Utterly devastating

On October 4, 2014 on Eucharist and Mission I posted this report:

False conclusion from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 incorporated in Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church now used by Cardinal Kaspar at the Synod of the Family http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/false-conclusion-from-letter-of-holy.html

Here follows a kind comment on the above blog post, from someone who is not a Feeneyite.-L.A

 

Utterly devastating.

Your careful work is paying off, Lionel.

It is becoming more and more apparent that the root of the many heterodoxies and, indeed, heresies now coursing throughout our beloved Holy Mother the Church is the de facto contradiction of the solemnly defined dogma nulla salus extra ecclesiam, by the ridiculously inadequate expediency of a Holy Office letter.

Astonishing.

But it has happened before.

The exact same expediency was employed to set aside, de facto, the infallible dogmas condemning usury.

A Holy Office letter.

That God may be justified when He judges.

 

__________________________________

 

Michael Mat, Chris Ferrara, John Rao and James Bogle again spoke at a conference and did not mention that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without an irrational premise

Michael Mat, Chris Ferrara, John Rao and James Bogle again spoke at a conference and ignored the fact that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without an irrational premise, with Feeneyism and in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

They do not want to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so admit that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake and so did all of them.

The Latin Mass Society officials James Bogle and Joseph Shaw, will not issue a statement on this issue even though it is directly linked to the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM).

 

At the conference in memory of Michael Davis in England there was no comment or criticism of Prof. Gavin D'Costa saying that Nostra Aetate 2 ' a  ray of the Truth' is an exception to all needing to enter the Church.

When the University of Bristol permits Prof. Gavin D'Costa and the faculty to use an irrational premise, it is a secular lie. http://eucharistandmission.ogspot.it/2014/10/when-university-of-brisol-permits-prof.html

 D'Costa infers on a video on the websites of the University of Bristol and the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales, that those non Catholics saved with 'a ray of the Truth' are in Heaven without the baptism of water.They are visible and known to us in 2014, for them to be exceptions to the dogma. They would have to be visible and known to us in 2014 for them to be exceptions. Otherwise how could they be exceptions? For Gavin D'Costa they are exceptions  to all needing to convert into the Church formally for salvation. He implies that there is known salvation outside the Catholic Church.It is as if he can see these cases alive in Bristol.This irrationality by a Catholic professor of theology in England is acceptable to Michael Mat, Chris Ferrara,John Rao and Joseph Shaw.

-Lionel Andrades

 

Traditionalists do not want to affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Another wasted conference in England today http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/traditionalists-do-not-want-to-affirm.html 

Winter for the Catholic Faith in England http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/winter-for-catholic-faith-in-england.html#links

Cardinal Nicols and FIUV are telling a falsehood. Why do rank and file Catholics have to accept it?  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/cardinal-nicols-and-fiuv-are-telling.html#links

Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce official has nothing to say 

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/05/foederatio-internationalis-una-voce.html

 

Universities in England have a new interpretation of Catholic doctrine : uncontested
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/universities-in-england-have-new.html

 

Department of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Bristol is still teaching an irrationality : even after being informed
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/department-of-theology-and-religious.html

 

Michael Davis, Romano Amerio, Dietrich von Hildebrand were not aware of the irrational premise which makes Vatican Council II a break with Tradition
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/michael-davis-romano-amerio-dietrich.html#links

 

 

http://www.lmschairman.org/

Does Dr.Joseph Shaw who attends the TLM interpret Vatican Council II according to Cushingism or Feeneyism ? Is not Cushingism irrational and heretical ?

Dr.Joseph Shaw attends the Traditional Latin Mass refusing to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the Church Councils, popes and saints.Instead he beleives that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, the political position of the Left, are known exceptions in 2014. So for him all do not need the baptism of water for salvation in England this year. He could name some exceptions in 2014 may be in London.

He infers that the dead saved with the baptism of desire etc and who are now in Heaven are visible and known this year. Otherwise how could they be exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church if they were not known.

This irrationality is acceptable at Oxford University where he needs to teach.It is also acceptable to the Catholic  Bishops of England who recognise the Latin Mass Society, of which he is the Chairman.

The following comment on the blog LMS Chairman was difficult for Joseph. He removed it.

 

Lionel:

At issue is the Traditional Latin Mass. How would a priest offer the Mass? Would he assume that there are known exceptions in 2014 to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus even when he does not know any such exception? He cannot name any such person saved this year.

At issue is Vatican Council II. Would he assume that those who are saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16) or elements of sanctifcation and truth(LG 8) are exceptions in 2014 to all needing the baptism of water for salvation?

Does Dr.Joseph Shaw who attends the TLM interpret Vatican Council II according to Cushingism or Feeneyism ? Is not Cushingism irrational and heretical ?

Did not the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make a wrong inference when it assumed that the baptism of desire etc referrred to cases visible to us in real life and so they were exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

October 7, 2014
Department of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Bristol is still teaching an irrationality : even after being informed

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/department-of-theology-and-religious.html

 

-Lionel Andrades

Universities in England have a new interpretation of Catholic doctrine : uncontested

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/10/universities-in-england-have-new.html

 

Michael Davis, Romano Amerio, Dietrich von Hildebrand were not aware of the irrational premise which makes Vatican Council II a break with Tradition

 Michael Davis, Romano Amerio, Dietrich von Hildebrand  were not aware of the irrational premise which makes Vatican Council II a break with Tradition.They interpreted Vatican Council II assuming LG 16,LG 8 etc were visible exceptions in the present times to all needing to enter the Catholic Church.

Like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops, they accepted this error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 believing that the 'magisterium' could not be wrong. The Letter wrongly infers that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. In other words, these cases are visible and known to us, for them to be exceptions.With this irrationality, the Letter opposed the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Church's understanding of other religions and Christian communities.

 

This information is still difficult for some of the lay members and leaders of the traditionalist movement who held a conference in England for  Michael Davis. Someone objected to the following links, on the blog LMS Chairman, and so they were removed.

Did Michael Davis know ?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/did-michael-davis-know.html#links

Michael Davis, Romano Amerio, Dietrich von Hildebrand were not aware of the irrational premise being used by them in the interpretation of Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/michael-davis-romano-amerio-dietrich.html#links

Book on Vatican Council II ignores the false premise

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/02/book-on-vatican-council-ii-ignores.html#links

-Lionel Andrades

ROCHESTER, NEW YORK DIOCESE: IT IS THE COMMUNICANT'S CHOICE TO KNEEL OR STAND TO RECEIVE HOLY COMMUNION

BOMBSHELL FOR ROCHESTER, NEW YORK DIOCESE: IT IS THE COMMUNICANT'S CHOICE TO KNEEL OR STAND TO RECEIVE HOLY COMMUNION AND HOLY COMMUNION MAY BE DISTRIBUTED BY WAY OF INTINCTION AS AT THE VATICAN

Pope Francis distributes Holy Communion to the lay faithful by way of intinction:

Pope Benedict distributes Holy Communion to kneeling Communicants:

The Diocese of Rochester makes clear that both ways of distributing and receiving Holy Communion are norms for the Diocese!

The Diocese of Rochester may be one of the most post-Catholic dioceses in the nation. Let me change that: the Diocese of Rochester was one of the most post-Catholic dioceses in the nation.

Their new bishop just issued a very detailed description of how the sacraments of the Church are to be celebrated in his diocese with emphasis on preparation for these sacraments and a detail promulgation that the norms for the celebration of the sacraments found in the approved liturgical books of the Church, such as the Roman Missal, be followed. This is a bombshell for Rochester which was stuck in the 1970's liturgically and otherwise.
You can read the entire PDF by pressing this sentence.

But this is but one example that must be sending shock waves through the clergy and laity of this once post-Catholic diocese:

1. Christ’s faithful may wish to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

2. The option of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue or in the hand is the choice of the Communicant, except when pastoral necessity requires that Holy Communion be given on the tongue. Also, one must be conscious of preserving the Blessed Sacrament from profanation.

3. Consuming the Precious Blood from the chalice is also an option and must never be forced upon the people.

4. If Holy Communion is to be administered by intinction, “...The Priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice, and showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (the Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds Amen and receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest and then withdraws.”

Holy Communion by intinction requires the use of a communion plate (paten).

5. “The communicant, including the extraordinary minister of

Holy Communion, is never allowed to self-communicate, even by means of intinction.”

 

http://southernorderspage.blogspot.it/2014/10/bombshell-for-rochester-new-york.html