No Catholic who takes the salvation of his immortal soul seriously can ignore the intercessory power of Saint Anthony of Padua. Over and above all of the little things we ask Saint Anthony to find after we have lost them, Saint Anthony of Padua, an exemplary preacher of the truths of the Catholic Faith, must be invoked today in our times under one of his most important titles, "The Hammer of Heretics." We need Saint Anthony's help right now in the midst of the difficulties within Holy Mother Church so that each of us will be fortified by our hidden time in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament and our unabashed expressions of love for the Holy Name of Mary to proclaim the truths of the true Faith openly in the midst of the heretics in the counterfeit church of conciliarism who want to convince us that everything about the Catholic Church prior to the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, must be rejected and vilified and apologized for. Although Saint Anthony is a saint for all days and for all ages, he is particularly apt to help Holy Mother Church in these our days, rife as they are with all of the synthesized heresies that have amalgamated themselves under the aegis of Modernism.Read more >>
[Hat tip to L.S.]
Hammer of heretics?
ReplyDeleteThe doctrinal position of Bishop Bernard Fellay is heretical. He also contradicts the SSPX doctrinal General Chapter Statement 2012 which affirmed EENS with NO exceptions.
Is Bishop Fellay in heresy? In the comments section of some blogs people are ready to say that Cardinal Muller or Archbishop Fernandes are in heresy - but, what about Bishop Fellay? It is unthinkable or un-sayable for them.
Christopher Ferrara has commented on an article in the Remnant Newspaper by Kelly Michaels titled On Using the "H" Word ( it all depends on what this 'this' is).1
Kelly Michaels lists some of the things Pope Francis has said which would qualify for the H (heresy) category.But what about Bishop Fellay?
The link from my blog has probably been removed by the Remnant editor since doctrinal criticism of Bishop Fellay would not be tolerated.But Christopher Ferrara and Michael Matt interpret extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II with exceptions.The Catechism also mentions exceptions(846,1257). The exceptions are there based on hypothetical cases being objective in 2016.This is heretical.Yet this is their reasoning when they say there are exceptions in salvation theology, relative to EENS.Mentioning this in the Catechism was a mistake.It was a mistake made by Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Schonborn.They assumed there were exceptions, in other words, explicit cases of the baptism of desire etc.
If Christopher Ferrara and Michael Matt were directly asked : 'Are hypothetical cases objective in 2016, are there objective cases of the baptism of desire for example?'.They would answer 'NO'.
Yet like Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the SSPX, they assume there are exceptions to EENS and Vatican Council II.They infer hypothetical cases are exceptions to all needing to formally enter the Church for salvation.To be an exception something has to be visible or known in the present times.If something does not exist it cannot be an exception.
This is the mistake they all make.Since, they have all, like Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Schonborn, accepted the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston. It made an objective error. It assumed the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance,referred to explicit cases, known cases of persons, who were saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church.The Letter is magisterial, but irrational and heretical.
Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Joseph Augustine Di Noia (Adjunct) Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Bishop Bernard Fellay,Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X(SSPX) have clearly interpreted Vatican Council II with exceptions.This is an innovation.The result has to be heretical.
It is a rupture with the pre-Council of Trent magisterium which also accepted the baptism of desire(BOD) and blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) - but as referring to implicit cases, and not explicit, known people.
Instead today BOD, BOB and being saved in I.I are considered objective cases, so they become exceptions to the dogma EENS.
This is the difference between pre-Council of Trent and post Council of Trent times.
For me BOD, BOB and I.I are implicit. They refer to invisible cases.So they are not relevant or exceptions to the dogma EENS.
So the contemporary magisterium is in heresy for rejecting the dogma EENS with explicit exceptions and rejecting Vatican Council II with explicit exceptions as compared to my interpretation without any explicit exception...
So the doctrinal position of Bishop Bernard Fellay is heretical. He also contradicts the SSPX doctrinal General Chapter Statement 2012.It affirmed EENS with NO exceptions. -Lionel Andrades
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/the-doctrinal-position-of-bishop.html
It assumed the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance,referred to explicit cases, known cases of persons, who were saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church
ReplyDeleteIt assumed no such inanity. That is a charge you tirelessly repeat in uncountable forums and you never - NEVER - have been able to produce any evidence - NOT ONE SCINTILLA - that that is what that letter either intended to mean or does mean.
You are your own cult
O, and Lionel, consider excommunication your own self from that autocephalic cult in which you exist and return to the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church outside of which you will go to Hell.
ReplyDeleteThat is an irony you are too blind to see, isn't it?
Even Catholic traditionalists are not theologically affirming the truth about Islam.
ReplyDeleteSee the Frequently Asked Questions page on the SSPX website.1.Then go to number 6, 'What are Catholics to think of Vatican Council II ?2 The website shows that the SSPX bishops and theologians did not know that :-
1.The error in Vatican Council II is assuming hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus( EENS). So ALL Muslims and other non Catholics do not need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
1.The error in Vatican Council II is assuming hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.(EENS).This was an error made by the Council Fathers.Even the magisterium like the SSPX does not identify this error.
2.The SSPX bishops error was also assuming hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma EENS, when they could have avoided this interpretation.There was a choice. The choice would be having to say: ' Vatican Council II says Islam is not a path to salvation(AG 7, LG 14).Vatican Council II does not contradict Feeneyite EENs'
3.The bishops error was not interpreting hypothetical cases as being just hypothetical .So they are irrelevant to the dogma EENS. They cannot be exceptions to EENS since they refer to invisible cases. In other words they are not saying that Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) says all Muslims are oriented to Hell without 'faith and baptism' and there can be no known exceptions in 2016.
So who will speak the truth? Who will speak this truth in Orlando or elsewhere? Not the USCCB or Pope Francis!
The baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance are hypothetical cases.So they are not exceptions to the dogma EENS as it was wrongly suggested in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. So the Council has made an error when it refers the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance with respect to all needing faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7, LG 14).This point is missing on the official SSPX website. It is also not clarified in the Catechism of the Catholic Church of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
Also on the page on Vatican Council II(SSPX website) no where is the dogma EENS affirmed as it was known to the 16 century missionaries. Since Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX founder, assumed hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma EENS.
So doctrinally the SSPX website does not affirm traditional EENS. It affirms an EENS in which hypothetical cases are assumed to be explicit, visible in the flesh and then postulated as being exceptions to EENS. Since this was the understanding in the second part of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. Again it changes the traditional Catholic teaching on Islam, by using an irrationality i.e there are known exceptions to EENS for us human beings, even though humanly we cannot know of an exception to EENS.
The bishops and priests, the SSPX page on Vatican Council II shows, were also not aware that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc were hypothetical cases and so did not contradict EENS.
The SSPX also contradicts itself. On the website page Catholic Principles it states :
continued
continued
ReplyDelete2.
2. The Catholic Church is the unique Ark of Salvation
The Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within Her, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics, cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart 'into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Mt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock... (Council of Florence, Dz714).3
Here it says every one needs to be a formal member of the Church(Muslims included) and on the website page 'Fr. Feeney and Catholic doctrine' it states that the baptism of desire is an exception.In other words a hypothetical case is an exception to all Muslims needing to convert.
Here,below) it says every one needs to be a formal member of the Church and on the website page Fr. Feeney and Catholic doctrine it states that the baptism of desire is an exception.In other words a hypothetical case is an exception. 4
It states :
1.But, to make his point, Fr. Feeney went so far as to exclude Baptism of desire (and martyrdom) from the means of salvation. (Lionel:The SSPX does not exclude the baptism of desire with reference to EENS, like the Holy Office 1949, it considers it not a hypothetical but an explicit case to be an exception.So it cannot be excluded.)
2.Here is the crux of the matter, for, although no sacramental character can be conferred without a sacrament, sanctifying grace can be given outside the sacraments:( Lionel:In other words the SSPX knows of some case outside the Sacraments in the past or present .Someone went to Heaven without the baptism of water.This was humanly possible.It was also personally known to someone in the SSPX).
3.Let us finally quote the letter of the Holy Office condemning Fr. Feeney's teaching:
That one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the
Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing. ( Lionel: So the SSPX is saying that someone in 1949 when this Letter was written, knew of someone who went to Heaven without the baptism of water. Or may be someone in Boston or Rome personally knew of someone saved with the baptism of desire.So it was not a hypothetical case.)
So for Bishop Bernard Fellay LG 8 and UR 3 contradict the dogma EENS ( according to website page on Principles), since LG 8 and UR 3 are not hypothetical cases but are explicitly known.5
So he rejects Vatican Council II.
He is not aware that LG 8 and UR 3 are hypothetical cases.
This was also a mistake in Vatican Council II. The Council Fathers should not have mentionedLG 8,UR 3, NA 2,LG 16 etc in the Council with reference to EENS. 6
A.The SSPX bishops and theologians do not know that the error in Vatican Council II is their assuming hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.(EENS).A false premise and inference was made.Sp the conclusion is heretical and non traditional.
B.The SSPX has to be informed that if they avoid the false premise and inference Vatican Council II is traditional on EENS. It supports the dogma EENS according to the website page on Principles.The conclusion is traditional, rational and orthodox.Both A and B are related to a Catholic's understanding of Islam.
Bishop Fellay interprets EENS and Vatican Council II assuming hypothetical cases are objectively known in the present times.The doctrinal position of Bishop Bernard Fellay is heretical. He also contradicts the SSPX doctrinal General Chapter Statement 2012 which affirmed EENS with no exceptions.He is saying not all Muslims need to convert into the Catholic Church in the present times, to avoid the fires of Hell.This is his theological message to Muslims and other non Catholics.-Lionel Andrades
continued
3.continued
ReplyDelete1.
Frequently asked questions about the SSPX
http://archives.sspx.org/sspxf...
2
What are Catholics to think of Vatican II?
http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_...
3.
Catholic Principles
http://archives.sspx.org/SSPX_...
4.
Fr. Feeney and Catholic doctrinehttp://archives.sspx.o...
5.
BISHOP BERNARD FELLAY ASSUMES THEORETICAL POSSIBILITIES KNOWN ONLY TO GOD ARE EXPLICIT IN THE PRESENT TIMES AND RELEVANT TO EENS
The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)
derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)
Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church, which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949". -Bishop Bernard Fellay (April 13, 2014 ) Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82
'Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church'. Why, because they are known cases in the present times? They are explicit for us? So they are exceptions to the dogma?
'The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities.'So what? Why mention it with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? What is the connection with this invisible for us reference and the dogma? Is LG 8 referring to an expicit case for Bishop Fellay?
'The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3)' O.K. But this is speculation with goodwill. This is not a case of someone personally known.So it is not a practical exception to EENs.To assume it is an exception would be subjectivism, something like Protestant situation ethics in morals. UR 3 refers to something which is implicit and not explicit.It is known only to God and is not objective for us.
http://eucharistandmission.blo...
6
SSPX website does not state that Vatican Council made an error : it assumes hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blo...
CONCLUDED
ReplyDeleteThe Magisterial Heresy -1 (Updated June 18, 2016)
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/the-magisterial-heresy-1-updated-june.html
Magisterial Heresy -2 (Updated June 18, 2016)
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/magisterial-heresy-2-updated-june-18.html
Magisterial Heresy-3 (Updated June 18, 2016 )
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/magisterial-heresy-3-updated-june18-2016.html
Dear Doc. What'n'hell was ABS thinking? :)
ReplyDeleteHuh?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete5:20 AM
Amateur Brain Surgeon said...
It assumed the baptism of desire and blood and being saved in invincible ignorance,referred to explicit cases, known cases of persons, who were saved without the baptism of water in the Catholic Church
It assumed no such inanity.
Lionel:
If you accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 then you accept that there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.You accept that the baptism of desire is an exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of EENS.So you infer that the baptism of desire is known for it to be an exception.
You infer that there are known exceptions to the dogma EENS. Since if there were no known exceptions how could the baptism of desire be an exception to EENS?
____________________________
That is a charge you tirelessly repeat in uncountable forums and you never - NEVER - have been able to produce any evidence
Lionel:
You do not accept the Letter 1949 saying the BOD is an exception to EENS? That is the proof.
___________________________
- NOT ONE SCINTILLA - that that is what that letter either intended to mean or does mean.
You are your own cult
Lionel:
I have quoted an Archbishop, priests and an American Lay apologist who support me.It's on my blog.Why don't you talk to them?
They are only pointing out the obvious.
Prof.Phillip Blosser, a Professor of Philosophy at Musings of a Pertinacious Papist and Tancred at The Eponymous Flower agree with me : hypothetical cases (baptism of desire etc) cannot be explicit for us in 2016
ReplyDeletehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/profphillip-blosser-professor-of.html
https://archive.org/details/SourcesOfBaptismOfBloodBaptismOfDesire
ReplyDeleteThat link is for the lurkers.
As for you, Lionel, it makes absolutely no sense to refer to exceptions to a heretical interpretation of Catholic Tradition - Feeneyism - nor does it make any sense to speak of hypothetical cases when Tradition teaches about specific cases but ABS also knows that Ideology can not be overcome by facts anymore than a delusion can be corrected by facts.
