AG 7, LG 14) for salvation.
Simply by considering LG 16 as invisible and not visible (this is common sense) would cause a major change in the Catholic Church. It would be a return to the old ecclesiology, which is supported by the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculate.This was the original ecclesiology associated with the Traditional Latin Mass and the Greek Byzantine Mass.
-Lionel Andrades
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate are being forced to lie
Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz,President and Fr.Sabino Ardito ,Secretary respectively of the Congregation for Institutes of Religious Life and Societies of Apostolic Life are not allowing Catholics to affirm implicit, invisible for us baptism of desire along with the literal and traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla …More
Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate are being forced to lie
Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz,President and Fr.Sabino Ardito ,Secretary respectively of the Congregation for Institutes of Religious Life and Societies of Apostolic Life are not allowing Catholics to affirm implicit, invisible for us baptism of desire along with the literal and traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite).All Catholic religious communities must accept that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us on earth, we know these cases in real life. This is a lie.1
It is a lie being forced upon on all religious communities including the Franciscans of the Immaculate.This is a lie which is being imposed also on Fr.Stefano Manelli, the founder of the Franciscans of the Immaculate.
All members of the Franciscans of the Immaculate must have the right to be rational and truthful.
They must have the right to affirm the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II (LG 16, UR 3, LG 8 etc) as being implicit and invisible for us and not explicit, visible in the flesh.They must have the right to say that they cannot see the dead who are now saved in Heaven.
All the religious communities, Dominicans, Jesuits, Carmelites , Franciscans, must have the right to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with salvation (LG 14- those who know and do not enter) as being implicit for us and explicit only for God.
So could the Manelli family members confirm that:
1. They affirm Vatican Council II along with the traditional, centuries-old interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation. The text of the dogma does not mention any exceptions. Neither do they know of any exceptions in 2016.
2. Also could they ask Fr.Sabino Ardito and Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz if they affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or do they assume there are visible exceptions known to them in 2016 and these exceptions are mentioned in Vatican Council II.
Are they lying intentionally?
Are they forcing this lie on on religious communities including the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate who offer only the Traditional Latin Mass?
Could the members of the Third Order and especially the Manelli family members clarify this issue personally or ask their lawyer to do so.
According to Canon Law Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz and Fr.Sabino Ardito need to affirm all the teachings of the Catholic Church.
1. Explicit for us baptism of desire is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.
It's a false inference.
I affirm implicit for baptism of desire.
2. It is not allowed to deny an ex cathedra dogma, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible teaching' (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).With explicit for us baptism of desire they are rejecting the dogma EENS, like the rest of the Vatican Curia.
Presently there is doctrinal ambiguity and they use a falsehood to interpret Vatican Council II, which makes the Council a break with the past.
Why must Catholics accept Vatican Council II with this irrationality ? Fr.Lombardi will not answer.
Catholics are being forced to proclaim a lie and are persecuted if they do not conform.This is coercion. It is illegal.
There has been a factual error in the Marchetti Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which the F.I are not obliged to follow.No Catholic should be obliged to follow it.
Pope Francis, Cardinal Muller and Cardinal Ladaria refuse to accept a Vatican Council II in which Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance) are seen as being invisible on earth for us.Instead for them it refers to seen in the flesh cases in 2016.
So they conclude that Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II is a visible exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They want the SSPX to interpret and accept Vatican Council II with this irrationality.(The SSPX is already using the same irrational reasoning but are rejecting the non- traditional conclusion)
This is unethical. It is also dishonest. This is lie by Catholic religious.
Fischer More College and the Franciscans of the Immaculate had to accept these lies to be able to offer the Traditional Latin Mass. 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.
The FFI and FMC were expected to assume that these cases are visible, explicit and , known in reality in 2016 for them. Only if they made this objective error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus could they be allowed to offer the TLM. They had to LIE.
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
TERMS EXPLAINED
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 salvation.
________________________
1.
