Saturday, January 21, 2017

By now the CDF should have been able to accept that there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II and one has the hermeneutic of continuity and the other does not.


Image result for congregation for the doctrine of the faith membersImage result for Photos Cardinal MullerImage result for Photo augustine di noiaImage result for Photo cardinal ladariaImage result for Photo mons guido pozzo

Vatican Council II is Feeneyite and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith(CDF) must know it by now. since there are over a thousand reports on line on this issue.There are over 900 posts on extra ecclesiam nulla salus on this blog alone.Then there are hundreds of other reports on this blog which indirectly refer to the dogma with reference to Vatican Council II,catechism of the catholic church,sspx etc.



There is Vatican Council II Feeneyite and Vatican Council II Cushingite. So the CDF cannot just keep referring to Vatican Council II, without being specific.
They should clarify when they refer to Vatican Council II that they mean Vatican Council II (Cushingite).
They could also clarify that I interpret Vatican Council II without an irrational premise and so my conclusion is different from theirs. This is Vatican Council II Feeneyite.
It has been a few years, since I have been asking the CDF to clarify if the Society of St.Pius X can accept Vatican Council II(Feeneyite) for canonical status.There is no comment from the CDF,SSPX or traditionalist bloggers.
The traditionalist bloggers and the SSPX have been conditioned to think of the baptism of desire as being explicit and so they infer it is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They have also been conditioned to think that Fr.Leonard Feeney was in heresy, since the baptism of desire refers to explicit cases.
They cannot conceive of the Holy Office 1949 making a mistake by assuming that the baptism of desire is explicit when it really is implicit and invisible for us.So the position of the magisterium in 1949 and that of the Archbishop of Boston was an innovation. It was Fr.Leonard Feeney who was teaching orthodoxy.
By now the CDF should have been able to accept that  there are two interpretations of Vatican Council II and one has the hermeneutic of continuity and the other does not.
-Lionel Andrades

1.

SEPTEMBER 7, 2016


Vatican Council II is Feeneyite and Rome knows it by nowhttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/vatican-council-ii-is-feeneyite-and.html

___________________________________________


AUGUST 14, 2015


I follow the Catechism of Trent in agreement with Vatican Council II and the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/08/i-follow-catechism-of-trent-in.html

OCTOBER 30, 2016


With Feeneyite Vatican Council II the Catholic Church affirms the Social Reign of Christ the King

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/10/with-feeneyite-vatican-council-ii.html

SEPTEMBER 3, 2016


FSSP priests need to change direction : mission, salvation, Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/09/fssp-priests-need-to-change-direction.html



______________________________________________________



St. Peter's seen from the Tiber river

JANUARY 13, 2017


I'm a Catholic on theology and doctrine : the two popes, trads and sedes are irrational, non traditional and heretical

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2017/01/im-catholic-on-theology-and-doctrine.html


No comments: