Did Fr.Leonard Feeney comment on Vatican Council II ?
There can be two interpretations of the Council. One interpretation is with the common false premise and the other without it.Did Brother Francis Maluf MICM, one of the pioneer members of Father Feeney’s religious Order, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise? Did he say that the Council was Feeneyite and so supported the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)?
Brother Andre Marie MICM on the website Catholicism.org has criticized Vatican Council II.This could imply that he was using the false premise at that time. He has also posted articles on Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton and Amerio Romano.
Fenton and Amerio accepted the Letter of the Holy Office(CDF) 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston(LOHO). So they interpreted Vatican Council II and EENS with the false premise. They confused what is invisible as being visible and then projected practical exceptions for EENS.This error is is still followed by the Society of St. Pius X and the sedevacantist communities. Even Ludwig Ott, like Roberto dei Mattei and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, accepted LOHO with the objective error.For Ott unknown cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance,were known and practical exceptions to EENS in the present times.They were literally known, for him. He did not identify the false premise.
It is the same with Brother Thomas Augustine MICM, Superior, at the St. Benedict Center, Still River,MA.They have compromised on Vatican Council II and EENS. Brother Thomas Mary Sennott, one of Father Feeney’s original followers, Charles A.Colombe and Phil Lawler, not know that if LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II would refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only - then the Council would not contradict 16th century EENS. -Lionel Andrades
APRIL 10, 2021 All these years the main line media in the USA and Europe have criticized Lefebvre and Feeney. What will they now do when they discover that Vatican Council II supports the two traditionalists ?
It was not known to Archbishop Lefebvre, Archbishop Thuc and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II referred to only hypothetical cases and so were not practical exceptions to Tradition( EENS, Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc). Neither was this known to Brother Thomas Augustine MICM and Brother Andre Marie MICM, Superiors of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, at the St. Benedict Centers in the diocese of Worcester and Manchester, USA.Similarly the bishops and their Curia in these two dioceses were also in ignorance.
Also in ignorance was Cardinal Richard Cushing, former Archbishop of Boston as it is the same today with Cardinal Sean O Malley, the present Archbishop of Boston. Also in ignorance are the auxilary and emeritus bishops in Boston and New England.
So Bishop Peter Libasci, bishop of Manchester, Fr. Georges de Laire, Judicial Vicar, Meredith Cook, Chancellor and the rest of the Curia, were as much in ignorance as Archbishop Giacomo Morandi and Archbishop Augustine di Noia, Secretaries of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith(CDF), Vatican.
The CDF and Bishop Libasci issued a Decree of Precepts and Prohibitions against Brother Andre Marie and the St. Benedict Center, NH, for not interpreting Lumen Gentium 16 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 847-848 ( invincible ignorance) as being practical exceptions to 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Decree can still be read on the website of the Diocese of Manchester.
Like Archbishop Lefebvre, Archbishop Thuc and Fr. Leonard Feeney, the CDF and Bishop Libasci did not know that LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II referred to hypothetical cases only.So they were not practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS , has held by the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Center, Richmond,New Hampshire. Bishop Libasci and his Curia are in agreement with what I write here and so also Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj, Prefect of the CDF. I keep them all informed via e-mail.
It is possible that they may not want to comment in public.Since they have to maintain the political Left interpretation of Vatican Council II with the false premise.This creates for them and the Left, the needed rupture with Tradition ( Catechism of Pope Pius X, 24Q, 27Q etc ).Without the false premise they would emerge as traditionalists.The whole Church would support Tradition and liberalism would become obsolete. -Lionel Andrades
Did Fr.Leonard Feeney comment on Vatican Council II ?
ReplyDeleteThere can be two interpretations of the Council. One interpretation is with the common false premise and the other without it.Did Brother Francis Maluf MICM, one of the pioneer members of Father Feeney’s religious Order, the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise? Did he say that the Council was Feeneyite and so supported the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS)?
Brother Andre Marie MICM on the website Catholicism.org has criticized Vatican Council II.This could imply that he was using the false premise at that time. He has also posted articles on Mons. Joseph Clifford Fenton and Amerio Romano.
Fenton and Amerio accepted the Letter of the Holy Office(CDF) 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston(LOHO). So they interpreted Vatican Council II and EENS with the false premise. They confused what is invisible as being visible and then projected practical exceptions for EENS.This error is is still followed by the Society of St. Pius X and the sedevacantist communities.
Even Ludwig Ott, like Roberto dei Mattei and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, accepted LOHO with the objective error.For Ott unknown cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance,were known and practical exceptions to EENS in the present times.They were literally known, for him. He did not identify the false premise.
It is the same with Brother Thomas Augustine MICM, Superior, at the St. Benedict Center, Still River,MA.They have compromised on Vatican Council II and EENS. Brother Thomas Mary Sennott, one of Father Feeney’s original followers, Charles A.Colombe and Phil Lawler, not know that if LG 8, LG 14, LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc in Vatican Council II would refer to hypothetical and theoretical cases only - then the Council would not contradict 16th century EENS. -Lionel Andrades
APRIL 10, 2021
ReplyDeleteAll these years the main line media in the USA and Europe have criticized Lefebvre and Feeney. What will they now do when they discover that Vatican Council II supports the two traditionalists ?
It was not known to Archbishop Lefebvre, Archbishop Thuc and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston that LG 8, LG 14, LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II referred to only hypothetical cases and so were not practical exceptions to Tradition( EENS, Syllabus of Errors, Athanasius Creed etc). Neither was this known to Brother Thomas Augustine MICM and Brother Andre Marie MICM, Superiors of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, at the St. Benedict Centers in the diocese of Worcester and Manchester, USA.Similarly the bishops and their Curia in these two dioceses were also in ignorance.
Also in ignorance was Cardinal Richard Cushing, former Archbishop of Boston as it is the same today with Cardinal Sean O Malley, the present Archbishop of Boston. Also in ignorance are the auxilary and emeritus bishops in Boston and New England.
So Bishop Peter Libasci, bishop of Manchester, Fr. Georges de Laire, Judicial Vicar, Meredith Cook, Chancellor and the rest of the Curia, were as much in ignorance as Archbishop Giacomo Morandi and Archbishop Augustine di Noia, Secretaries of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith(CDF), Vatican.
The CDF and Bishop Libasci issued a Decree of Precepts and Prohibitions against Brother Andre Marie and the St. Benedict Center, NH, for not interpreting Lumen Gentium 16 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 847-848 ( invincible ignorance) as being practical exceptions to 16th century extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS).The Decree can still be read on the website of the Diocese of Manchester.
Like Archbishop Lefebvre, Archbishop Thuc and Fr. Leonard Feeney, the CDF and Bishop Libasci did not know that LG 16 etc in Vatican Council II referred to hypothetical cases only.So they were not practical exceptions to Feeneyite EENS , has held by the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St. Benedict Center, Richmond,New Hampshire.
Bishop Libasci and his Curia are in agreement with what I write here and so also Cardinal Luiz Ladaria sj, Prefect of the CDF. I keep them all informed via e-mail.
It is possible that they may not want to comment in public.Since they have to maintain the political Left interpretation of Vatican Council II with the false premise.This creates for them and the Left, the needed rupture with Tradition ( Catechism of Pope Pius X, 24Q, 27Q etc ).Without the false premise they would emerge as traditionalists.The whole Church would support Tradition and liberalism would become obsolete.
-Lionel Andrades