The plain and simple truth is that Feeeny was wildly heretical in his personal opinions about BOB and BOD and those who reconciled him to the church without first demanding he repudiate his heresy were acting out of emotionalism and reconciliation sans repudiation of his heresy has done severe damage to the Church and you are just an example of the walking wounded.
https://archive.org/details/SourcesOfBaptismOfBloodBaptismOfDesire
ReplyDeleteLionel:
I have mentioned that the baptism of desire is not explicit and so is not an exception to the dogma EENS.
Prof. Phillip Blosser understands this.This is simple reasoning.
Tancred at The Eponymous Flower understands this. He has agreed with me in the comments section of the blog.
Now ABS you are still sending me another link which says BOD is an exception to EENS.I have read that link before. The sedevacantists and traditionalists have made a factual mistake there . BOD was never an exception to EENS. It was never relevant to EENS.The liebral theologians made it relevant. They re interpreted BOD as being explicit instead of implicit, objective instead of hypothetical. You are looking at this issue with their perspective.This new perspective was sadly approved by the magisterium in 1949.
_____________________________
That link is for the lurkers.
As for you, Lionel, it makes absolutely no sense to refer to exceptions to a heretical interpretation of Catholic Tradition - Feeneyism - nor does it make any sense to speak of hypothetical cases when Tradition teaches about specific cases but ABS also knows that Ideology can not be overcome by facts anymore than a delusion can be corrected by facts.
Lionel:
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 says there are exceptions to EENS and you accept it. It is you who infer that there are exceptions.
For me the Letter 1949 like the Baltimore Catechism 1891 made a mistake. They were perhaps ideological with the Left.
____________________________
The plain and simple truth is that Feeeny was wildly heretical in his personal opinions about BOB and BOD and those who reconciled him to the church without first demanding he repudiate his heresy were acting out of emotionalism and reconciliation sans repudiation of his heresy has done severe damage to the Church and you are just an example of the walking wounded.
Lionel:
Either Fr. Feeney or Archbishop Cushing was in heresy.
One was affirming the dogma EENS as it was known for centuries. The other was saying there are exceptions.
The one who was saying there are exceptions, based on the irrational reasoning, was the one supported by the magisterium in 1949 until today. It was magisterial irrationality. It was a break with the magisterium of the centuries. It was magisterial heresy.You support it?
-Lionel Andrades
Hey Lionel, who looks good to you for the Super Bowl this season? Personally, I think that the NFL rules regarding the inflation of footballs is ridiculous. Let each team inflate to whatever pressure they want. Who cares, y'know? They've got to use them! I used to like those old Tom & Jerry cartoons from the forties. Some people think they're too violent. I think those people ought to take a hike, don't you? My feeling is that all the Looney Toons characters sounded alike. Mel Blanc was overrated. Daws Butler could clean his clock every day of the week and twice on Sundays, har har. Lionel, do you like salt & vinegar potato chips? I can't get enough of them. Sometimes they make the skin on the inside of my mouth peel. Ew, gross, right?? That Michelle Obama is a good lookin' chick, am I right? What does she see in Barack anyway? Big-eared buffoon. I think I know who wears the pants in THAT family, har har har. You got one of them super bright flashlights, Lionel? Hey do they really stop burglars? My uncle Carmine swears that night vision glasses make heretics visible. So waddya think, man? My cousin Shecky sez Eric Clapton really is the greatest blues guitarist ever, but I'm still holding out for Peter Green, ya feel me? Why is it black guys sing the blues better than any white guy ever, but none of them except Hendrix could play a guitar worth a damn? Pretty damn ironic, wouldn't ya say? Hey Lionel, who puts together the better TV dinner? Swanson or Banquet? Cmon man, answer up, I got a fin riding on this with ABS. ABS is a good joe, even though he sucks up wine like a sponge!!! Personally I stick with the hard stuff. Less of a trip to Blottovile, as the crow flies, am I right???? I like to watch The Walking Dead and root for the zombies, better acting and less talk. Well smell ya later, man, let me know about the dinners, ok? I could use a few extra bucks for Peter's Pence.
ReplyDeleteJUNE 24, 2016
ReplyDeleteThe Syllabus of Errors is out of the reality of both popes.So when dogmas and doctrines are thrown out officially and in public by both popes how can they use the teachings of the Church as a measure to judge Medugorje. Whose faith are they protecting?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/06/the-syllabus-of-errors-is-out-of.html