Universalis, your very own breviary in pixels...

Friday, 29 July 2016

Does Catholicism Need a Whoopi Goldberg...

... to explain, yeah, but he's not a 'martyr-martyr' ?

1 comment:

Catholic Mission said...



Too many people are agreeing with me.They understand Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a doctrinal and objective mistake. He contradicted common sense and the Principle of Non Contradiction

Too many people are agreeing with me.They agree that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a doctrinal mistake.It was an objective mistake.He contradicted common sense and the Principle of Non Contradiction.

He was correct,Vatican Council II (Cushingite) is a rupture with Tradition but this is only when physically known baptism of desire(BOD) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) is chosen for the interpretation.He accepted this premise( hypothetical BOD was objectively known in the present time) . This was an innovation in Catholic salvation theology.It was a prominent error in the Fr. Leonard Feeney case.

There is no denial from traditionalists and pro SSPX bloggers.None of them are saying that Archbishop Lefebvre did not use the irrational premise to arrive at a non traditional conclusion.

Meanwhile a prominent lay supporter of the SSPX who does not want to be quoted has said that the soul is invisible for man and that we cannot see or know cases of BOD and I.I. So BOD and I.I would not be exceptions to EENS.However this would mean that the Archbishop made a mistake. So even on something so obvious, as not being able to see a person's soul, he does not want to be quoted.

In the previous blog post I mentioned that there are traditionalist and conservative Catholics who agree with what I have been writing.

Tancred(The Eponymous Flower) and Prof.Phillip Blosser, professor of Philosophy at the Sacred Heart Seminary Detroit and owner of the blog Musings of a Pertinacious Papist - agree with me.Even Archbishop Thomas E.Gullickson, Fr.S.Visintin osb, Dean of the Theology at the Pontifical University of St.Anselm, Rome and John Martignoni, the apologist at EWTN agree with me. I am not saying anything new or personal.It is obvious that there are no physically known cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance.

There are many Catholic priests here who agree with me.They say there are no known cases of BOD and I.I in 2016.Since there are no explicit cases of BOD and I.I in our physical reality, BOD and I.I were never exceptions to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.(EENS).

It means not only did Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops make a mistake but so did Pope Benedict XVI in his interview with Avvenire.The pope said that extra ecclesiam nulla salus is no more like it was to the 16th century missionaries. He said there was a development of doctrine with Vatican Council II. He meant hypothetical cases mentioned in Vatican Council II(LG 16 etc) were not hypothetical for him. They were explicit.So they became exceptions to the dogma EENS as it was known over the centuries i.e the strict interpretation with no exceptions.

GOOD NEWS FOR THE SSPX AND SEDEVACANTISTS

There is good news for the SSPX and the sedevacantists.The old ecclesiology, which they support,while excluding Vatican Council II (Cushingite), is not contradicted by Vatican Council II(Feeneyite).

They can tell Ecclesia Dei that they affirm the old ecclesiology ( on an ecumenism of return, and non Christians having to formally convert into the Catholic Church).They would also affirm Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) i.e there are no known exceptions in Vatican Council II ( Feeneyite) to the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS.This is EENS as it was known to Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston and the 16th century missionaries...
Lionel Andrades

CONTINUED

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2016/08/too-many-people-are-agreeing-with.html