FEBRUARY 7, 2014
Third Order members of the Franciscans of the Immaculate clarify Cardinal Braz and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi's position : all religious communities must accept implicit or explicit salvation eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/third-order-mem…
Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz,President and Fr.Sabino Ardito ,Secretary respectively of the Congregation for Institutes of Religious Life and Societies of Apostolic Life are not allowing Catholics to affirm implicit, invisible for us baptism of desire along with the literal and traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (Feeneyite).All Catholic religious communities must accept that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visible to us on earth, we know these cases in real life. This is a lie.1
It is a lie being forced upon on all religious communities including the Franciscans of the Immaculate.This is a lie which is being imposed also on Fr.Stefano Manelli, the founder of the Franciscans of the Immaculate.
All members of the Franciscans of the Immaculate must have the right to be rational and truthful.
They must have the right to affirm the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II (LG 16, UR 3, LG 8 etc) as being implicit and invisible for us and not explicit, visible in the flesh.They must have the right to say that they cannot see the dead who are now saved in Heaven.
All the religious communities, Dominicans, Jesuits, Carmelites , Franciscans, must have the right to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus along with salvation (LG 14- those who know and do not enter) as being implicit for us and explicit only for God.
So could the Manelli family members confirm that:
1. They affirm Vatican Council II along with the traditional, centuries-old interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation. The text of the dogma does not mention any exceptions. Neither do they know of any exceptions in 2016.
2. Also could they ask Fr.Sabino Ardito and Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz if they affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or do they assume there are visible exceptions known to them in 2016 and these exceptions are mentioned in Vatican Council II.
Are they lying intentionally?
Are they forcing this lie on on religious communities including the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate who offer only the Traditional Latin Mass?
Could the members of the Third Order and especially the Manelli family members clarify this issue personally or ask their lawyer to do so.
According to Canon Law Cardinal Joao Braz de Aviz and Fr.Sabino Ardito need to affirm all the teachings of the Catholic Church.
1. Explicit for us baptism of desire is not a teaching of the Catholic Church.
It's a false inference.
I affirm implicit for baptism of desire.
2. It is not allowed to deny an ex cathedra dogma, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which Pope Pius XII called an 'infallible teaching' (Letter of the Holy Office 1949).With explicit for us baptism of desire they are rejecting the dogma EENS, like the rest of the Vatican Curia.
Presently there is doctrinal ambiguity and they use a falsehood to interpret Vatican Council II, which makes the Council a break with the past.
Why must Catholics accept Vatican Council II with this irrationality ? Fr.Lombardi will not answer.
Catholics are being forced to proclaim a lie and are persecuted if they do not conform.This is coercion. It is illegal.
There has been a factual error in the Marchetti Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which the F.I are not obliged to follow.No Catholic should be obliged to follow it.
Pope Francis, Cardinal Muller and Cardinal Ladaria refuse to accept a Vatican Council II in which Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance) are seen as being invisible on earth for us.Instead for them it refers to seen in the flesh cases in 2016.
So they conclude that Lumen Gentium 16, Vatican Council II is a visible exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They want the SSPX to interpret and accept Vatican Council II with this irrationality.(The SSPX is already using the same irrational reasoning but are rejecting the non- traditional conclusion)
This is unethical. It is also dishonest. This is lie by Catholic religious.
Fischer More College and the Franciscans of the Immaculate had to accept these lies to be able to offer the Traditional Latin Mass. 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.
The FFI and FMC were expected to assume that these cases are visible, explicit and , known in reality in 2016 for them. Only if they made this objective error in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus could they be allowed to offer the TLM. They had to LIE.
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
TERMS EXPLAINED
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 salvation.
________________________
1.
FEBRUARY 7, 2014
Third Order members of the Franciscans of the Immaculate clarify Cardinal Braz and Fr.Fidenzio Volpi's position : all religious communities must accept implicit or explicit salvation eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/third-order-mem…
One more comment from Lionel L. Andrades
Lionel L. Andrades
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Franciscans of the Immaculate seminarians are taught the new moral and salvation theology based on known exceptions, visible in Heaven
The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (FFI) seminarians attend the pontifical universities ( Anthoniam etc) where they are taught the following in moral and salvation (faith) theology.
MORAL THEOLOGY AT THE ANTHONIAM, ANGELICUM
1) We human beings DO KNOW SOMEONE …More
Franciscans of the Immaculate seminarians are taught the new moral and salvation theology based on known exceptions, visible in Heaven
The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (FFI) seminarians attend the pontifical universities ( Anthoniam etc) where they are taught the following in moral and salvation (faith) theology.
MORAL THEOLOGY AT THE ANTHONIAM, ANGELICUM
1) We human beings DO KNOW SOMEONE in the present times (2016) who is an exception to the traditional moral teaching i.e who is living in adultery, concubinage etc and WILL NOT GO TO HELL.The popes also personally know of someone who is an exception.So every one living in adultery ( irregular situation) is not in mortal sin and has not lost Sanctifying Grace.
2) People in the past knew of exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.Everyone who is living in 'traditional mortal sin' is not on the way to Hell.People in the past have seen someone in Heaven who was an exception to the moral law.
When the reality is:
1) We do not know any one in the present times (2016) who is an exception to the traditional moral teaching i.e who is living in adultery, concubinage etc and will not go to Hell. Neither do the popes personally know of someone who is an exception.
2) No one in the past knew of any exception to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.Everyone who is living in mortal sin is on the way to Hell.No one in the past saw someone in Heaven who was an exception to the moral law.
SALVATION THEOLOGY AT THE ANTHONIAM, ANGELICUM
1) We human beings DO KNOW SOMEONE in the present times (2016) who is an exception to the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.They are excepetions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) which says every one needs to be a formal member of the Catholic Church; every one with no exception needs Catholic Faith with the baptism of water, to avoid the fires of Hell.The popes also personally know of someone who is an exception the dogmatic teaching on exclusive salvation.
2) People in the past knew of exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation, since the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance referred not to hypothetical cases but personally known cases in the present times.People in the past have seen someone in Heaven who was an exception to the dogma EENS. So there is known salvation outside the Church.
When the reality is:
1) We do not know any one in the present times (2016) who is an exception to the traditional teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Neither can the popes personally know of someone who is an exception.
2) No one in the past knew of any exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.Everyone who is formally not a member of the Church in the present times (2016) according to the dogma EENS is on the way to Hell.No one in the past could see someone in Heaven who was an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is not possible for human beings.
This is the error which the Franciscans of the Immaculate seminarians have to accept like all other Catholics students.It was approved by even Pope Benedict.
Pope Benedict confirmed in an interview with Avvenire last month that there were exceptions to the dogma EENS in Vatican Council II and so EENS was no more like in the 16th century.Doctrine has changed on salvation.
Now we have Amoris Laetitiae which says there are known exceptions in judging a couple living in mortal sin ( irregular situation).Pope Francis indicates the concept of mortal sin as held in the 16th century is there no more. So doctrine has changed.
We must remember that Pope Francis closed down the old seminary of the Franciscans of the Immaculate. The priests are still not allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass and their situation is irregular.
The seminarians who attend Mass in Italian at the new seminary in Boccea, Rome( approved by Pope Francis)where formerly the old seminary was located, have to accept the new moral and salvation theology with the irrationality i.e there are known exceptions in the present times to the traditional teachings on mortal sin and salvation.
In other words they are taught that we know of people in Heaven who are there in mortal sin ( they have not gone to Hell) or are there in Heaven, without 'faith and baptism' (and they too have not gone to Hell).
In the 16th century seminary training they did not use this irrationality. They did not suggest that there were known exceptions to traditional teaching and that these exceptions were the general norm, the new norm,replacing the centuries old teaching.-Lionel Andrades
FFI seminary video : How they were
youtu.be/goR7yJMQlQ8
February 7, 2014
Franciscans of the Immaculate seminarians have to accept objective error at Pontifical Universities : approved by Fr. Fidenzio Volpi
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/franciscans-of-…
The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (FFI) seminarians attend the pontifical universities ( Anthoniam etc) where they are taught the following in moral and salvation (faith) theology.
MORAL THEOLOGY AT THE ANTHONIAM, ANGELICUM
1) We human beings DO KNOW SOMEONE in the present times (2016) who is an exception to the traditional moral teaching i.e who is living in adultery, concubinage etc and WILL NOT GO TO HELL.The popes also personally know of someone who is an exception.So every one living in adultery ( irregular situation) is not in mortal sin and has not lost Sanctifying Grace.
2) People in the past knew of exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.Everyone who is living in 'traditional mortal sin' is not on the way to Hell.People in the past have seen someone in Heaven who was an exception to the moral law.
When the reality is:
1) We do not know any one in the present times (2016) who is an exception to the traditional moral teaching i.e who is living in adultery, concubinage etc and will not go to Hell. Neither do the popes personally know of someone who is an exception.
2) No one in the past knew of any exception to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.Everyone who is living in mortal sin is on the way to Hell.No one in the past saw someone in Heaven who was an exception to the moral law.
SALVATION THEOLOGY AT THE ANTHONIAM, ANGELICUM
1) We human beings DO KNOW SOMEONE in the present times (2016) who is an exception to the traditional teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.They are excepetions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) which says every one needs to be a formal member of the Catholic Church; every one with no exception needs Catholic Faith with the baptism of water, to avoid the fires of Hell.The popes also personally know of someone who is an exception the dogmatic teaching on exclusive salvation.
2) People in the past knew of exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation, since the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance referred not to hypothetical cases but personally known cases in the present times.People in the past have seen someone in Heaven who was an exception to the dogma EENS. So there is known salvation outside the Church.
When the reality is:
1) We do not know any one in the present times (2016) who is an exception to the traditional teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Neither can the popes personally know of someone who is an exception.
2) No one in the past knew of any exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma EENS.Everyone who is formally not a member of the Church in the present times (2016) according to the dogma EENS is on the way to Hell.No one in the past could see someone in Heaven who was an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is not possible for human beings.
This is the error which the Franciscans of the Immaculate seminarians have to accept like all other Catholics students.It was approved by even Pope Benedict.
Pope Benedict confirmed in an interview with Avvenire last month that there were exceptions to the dogma EENS in Vatican Council II and so EENS was no more like in the 16th century.Doctrine has changed on salvation.
Now we have Amoris Laetitiae which says there are known exceptions in judging a couple living in mortal sin ( irregular situation).Pope Francis indicates the concept of mortal sin as held in the 16th century is there no more. So doctrine has changed.
We must remember that Pope Francis closed down the old seminary of the Franciscans of the Immaculate. The priests are still not allowed to offer the Traditional Latin Mass and their situation is irregular.
The seminarians who attend Mass in Italian at the new seminary in Boccea, Rome( approved by Pope Francis)where formerly the old seminary was located, have to accept the new moral and salvation theology with the irrationality i.e there are known exceptions in the present times to the traditional teachings on mortal sin and salvation.
In other words they are taught that we know of people in Heaven who are there in mortal sin ( they have not gone to Hell) or are there in Heaven, without 'faith and baptism' (and they too have not gone to Hell).
In the 16th century seminary training they did not use this irrationality. They did not suggest that there were known exceptions to traditional teaching and that these exceptions were the general norm, the new norm,replacing the centuries old teaching.-Lionel Andrades
FFI seminary video : How they were
youtu.be/goR7yJMQlQ8
February 7, 2014
Franciscans of the Immaculate seminarians have to accept objective error at Pontifical Universities : approved by Fr. Fidenzio Volpi
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/franciscans-of-…
mariamargarita
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Immaculate Mary, pray for us.
mariamargarita
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment