Sunday, April 8, 2012

DID THE POPE REALLY DENY THE FAITH ON THE NEED FOR JEWS TO CONVERT ?

Yesterday on a blog I was accused of being a liar because I said Pope Benedict XVI said Jews do not have to convert in the present time. (1) The writer (Jabba Papa) quoted the relevant passage. He denied that the pope had made that statement under pressure from the Zionists.

Here is the passage in which the Holy Father dismisses the Nicene Creed, the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7). According to the teachings of the Church any religious in this position is automatically excommunicated. Catholics have suffered persecution for not denying this very truth of our Faith. The Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) could be excommunicated this month for not affirming the same ‘heresy?’ as the pope. They have to accept the Jewish Left version of Vatican Council II and cannot say that they affirm Vatican Council II in accord with Tradition and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

1. JabbaPapa says:

April 7, 2012 at 16:10
Pope Benedict XVI in Light of the World-Conversations with Peter Seewald saysJews do not have to convert in the present times.

Do you think that it is an appropriate manner to celebrate the Resurrection of our Lord to post blatant lies about the Holy Father?

Here’s what the Pope wrote:

The old formulation really was offensive to Jews and failed to express positively the overall intrinsic unity between the Old and New Testament. For this reason, I believed that a modification of this passage in the old liturgy was necessary, especially, as I have already said, out of consideration for our relation with our Jewish friends. I altered the text in such a way as to express our faith that Christ is the Savior for all, that there are not two channels of salvation, so that Christ is also the redeemer of the Jews, and not just of the Gentiles.

But the new formulation also shifts the focus from a direct petition for the conversion of the Jews in a missionary sense to a plea that the Lord might bring about the hour of history when we may all be united. So the polemical arguments with which a whole series of theologians assailed me are ill-considered; they do not accurately reflect the reality of the situation.

In other words, rather than these mendacious claims that you have posted being accurate — the exact opposite is true, and in that book, Pope Benedict XVI has called for the conversion of the Jews.

You should be utterly ashamed for posting these sorts of lies on the eve of Easter.

2. Lionel Andrades says:

April 7, 2012 at 16:42

Jabba Papa:

Here’s what the Pope wrote :

The old formulation really was offensive to Jews and failed to express positively the overall intrinsic unity between the Old and New Testament.

Lionel:
It was offensive to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel in public they broke dialogue with the Vatican.

Pope Benedict XVI:
For this reason, I believed that a modification of this passage in the old liturgy was necessary, especially,

Lionel:
So because of the protests the Holy Father thought a modification of the passage was necessary.

Pope Benedict XVI:
as I have already said, out of consideration for our relation with our Jewish friends.

Lionel:
And to prevent the reported threat of violence and further protests reported in the media…

Pope Benedict XVI:
I altered the text in such a way as to express our faith that Christ is the Savior for all,
Lionel:
Here there is no problem. Christ is the Saviour of all.
Pope Benedict XVI:
that there are not two channels of salvation,

Lionel:
Here is the problem .
There is only one channel for the pope and this channel is that all who are saved are saved by Christ.Fine, except the centuries old one channel was Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.

There can be those saved in their religion and this is not an exception to the dogma which referred to the one channel of salvation. So there really is one channel and all Jews need to enter it with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. This means the need to convert in the present time. The pope says they do not have to convert.
Conceptually, vaguely he says all those who are saved are saved by Christ.
Pope Benedict XVI:
so that Christ is also the redeemer of the Jews, and not just of the Gentiles.
Lionel: This is not an issue. This was accepted.
The question is: Christ is also the redeemer of the Jews and not just of the Gentiles and does it mean that all Jews do not have to convert in the present time?
Pope Benedict XVI:
But the new formulation also shifts the focus from a direct petition for the conversion of the Jews in a missionary sense
Lionel:
‘Shifts the focus from a direct petition for conversion’????
‘I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin’-Nicene Creed. Except for the Jews in 2012. Not applicable for them?
Jabba:
to a plea that the Lord might bring about the hour of history when we may all be united. So the polemical arguments with which a whole series of theologians assailed me are ill-considered; they do not accurately reflect the reality of the situation.
In other words, rather than these mendacious claims that you have posted being accurate — the exact opposite is true, and in that book, Pope Benedict XVI has called for the conversion of the Jews.
Lionel:
‘Shifts the focus from a direct petition for conversion’????-Pope Benedict XVI
____________________________________________

'I modified it in such a way that… one did not pray directly for the conversion of the Jews…but that the Lord might hasten the historic hour in which we will all be united.'- Light of the World-Conversations with Peter Seewald (Ignatius) p.107

'one did not pray directly for the conversion of the Jews' since they do not have to convert to avoid Hell it is implied and that they will be saved in general in their religion.
On Sept 22,2009 Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco,President of the Italian Catholic Bishops Conference (CEI) before two Jewish rabbis gave into pressure by them and issued a CEI directive which said that Jews do not have to convert in the present times.The Cardinal stated that he had the support of the Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone and the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI. There has been no contradiction from the Vatican.

Cardinal Bertone also had called the attention of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel to a front page article in the L'Osservatore Romano written by Cardinal Walter Kaspar in which he stated Jews do not have to convert in the present time.The cardinal issued the statement on Sept.22,2009 .It was reported in the daily Avvenire, on Sept.23, 2009

The front page article (April 10, 2008) in the L’Osservatore Romano was written by Cardinal Walter Kaspar.It was presented to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State. It was approved by the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI.The article said that Vatican Council II indicated that non Catholics can be saved. So Cardinal Kaspar concluded that Jews do not have to convert in the present times.

Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine and Faith, Vatican never issued a clarification on Sept 22,2009 when Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco quoted Cardinal Bertone saying that the Revised Good Friday Prayer was not for the conversion of the Jews and Jews do not have to convert.
The Revised Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews was not for the conversion of present day Jews the daily newspaper of the Italian Bishops Conference Avvenire reported (' Gironata ebraico-cristiana riprende la celebrazione commune Bagnasco ai rabbinic Laras e Di Segni : diamo nuovo slancio al dialogo di Lorenzo Rosoli p. 8, Chiesa).- Lionel Andrades
1.
catholicismpure.wordpress.com/…/communique-conc…

Friday, April 6, 2012

ANIVERSARY OF THE DENIAL OF THE FAITH BY THE MAGISTERIUM ?

If a Catholic priest, bishop or cardinal denies a teaching of the Church which must be ‘firmly believed’ he is automatically excommunicated.Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Bertone as President and Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith excommunicated a Sri Lankan OMI priest for denying the Immaculate Conception o f Our Lady.

Pope Benedict XVI in Light of the World-Conversations with Peter Seewald says Jews do not have to convert in the present times. Pope Benedict XVI says that he has revised the ancient liturgy (on Good Friday) so that it does not say that Jews need to convert in the present times but that they will convert in a future time (eschatological time).
So he is saying that he has revised the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews which now says Jews do not have to convert in the present times.(1) This is a rejection of the Nicene Creed in which we pray “I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin”.Jews do need the baptism of water in the present time.
The pope is saying that without the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith, Jews in general, are saved in their religion.
Vatican Council II mentions the possibility of non Catholics being saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience etc. It does not state that they are saved in general in their religion. Since in general the normal means of salvation is Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.(AG 7).
The Vatican recieved a threat from the Chief Rabbinate and the Goverment of Israel over the issue of the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of Jews it was reported in the secular newspapers here.There was the threat of war. The pope diffused the tension with a front page report in the L’Osservatore Romano in which it was said that Jews do not have to convert in the present time.
This message was repeated in Light of the World-Conversations with Peter Seewald (Ignatius Press). The pope told Seewald that there is only one means of salvation and all who are saved are saved through Jesus.True. However this can also be a partial truth and denial of a defined dogma offensive to the Jewish Left.Offensive to the pro-Sodom and Gomorrah Zionists posing as Jews.Yes all those who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church, Jesus' Mystical Body, however every one needs to enter the Church with the baptism of water and Catholic Faith (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II, dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,Dominus Iesus 20 etc).
The pope and his Curia have put away the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which Pope Pius XII called an ‘infallible teaching’.

In the same book the pope mentioned an exception to the prohibited use of condoms, an issue already being supported before by the liberal English bishops.The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) issued a clarification saying that in general the Church has not changed its teaching on condoms. The CDF never issued a clarification to the popes comments on the Jews in that same book.
1.Do Jews do not need to convert in the present times to avoid Hell?The pope says no. The CDF says nothing.
2.Do all Jews need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation?(AG 7 etc).The pope says no. The CDF says nothing.
3.Do all Jews need to convert into the Church for salvation ?(Cantate Domino, Council of Florence. Defined dogma).The pope says no. The CDF is silent.
The Bible says Jews need to convert. The pope says...
The Jewish Anti Defamation League(ADL) claims the Church has changed its teaching regarding Jews and Judaism.This claim is made in the ADL Bearing Witness education program for Catholic schools.The CDF ignores it. The USCCB implements the ADL program in Catholic schools.
The secular newspapers imply that those who are saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc are known exceptions to the dogma ( and to Vatican Council II, AG 7). The Magisterium is silent.
Vatican Council II in reality says Jews need to convert for salvation.The Society of St.Pius X in reality accepts this teaching and interpretation of Vatican Council II. The SSPX is condemned.They are condemned for rejecting the Jewish Left interpretation of Vatican Council II. The Magisterium will not state like Vatican Council II,Ad Gentes 7 that Jews need to convert.The Magisterium will not affirm the Catholic Faith.
Do we pray or do we not pray for the Conversion of the Jews? At the Good Friday Service I attended today afternoon they did not mention that Jews need to convert into the Church. There was a vague mention, a hope, that Jews will know the fullness of Redemption in Jesus Christ.
The popes says they are saved in the present times.Now if the SSPX does not say the same thing they soon could be excommunicated according to the March 16 Vatican statement.
In the name of ecumenism and the one world religion the Catholic Teaching Authority could be told to excommunicate the SSPX if they do not accept the prevailing heresy. Once this is done the enemies of the Church will demand even more. The Vatican could be told to give up devotion to Our Lady and say the Mass is not a Sacrifice.
The pope has already said that in the case of the Brazilian girl there was an exception to abortion.(Cardinal Bertone and Mnsgr.Fisichella said they were instructed by the pope).The CDF issued a general statement saying there was no change in the church’s teaching on abortion.Obviously the Yes and NO position on Limbo was also useful for the media.
In the rejection of a defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , Vatican Council II and the Nicene Creed the pope and his Curia stand automatically excommunicated according to the teachings of the Church always upheld by them.What would be the credibility in excommunicating the SSPX bishops for denying the Jewish Left version of Vatican Council II when they themself deny in public teachings which merit excommunication?
How can they excommunicate the SSPX for denying the Jewish Left version of Vatican Council II which claims Jews do not have to convert into the Catholic Church ?
I am not a member of the SSPX and I attend Mass in Italian.The Traditional Latin Mass is not available for me in the area where I live.Neither is it available in the evenings daily in the centre of Rome.I reject Vatican Council II as interpreted by the ADL and its allies.I accept Vatican Council II as a continuation of Tradition and in accord with the literal interpretation of the defined
dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.i.e the Catholic Church says Jews need to convert for salvation (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II) and Catholics are the Chosen people of God, the ‘new people of God’(Nostra Aetate 4, Vatican Council II).

SAD HISTORY
On Sept 22,2009 Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco,President of the Italian Catholic Bishops Conference (CEI) before two Jewish rabbis gave into pressure by them and issued a CEI directive which said that Jews do not have to convert in the present times.The Cardinal stated that he had the support of the Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone and the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI. There has been no contradiction from the Vatican.
Cardinal Bertone also had called the attention of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel to a front page article in the L'Osservatore Romano written by Cardinal Walter Kaspar in which he stated Jews do not have to convert in the present time.The cardinal issued the statement on Sept.22,2009 .It was reported in the daily Avvenire, on Sept.23, 2009 the feast day of Padre Pio.

Father Tullio Rotondo an Italian diocesan priest in a an e-mail message to me said that the cardinal’s statement was contary to the Bible in which all Jews are called to conversion.Fr.Rotondo said that Jesus had called all people to convert, especially the Jews. Jesus had sent His Apostles to convert all people.Fr.Rotondo referred to Bible passages Matt.3:2.Matt.4:17,Matt.11:20, Matt.12:41,Matt.13:15,Matt 18:3,Mark 1:15,Marck 4:12, Mark 6:12,Luk 5:32, Luke 10:30,Luke 11:32,Luk 13:3,Luke 13:5,Luke 15:7,Luke 15:10,John 12:40,Acts 3:26,9:35,Acts.20:21,Acts.26:20,Acts.28:27,2 Tim.2:25.
The above Biblical quotations Fr.Tullio Rotondo said help us understand that first and foremost the Jews need to convert and then the others. It makes us understand that we must preach for the conversion of the Jews and we must pray and appeal to the saints for this conversion.
We pray also for the conversion of the cardinals, he said, who say things that appear scandalous and contrary to the Sacred Faith. Don Tullio said that he is praying also that the Holy Father intervenes.Don Tullio said that we must fight also in the Church of God, for the Truth.
Pope Benedict XVI tells Seewad that he revised the Good Friday Prayer ‘in such a way that it contained our faith, that Christ is salvation for all.’ (This of course does not say that all Jews are on the path to Hell unless they convert as the Church has taught for centuries. This was the one way of salvation) The pope says ‘that there do not exist two ways of salvation’( The pope indicates there is only one way of salvation and Jews are saved in general through this one way; Christ and the Church, and so they do not have to convert. Catholic priests have pointed out that we do not know any case of a non Catholic saved by Jesus and the Church. There is no case of implicit salvation which is explicit for us. The dogma says everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Church. So the pope’s one way of salvation is a strawman) The pope continues ‘and that therefore Christ is also the saviour of the Jews, and not only of the pagans ‘(Christ is the Saviour of the Jews and pagans and they are saved, even if they do not enter the Catholic Church? Pope John Paul II’s Dominus Iesus n.20 says Jesus has died for all but to receive this salvation they need to enter the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 says that the Church is like a door in which all need to enter, Ad Gentes 7 says all need baptism for salvation).
The front page article (April 10, 2008) in the L’Osservatore Romano was written by Cardinal Walter Kaspar.It was presented to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State. It was approved by the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI.

The article said that Vatican Council II indicated that non Catholics can be saved. So Cardinal Kaspar concluded that Jews do not have to convert in the present times.

Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine and Faith, Vatican never issued a clarification on Sept 22,2009 when Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco quoted Cardinal Bertone saying that the Revised Good Friday Prayer was not for the conversion of the Jews and Jews do not have to convert.
The Revised Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews was not for the conversion of present day Jews the daily newspaper of the Italian Bishops Conference Avvenire reported (' Gironata ebraico-cristiana riprende la celebrazione commune Bagnasco ai rabbinic Laras e Di Segni : diamo nuovo slancio al dialogo di Lorenzo Rosoli p. 8, Chiesa).
1. Pope Benedict approved the article written on the front page of the L’Osservatore Romano by Cardinal Kaspar and sent to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. The message was Jews do not have to convert in the present times. Also it was alleged that this was taught in Vatican Council II.
2. Pope Benedict approved the meeting of Cardinal Bagnasco with the two Rabbis when Bagnasco issued a directive of the Conference of Catholic Bishops saying that Jews do not have to convert in the present times. Bagnasco claimed that it had the support of the Pope.
3. The pope approved Cardinal Bertone’s claim to the Chief Rabbinate through a Letter, public, that we Catholics had a belief in Jesus. (That was about all). And that the Chief Rabbinate had read the article by Cardinal Kaspar which said Jews do not have to convert in the present times.
This new teaching was been given to us after protests were made by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Jewish Left. Dialogue with the Vatican was suspended. The issue was the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of Jews.
Pope Benedict XVI is my pope and I pray for him. I would not dare to make any comments on his personality or character. I try to restrict myself to theology and doctrine.We need to be united with him during these times.It is possible that he can change the present errors .- Lionel Andrades

1.
I modified it in such a way that… one did not pray directly for the conversion of the Jews…but that the Lord might hasten the historic hour in which we will all be united.-Light of the World-Conversations with Peter Seewald (Ignatius) p.107

New magisterium could excommunicate SSPX for denying Vatican Council II when they say Jews need to convert and Catholics are the Chosen People of God.

The pope was forced to say that Bishop Richard Williamson had to accept the six million Holocaust figure, even though initially the Vatican spokesman said the bishop was free to have an opinion. Probably this was the initial view of Pope Benedict.

Then after worldwide political pressure he had to announce that the Good Friday Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews was not for their conversion. Then he said that Jews do not have to convert in the present time.

Now he is being forced to excommunicate the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX).

Years back he did away with the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Neither did he correct the error of the Archbishop of Boston on invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

Vatican Council II unlike the ADL- magisterium for the Catholic Church says Catholics are ‘the new people of God’(Nostra Aetate 4) and that Jews and other non Catholics need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to avoid Hell(for salvation).(Ad Gentes 7).

The ADL magisterium wants the SSPX excommunicated and the Vatican has issued a statement indicating just that.

What an age we live in! The pope says that Jews do not have to convert in the present times, a Catholic bishop cannot say that 5,999,999 or less people died in the terrible holocaust and the SSPX can be excommunicated for saying Jews need to convert and that Catholics are the Chosen People of God, according to Vatican Council II.

The new magisterium could excommunicate the SSPX for denying Vatican Council II when they say Jews need to convert for salvation and Catholics are the new people of God.

The SSPX has to state in public that they accept a Vatican Council II which says Jews do not have to convert and that Jews are the Chosen People of God even though there is no text in Vatican Council II which makes this claim.

Unless the SSPX accepts this Jewish Left version of Vatican Council II they are likely to be excommunicated by the magisterium this month, with the approval of the ADL and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel.-Lionel Andrades

It’s time for cardinal, bishops and traditional religious groups to say openly that they accept Vatican Council II and reject the Jewish Left interpretation of the Council.

For instance on the subject of other religions, why do we have to accept new doctrine which is not even there in Vatican Council II?

They could clarify the issue point by point .Begin with the subject of ‘other religions’.

Interpretation 1: Vatican Council II says non Catholics do not have to convert in general for salvation. (LG 16).

Interpretation II: Vatican Council II says non Catholics need to convert in general for salvation (Ad Gentes 7, LG 14).

Interpretation II is the traditional teaching which the SSPX also endorses.

So the SSPX accepts Vatican Council II?

If the SSPX accepts Interpretation 2 then clarify it in public.

Interpretation 1. Vatican Council II says those saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience, the seeds of the word are EXPLICIT EXCEPTIONS to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and to Ad Gentes 7 i.e all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation.

Interpretation 2: Vatican Council II says those saved in invincible ignorance etc are possibilities known to only God. There are no explicit exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Call a Press Conference and clarify this issue or hold a conference and discuss the issue in public.

The doctrinal talks were held in secret. This is all just like a secret society, the Freemasons.

Cardinal Donald Wuerl and the US bishops give the Eucharist to pro abortion politicians, homosexuals and lesbians. Cardinal Wuerl was made a cardinal. The SSPX rejects Cardinal Sean O Malley and the ADL‘s interpretation of Vatican Council II and they are threatened in public with a second excommunication.

It’s time for cardinal, bishops and religious communities to openly say that they accept Vatican Council II and reject the Jewish Left interpretation of the Council: they affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in accord with Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14)

Affirm Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) as a possibility known only to God so it is not in conflict with the dogma or the literal interpretation of outside the church no salvation.

Since LG 16 is not explicitly known Vatican Council II affirms the literal interpretation of the defined dogma.

This is also the interpretation of all the Catechisms, including the present one, Vatican Council I and II, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 ( it refers to ‘the dogma’) other magisterial documents and Fr. Leonard Feeney of Boston who was not excommunicated for heresy.He was not excommunicated for saying the same thing as Vatican Council II and the dogma.

It is time to give a testimony of the Faith in public and affirm Vatican Council II, we accept Tradition ,we reject the Jewish Left version of the our Catholic Faith. Lionel Andrades

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Fr.James Martin S.J does not say the popes, the Bible and Jesus were anti-Semitic

Fr. James Martin, SJ in The Anti-Semitism of the Society of St.Pius X (Jan 31, 2009 America ) asks why would the pope move to lift the ban on a group that has as its raison d’etre the rejection of the Second Vatican Council which is an ecclesial-theological issue. He says this is a rejection of the documents of the Second Vatican Council, which includes a rejection of Nostra Aetate.

I think the SSPX in reality does not reject Vatican Council II according to the texts of the Council.Nostra Aetate 4 says the Church is' the new people of God'. While Ad Gentes 7 states all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. This includes Jews.
Is Vatican Council II now anti Semitic for this Jesuit priest ?

SSPX is affirming Nostra Aetate 4 and Ad Gentes 7 even though they say they reject Vatican Council II. They reject Vatican Council II as interpreted by the Jewish Left.

Fr.Martin is really saying the SSPX rejects the documents of the Council, which includes Nostra Aetate, as interpreted by the Jewish Left.

There is no text in Nostra Aetate which says Jews do not have to convert or that Jews are saved in general in their religion.That Catholics should have good relations with the Jews and others was taught to us by Jesus and it is explained in the Bible long before Vatican Council II.

So from the ecclesial-theological view the SSPX are in accord with Vatican Council II

Regarding other points against the SSPX, as being anti Semitic,some of the quotations are those of the popes. Other information comes from the Bible.

Fr.Martin does not say that the popes, the Bible and Jesus were anti-Semitic.
-Lionel Andrades

www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Cardinal Luis Ladaria S.J Secretary Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does away with the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Limbo and Original Sin in the International Theological Commission position papers: CDF expects the Society of St.Pius X to accept all this

The International Theological Commission (ITC) has done away with the centuries-old literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The ITC places invincible ignorance as an explicit exception to the dogma. The passage quoted does not say that it is an explicit exception to the dogma or that these cases are known to us but ITC assumes that it refers to an exception to the dogma. (1)

Then the ITC says that the Church is only necessary for those who believe and know about Jesus (LG 14) and not for all people. The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II says all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation. The ITC says only those who know.(2)

The ITC assumes that those who are in invincible ignorance and who can be saved ‘in certain circumstances’(Letter of the Holy Office 1949) are known to the ITC firstly, for them to be an exception to the dogma. Secondly the ITC is sure that these few cases could not receive the baptism of desire or that God could not send a preacher to them as St.Thomas Aquinas taught.The ITC assumes that they are taken up to Heaven without the baptism of water and so they are saved with Original Sin on their soul and that ITC knows who these cases are. Since ITC knows who is in invincible ignorance and saved on earth they probably assume that we know who knows about Jesus and the Church are saved ( even if they they have committed mortal sins we do not know about).

So Cardinal Luis Ladaria S.J (3) assumes that they are saved without the baptism of water and the ITC also knows who these cases are. So this is a rejection of the need to remove Original Sin in at least these few cases. They are saved without the baptism of water and the ITC knows these particular cases.For the rest of us ordinary Catholics these are hypothetical cases known only to God and the manner in which they are saved are known ONLY to God.

So the ITC has got rid of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, assumed that there are known cases of adults who are saved with Original Sin and without the baptism of water and since they know these cases saved, without the baptism of water, they assume that all infants can be saved because they are innocent and ignorant. In the final step the ITC issues a theological paper which speculates that there is no Limbo.

All this speculation began with the ITC assuming that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not known only to God but they are known to us humans. This is irrational. It is also a new teaching.

Here is the process again:

1.There can be non Catholics saved with visible baptism of desire and invincible ignorance and they are known to us as they live now in Heaven. Since we know these specific cases in heaven and on earth, they are exceptions to the dogma outside the church no salvation.

This seems ludicrous but please bear with me. This is serious stuff on a Vatican website.

2.Since there are these known and visible cases of non Catholics saved and known to us in Heaven Cardinal Luis Ladaria assumes that the baptism of water is not needed for all. Since the ITC knows these exceptional cases in particular and knows that they were saved without receiving the baptism of water or being sent a preacher as St.Thomas Aquinas taught.How does the ITC know all this ? I do not know.

3.Since it is possible, and known, that there are these exceptions to all needing to receive the baptism of water to go to Heaven, it is speculated that even infants in ignorance and innocence could be saved without the baptism of water. Since adults who are saved in this manner without the baptism of water are known to members of the ITC.

4.The next step is to do away with Limbo.

Cardinal Luis Ladaria S.J has removed the Church teaching on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Original Sin in certain cases, and Limbo. It was all done with one objective error: the visibly known case of a non Catholic saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.

A priest welcomes an end to this teaching on Original Sin.(4)

The ITC position papers have been approved by Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.The ITC paper Christianity and World Religions was approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II. This paper was corrected in 2001 during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II with the Notification on Fr.Jacques Dupuis S.J which rejected the Theology of Religions.

ITC's Christianity and World Religions 1997 postulates that a theology of religions is possible. This is suggested even though the dogma taught exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church and that all non Catholics are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church (5).

The Society of St.Pius X are expected to accept all these heresies in the name of Vatican Council II.Cardinal Luis Ladaria S.J head the Vatican team in failed talks with the SSPX.
-Lionel Andrades

1.

The Allocution of Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quadam (1854) clearly states the issues involved: “It must, of course, be held as a matter of faith that outside the apostolic Roman Church no one can be saved, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it, will perish in the flood. On the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who live in ignorance of the true religion, if such ignorance be invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord”- 'The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being baptized'.(Note: It is assumed here that those saved in invincible ignorance are are explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus).

2.

65. One speaks of the necessity of the Church for salvation in two senses: the necessity of belonging to the Church for those who believe in Jesus and the necessity for salvation of the ministry of the Church which, on mission from God, must be at the service of the coming of the kingdom of God. - Christianity and the World Religions 1997

67. Vatican Council II makes its own the expression extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But in using it the council explicitly directs itself to Catholics and limits its validity to those who know the necessity of the Church for salvation. The council holds that the affirmation is based on the necessity of faith and of baptism affirmed by Christ (LG 14). In this way the council aligned itself in continuity with the teaching of Pius XII, but emphasized more clearly the original parenthentical character of this expression.- Christianity and the World Religions 1997

3.

The study of the theme "Christianity and the World Religions" was adopted for study by a large majority of the members of the International Theological Commission. To prepare this study a subcommission was established composed of Bishop Norbert Strotmann Hoppe, M.S.C.; Rev. Barthelemy Adoukonou; Rev. Jean Corbon; Rev. Mario de Franca Miranda, S.J.; Rev. Ivan Golub; Rev. Tadahiko Iwashima, S.J.; Rev. Luis F. Ladaria, S.J. (president); Rev. Hermann J. Pottmeyer; and Rev. Andrzej Szostek, M.I.C. General discussion on this theme took place during several meetings of the subcommission and in the plenary sessions of the International Theological Commission held at Rome in 1993, 1994 and 1995. The present text was approved "in forma specifica" by vote of the commission on 30 September 1996 and was submitted to its president, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who has given his approval for its publication.-Christianity and the World Religions 1997
www.vatican.va/…/rc_cti_1997_cri…4.

4.

Fr. Stephen Freeman Says:
October 31, 2006 at 10:59 am

Roland,

I do indeed think that is what Fr. Breck says in his comments – that the entire forensic metaphor is being shaken. From an Orthodox perspective I think this is good. The forensically imaged doctrine of Original Sin should be reconsidered as inadequate and not sufficiently ground in the Fathers or in Scripture. It’s use of a mistranslation of Romans 5:12 being only one example. Of course, much larger things are at stake. The governing imagery of our salvation. It’s why Orthodox and Roman Catholic can often be far apart. One would assume, that the immaculate conception, argued forensically, would also have to be reexamined. Gets kinda sticky! [...]
fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2006/10/22/in-limbo-no-more

5.
THRICE DEFINED DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

◦“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

◦“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

◦“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.) - Catholicism.org
___________________________________________________

Nostra Aetate does say that the Church is the' new people of God'. Catholics are the Chosen People.They have the Promised Jewish Messiah, the Eternal Covenant and the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass

eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/nostra-aetate-d…

The International Theological Commission's position paper Christianity and the World Religions 1997 has an objective factual error and is approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger : invincible ignorance is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/international-t…

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION ASSUMES ‘SEEDS OF THE WORD’ (VATICAN COUNCIL II ) IN OTHER RELIGIONS ARE KNOWN TO US AND THIS IS AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/international-t…

VATICAN'S INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION MAKES AN ERROR IN ITS POSITION PAPER CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/vaticans-intern…

Monday, April 2, 2012

IF THE SSPX SAYS THEY ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL II IN ACCORD WITH THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS THERE WILL BE A STORM

The Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith could have to deny Vatican Council II and the Jewish Left could call the Council anti - Semitic.

One of the District Superiors of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) could issue a statement observing that it is reported on blogs that the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is in accord with Vatican Council II (AG 7).

All need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (AG 7) and there are no exceptions. There are no known exceptions since those saved in invincible ignorance or with a good conscience (LG 16) etc are known only to God. So they do not contradict the centuries-old literal interpretation of the thrice defined dogma.

So in this sense Vatican Council II is saying outside the church there is no salvation and Jews, Muslims and other non Catholics (Protestants and Orthodox Christians) need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation ( to avoid Hell).

So the SSPX could welcome Vatican Council II’s position on ecumenism and inter religious dialogue.

All non Catholics are oriented to Hell (AG 7). We do not compel them; we do not force them to enter the Church. We do not have the power to do so. However we do have the religious liberty to tell them that Vatican Council II says they need to convert into the Church, all of them with no known exceptions, to avoid Hell (for salvation).

Imagine the world wide storm this would cause. The SSPX affirming Vatican Council II in this case in accord with the salvation dogma!

But what about Fr. Leonard Feeney?!So what? Whatever be your position on Fr. Leonard Feeney, Vatican Council II still affirms the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

He was excommunicated for holding the literal interpretation? No Magisterial text, including the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 states that he was excommunicated for heresy. And assuming he was - Vatican Council II is still in agreement with the traditional literal interpretation of the dogma.

And if he was excommunicated for heresy, for saying there was no baptism of desire or exception to the dogma, then the cardinals who wrote the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 or Pope Pius XII, made an objective, common sense mistake: the baptism of desire is not known so it cannot be an explicit, exception to the dogma which says everyone needs to convert into the Church. We do not know any one saved with the baptism of desire.

How can the ordinary magisterium of the pope, Pope Pius XII, negate Vatican Council II or the dogma which Pope Pius XII himself called an ‘infallible statement’(Letter of the Holy Office 1949).

All the same Vatican Council II affirms the literal interpretation of the dogma, the infallible statement.

According to the Vatican statement,(March 16) there is the possibility of the SSPX being excommunicated unless they affirm Vatican Council II. The statement has not mentioned the interpretation of Vatican Council II expected. The Vatican kept the doctrinal talks secret.So the SSPX could ‘try the waters out’ affirm the dogma (as they are doing so already) and welcome Vatican Council II as being in agreement with the dogma. Then wait for the Vatican’s response.

This will create a political storm and shake the Establishment which tells the pope what he should believe as a Catholic and what is acceptable to them.-Lionel Andrades

eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/if-sspx-says-th…

Monday, April 2, 2012

VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS JEWS NEED TO CONVERT, CATHOLICS ARE THE NEW PEOPLE OF GOD BUT REPORT ON SSPX CLAIMS VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS OTHERWISE

An Associated Press report,Vatican to breakaway traditionalists: not enough by Frances D'Emilio (VCstar.com)says the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) 'has opposed the Vatican's decades-long outreach to Jews, Muslims and members of other faith. More broadly, it opposes the liberalizing reforms the Vatican enacted in the 1960s.'

However a reading of Vatican Council II’s Nostra Aetate 4 says ‘the Church is the new people of God’.Catholics are the new people of God . The Chosen People.Then Vatican Council II further says that all people, Jews included, need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (Ad Gentes 7). Jews need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to avoid Hell (for salvation).

So Vatican Council II is still saying like the SSPX that Jews, Muslims and other non Catholics, including Protestants and Orthodox Christians, need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation.

So the so called liberalizing reforms is not supported by any text from Vatican Council II.

Vatican Council II also mentions that there can be non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance, with a good consicence (LG 16), with the ‘seeds of the Word’ etc. We accept this as a possibility just as did the popes and Church Councils of the past. They knew that we do not know any particular case. So they are not an explicit, exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or to Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.

Vatican Council II is in accord with the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus .

Vatican Council II has not changed the teaching of the Catholic Church with respect to other religions as this report on the internet alleges.

The AP report says ‘Jewish groups have expressed concern that the Vatican's overture to the breakaway Catholics could call into question 50 years of progress in Catholic-Jewish relations.’ It is the Jewish Left political position that Vatican Council II has changed church-teaching. They are unable to cite any reference from Vatican Council II.

The report states: ‘A Vatican statement, issued after Friday's meeting, said both Benedict, and Levada's office, studied the Society's response to the papal overture. But the response, delivered to the Vatican in January, "is not sufficient to overcome the doctrinal problems that are at the foundation of the fracture between the Holy See and the Society."

The Vatican has never announced that Vatican Council II states that Catholics are the new people of God and that Jews need to convert to avoid Hell, according to Vatican Council II. Instead the Vatican is building up a reputation of throwing away Catholic doctrine for the sake of peace and security.

The report says ‘the statement didn't elaborate on what failed to satisfy the Vatican's conditions.’ The Vatican has held secret talks with the SSPX however two of the negotiators during those talks, have expressed Catholic doctrine in papers of the International Theological Commission. They are available on the ITC website.They allege that those saved with the baptism of water and in invincible ignorance are known to us and so they are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Ad Gentes 7. This is heresy. It is a rejection of the Nicene Creed in which we say “I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin”. The ITC is saying that in some cases, rare cases, known to them there are non Catholics saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance and without the baptism of water. How do they know these cases it is not elaborated. However the bottom line for the ITC and the Vatican is that there is salvation outside the church in the present times,even though they do not know any exception to the dogma or Vatican Council II.

This is a new doctrine and irrational. Hence it is understandable that the Vatican has not elaborated on the precise doctrinal difference and has kept the issue secret.

The report said ‘Because of "worry about avoiding a church rupture with painful and incalculable consequences," Fellow was invited to "clarify his position with the aim of closing the existing fracture, as hoped for by Pope Benedict XVI," said the Vatican statement.’

The SSPX could be excommunicated for not accepting the Jewish Left approved version of Vatican Council II, denying the actual text of Vatican Council II which says Jews need to convert and Catholics are the Chosen people, and not accepting heresy and new doctrines, approved by the Vatican.-Lionel Andrades
www.vcstar.com/…/bc-eu--vatican-…

eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/vatican-council…

Sunday, April 1, 2012

NO NEED FOR ‘SECRET TALKS’ ANYMORE: WE KNOW THE HERETICAL POSITION OF THE VATICAN NEGOTIATORS

The International Theological Commission theological papers expose the cardinal and bishop’s teaching on visible baptism of desire and their rejection of the dogma and Vatican Council II text.

May be its unintentional heresy. Let us give them the benefit of the doubt, but heresy it is.

In the hierarchy of truths we are all obliged to believe in the Creed. In the Nicene Creed we pray ‘I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin.’ It means the baptism of water is needed for all. All means no known exceptions in the present time.This teaching is expressed in the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and it comes from Jesus’ teaching (John 3:5, Mk.15:15-16).

Perhaps as an oversight , two of the members of the Vatican team who participated in the discussion with the SSPX representatives, believe invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicit, known,defacto exceptions to the dogma and the Nicene Creed. They believe they are explicit exceptions to the need of the baptism of water being needed for salvation for all.We know that the Catholic Church gives the baptism of water to adults with Catholic Faith.The Vatican team is saying that not all adults need the baptism of water since there are some who are saved or will be saved in invincible ignorance etc. Irrational ? However this is their official position on the ITC website.

Invincible ignorance etc are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the former President International Theologcial Commission (ITC), Cardinal Luis Ladaria S.J and the former Secretary of the ITC, Bishop. Charles Morerod O.P.(former Rector of the Angelicum University,Rome).

They allege that Vatican Council II (LG 16) shows there are known exceptions.Discerning Catholics know that we do not know anyone saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.This was the error of the Archbishop of Boston Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits there.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 addressed to the Archbishop of Boston does not state that we know cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance or an “unconscious yearning” or desire and that these cases are exceptions to the dogma.

However Cadinal Ladaria, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and past President of the ITC has assumed that being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are explicit, known exceptions to the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

This is an objective, factual error. We do not know any such case .No Vatican magisterial document makes this claim.

It is this error and interpretation of Vatican Council II that the Congergation for the Doctrine of the Faith expected the SSPX team to accept in closed door, secret talks.

The heretical position of two of the Vatican negotiators is now known to us through their writings in the ITC papers and is available on the Vatican website of the ITC.

They may say in public that they accept the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also Vatican Council II. However if they assume that invincible ignorance,having a good conscience and the baptism of desire are explicit exceptions to the dogma and Ad Gentes 7 then it is irrational-and also a rejection of the centuries old interpretation of the dogma.

It is the Secretary of the CDF who is rejecting Vatican Council II (AG 7) and he expects the SSPX and all Catholics to endorse his heretical version of Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance).

It is saying there is salvation outside the church since we allegedly know cases of those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

Whatever be ones position on Fr.Leonard Feeney, mentioned by the ITC, objectively we know there are no known cases of the baptism of desire or persons saved in invincible ignorance.So there cannot be a known exception to the dogma.To claim one knows particular exeptions is heresy. It is also irrational.

A Catholic cannot reject in public an ex cathedra dogma and then also hold the office of a cardinal and bishop as in the case of Cardinal Ladaria and Bishop Morerod.According to Canon Law priests, bishops and cardinals who hold an office in the Church need to accept those teachings which have to be ‘firmly believed’.(Dominus Iesus).

Now it is no more a secret to Catholics that it is the CDF Secretary who needs to affirm Vatican Council II, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it was interpreted for centuries ( and in accord now with Vatican Council II ) and Lumen Gentium 16, not being an explicit exception to the dogma and Ad Gentes 7.

Its unfortunate that the Vatican has annonced that the SSPX has to regularise its canonical status by accepting not just Vatican Council II as an historical event (which the SSPX does) but that they need to accept the heretical interpretation of the Vatican team approved by the CDF for secret talks with the SSPX.-Lionel Andrades

NO CANON LAW OBLIGES THE SSPX TO ACCEPT THE JEWISH LEFT VERSION OF VATICAN COUNCIL II
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/no-canon-law-ob…

Cardinal Luis Ladaria S.J Secretary Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does away with the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Limbo and Original Sin in the International Theological Commission position papers: CDF expects the Society of St.Pius X to accept all this
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/cardinal-luis-l…

Mnsgr.Nicola Bux the SSPX in reality accepts Vatican Council II
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/mnsgrnicola-bux…

International Theological Commission (ITC) makes an objective, factual error in two of its published documents. Could they also be wrong about Limbo?
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/international-t…

VATICAN'S INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION MAKES AN ERROR IN ITS POSITION PAPER CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/vaticans-intern…

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION USES PREMISE THAT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT : LIMBO
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/international-t…

The International Theological Commission's position paper Christianity and the World Religions 1997 has an objective factual error and is approved by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger : invincible ignorance is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/international-t…

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION ASSUMES ‘SEEDS OF THE WORD’ (VATICAN COUNCIL II ) IN OTHER RELIGIONS ARE KNOWN TO US AND THIS IS AN EXPLICIT EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/international-t…

VATICAN'S INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION MAKES AN ERROR IN ITS POSITION PAPER CHRISTIANITY AND THE WORLD RELIGIONS

eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/vaticans-intern…

VATICAN COUNCIL II REJECTS THE THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS

eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/vatican-council…

Former Secretary of the International Theological Commission holds that those saved with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance are known to us and so an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/secretary-of-in…
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/no-need-for-sec…

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Bishop Fellay, Fr.Schmidberger,FSSP,Joseph Fenton seem unaware the baptism of desire is not an explicit exception to the dogma

From Rorate Caeli comments on Who is a Traditionalist?

Ecclesia Militans said...
Brother André Marie,
I've studied the articles and I must say that they do not make a convincing argument against the threefold Baptism.

Lionel:
it is important to note that there is only one baptism which is explicit. It is the baptism of water.

Ecclesia Militans
Other than quoting the many various forms of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and discussions and speculations on St. Augustine's view, there are only two or three marginal quotes by doctors that speak against the threefold Baptism.

Lionel:
We can only accept the baptism of desire and martrydom in pinciple. Explicitly we do not know any case, we cannot judge.If the Church declares someone a martyr we accept it.

Ecclesia Militans
As for St. Emerentiana, I see that Fr. Feeney decided to deny Tradition by saying she must have been baptised in water before martyrdom, although she has always been counted as an unbaptized cathecumen who died for Christ and received the Baptism of Blood.

On the other hand, I present you a short list of those important documents, theologians, bishops and doctors that explicitly affirmed the threefold Baptism (most of the quotes are found in the article mentioned in my last comment, if you wish, I can send you the others by mail):

Lionel:
In this list it is important to note that none of them said that the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood were explicitly known to us or that we could judge these cases in general or that they were explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Ecclesia Militans
St. Cyprian BM, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem BCD, St. John Chrysostome BCD, St. Ambrose BCD, St. Augustine BCD, St. Thomas Aquinas CD, St. Catherine of Sienna V, Ecumenical Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguori BCD, Pope Pius IX, Baltimore Cathechism (19th century), The Cathechism Explained (1899), Cathechism of Pope St. Pius X, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Code of Canon Law (1917), Catholic Dictionary (1946), Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (1949), mons.

Lionel:
They all were in agrement with Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Ecclesia Militans

Joseph Fenton (1952), Archbishop Lefebvre FSSPX, Fr. Schmidberger FSSPX, Bishop Fellay FSSPX...

Lionel:
They seem unaware too that the baptism of desire etc are not defacto exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Ecclesia Militans

The inescapable conclusion is that the doctrine of Fr. Feeney denies or contradicts the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as expressed through the above teachings of the said theologians, doctors etc.

Lionel:
Fr.Leonrd Feeney said that there is only one baptism, the baptism of water . This is the only explicit baptism. For salvation all people need the baptism of water and there are no known exceptions.This is the teaching of the Magisterium as expressed through the above mentioned theologians, doctors etc.This is the teaching of the following:

St. Cyprian BM, Tertullian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem BCD, St. John Chrysostome BCD, St. Ambrose BCD, St. Augustine BCD, St. Thomas Aquinas CD, St. Catherine of Sienna V, Ecumenical Council of Trent, Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus Liguori BCD, Pope Pius IX, Baltimore Cathechism (19th century), The Cathechism Explained (1899), Cathechism of Pope St. Pius X, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Code of Canon Law (1917), Catholic Dictionary (1946), Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (1949), mons.

Ecclesia Militans

It even goes against the Code of Canon Law which was valid at the time (canons 737 & 1239).

Lionel:
No magisterial document states that the baptism of desire etc are explicitly known to us or an exception to the dogma.

Ecclesia Militans
you can see that to assert that so many theologians, doctors, popes and Church documents were in error for so many centuries is to deny the indefectibility of the Church.St. Alphonsus Liguori calls the baptism of desire de fide,...

Lionel:
Yes it is de fide and accepted in principle. It cannot be known explicitly and so it does not contradict the dogma or Fr.Leonard Feeney.

Ecclesia Militans
and St. Cyprian BM, back in the 3rd century, seems to call those who do not believe in the Baptism of Blood of the cathecumens "aiders and favourers of heretics".

Lionel:
The baptism of blood is not an exception to the dogma.

Ecclesia Militans
In short and precise quote:
"Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control.“

Lionel:
Correct and we do not know any case of a non Catholic on earth who is saved in invincible ignorance or is going to be saved.

Ecclesia Militans
e Pius IX, SINGULARI QUIDEM
www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9singul.htm

Lionel:
No where does Pope Pius IX say that the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the dogma or that they are explicit. On has to make this wrong assumption.The popes do not make this assumption.

20 January, 2012 23:34

-Lionel Andrades

rorate-caeli.blogspot.it/…/who-is-traditio…

Saturday, March 17, 2012

CANONIST REJECTS VERITATIS SPLENDOR

Canonist Peters thinks Fr.Guarnizo was wrong in witholding the Eucharist to the Barbara Johnson.
canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/1733

Edward Peters errs in assuming that the outward action does not indicate the internal thoughts or motivation. This is the moral theology of Fr.Bernard Haring and Fr.Charles Curran.
Homosexuality and lesbianism will always be a mortal sin.It is grave matter and the woman has admitted it in this case.She persists in receiving the Eucharist and still persists in the sin.
eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/…/canonist-reject…

POLITICS OVER THE EUCHARIST
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/politics-over-e…

Friday, March 16, 2012

POLITICS OVER THE EUCHARIST

Just as Fr. Marcel Guarnizo is put on administrative leave for political reasons the Archbishop of Washington gives the Eucharist to pro abortion politicians for political reasons.Also for political reasons Catholics do not want to discuss the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

When Fr. Marcel said ‘If a Quaker, a Lutheran or a Buddhist, desiring communion had introduced himself as such, before Mass, a priest would be obligated to withhold communion.’ he was using the ecclesiology (understanding of Church) of outside the church no salvation. This was the ecclesiology which Pope John Paul II used in Ecclesia di Eucarestia.

Those who are not baptized, or are baptized but are not living the Gospel according to the Catholic Church are in grave sin. They are not to receive the Eucharist. St. Paul tells us that those who receive the Eucharist in this unworthy state bring damnation upon them self.

No non Catholic has the ‘right’ to receive the Eucharist .Not because he is condemned already but because he has the opportunity to convert into the Catholic Church and receive the Sacraments which save. Jesus saves through the Sacraments.

Outside the Sacraments there is no known salvation in the present time.

For political reasons the Archdiocese of Washington has not announced that the Buddhist lesbian woman will not be able to receive the Eucharist. If she does come to receive the Eucharist during Mass in Washington a priest or Eucharistic Minister will give her the Eucharist. She will receive the Eucharist even though she has not rectified the scandal in public i.e. she has not denied that she is a Buddhist and is a practising, active lesbian living in sin. She needs to make the public clarification and go also for Confession, before receiving the Eucharist.

The Archdiocese of Washington is not likely to make this announcement. Senator Kennedy never made any such clarification. Neither did the Archdiocese clarify any change in his position on abortion. Neither did the Archdiocese of Boston mention that the Senator received absolution before his death. He was given the Eucharist in Washington and a funeral in Boston. According to the teachings of the Church and the public scandal of which he was a part of, he was oriented to Hell at the time of death.

The priority is politics and then the Eucharist.The Archdiocese of Boston like Washington would welcome lesbians and homosexuals receiving the Eucharist at Mass. The Vatican cannot apply Canon 915 against the cardinals. Would there be a schism if this done even in the interest of the Eucharist? The Vatican has not issued a clarification on this issue of the Eucharist in Washington.A Deacon of the Archdiocese of Washington will not discuss the issue of extra ecclesiam nulla salus with reference to the Eucharist. Probably if he does, they’ll suspend him too.

In the media, Catholic and secular, we are getting a canned, politically safe version of the Catholic Faith and sadly it is being extended to the Eucharist.

According to Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) non Catholics are oriented to Hell and if they are all oriented to Hell then they are not to receive the Eucharist.

Jesus watches from the tabernacle. At night he is alone in most churches in Washington, if not all the churches. He watches and he knows. He feels.He is left there abandoned and now they are abandoning church teachings. They are allowing sacrilege and sin for the sake of convenience, expedience and politics.The Mass is not just a sacrifice for Jesus, an unbloody Sacrifice, it is a source of pain in so many ways.
-Lionel Andrades

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Eucharist is not to be given to the Quaker, Lutheran, and Buddhist since they are outside the Church
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/eucharist-is-no…

Friday, March 16, 2012

POLITICS OVER THE EUCHARIST

Just as Fr. Marcel Guarnizo is put on administrative leave for political reasons the Archbishop of Washington gives the Eucharist to pro abortion politicians for political reasons.Also for political reasons Catholics do not want to discuss the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

When Fr. Marcel said ‘If a Quaker, a Lutheran or a Buddhist, desiring communion had introduced himself as such, before Mass, a priest would be obligated to withhold communion.’ he was using the ecclesiology (understanding of Church) of outside the church no salvation. This was the ecclesiology which Pope John Paul II used in Ecclesia di Eucarestia.

Those who are not baptized, or are baptized but are not living the Gospel according to the Catholic Church are in grave sin. They are not to receive the Eucharist. St. Paul tells us that those who receive the Eucharist in this unworthy state bring damnation upon them self.

No non Catholic has the ‘right’ to receive the Eucharist .Not because he is condemned already but because he has the opportunity to convert into the Catholic Church and receive the Sacraments which save. Jesus saves through the Sacraments.

Outside the Sacraments there is no known salvation in the present time.

For political reasons the Archdiocese of Washington has not announced that the Buddhist lesbian woman will not be able to receive the Eucharist. If she does come to receive the Eucharist during Mass in Washington a priest or Eucharistic Minister will give her the Eucharist. She will receive the Eucharist even though she has not rectified the scandal in public i.e. she has not denied that she is a Buddhist and is a practising, active lesbian living in sin. She needs to make the public clarification and go also for Confession, before receiving the Eucharist.

The Archdiocese of Washington is not likely to make this announcement. Senator Kennedy never made any such clarification. Neither did the Archdiocese clarify any change in his position on abortion. Neither did the Archdiocese of Boston mention that the Senator received absolution before his death. He was given the Eucharist in Washington and a funeral in Boston. According to the teachings of the Church and the public scandal of which he was a part of, he was oriented to Hell at the time of death.

The priority is politics and then the Eucharist.The Archdiocese of Boston like Washington would welcome lesbians and homosexuals receiving the Eucharist at Mass. The Vatican cannot apply Canon 915 against the cardinals. Would there be a schism if this done even in the interest of the Eucharist? The Vatican has not issued a clarification on this issue of the Eucharist in Washington.A Deacon of the Archdiocese of Washington will not discuss the issue of extra ecclesiam nulla salus with reference to the Eucharist. Probably if he does, they’ll suspend him too.

In the media, Catholic and secular, we are getting a canned, politically safe version of the Catholic Faith and sadly it is being extended to the Eucharist.

According to Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) non Catholics are oriented to Hell and if they are all oriented to Hell then they are not to receive the Eucharist.

Jesus watches from the tabernacle. At night he is alone in most churches in Washington, if not all the churches. He watches and he knows. He feels.He is left there abandoned and now they are abandoning church teachings. They are allowing sacrilege and sin for the sake of convenience, expedience and politics.The Mass is not just a sacrifice for Jesus, an unbloody Sacrifice, it is a source of pain in so many ways.
-Lionel Andrades

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Eucharist is not to be given to the Quaker, Lutheran, and Buddhist since they are outside the Church
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/eucharist-is-no…

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Eucharist is not to be given to the Quaker, Lutheran, and Buddhist since they are outside the Church

If a Quaker, a Lutheran or a Buddhist, desiring communion had introduced himself as such, before Mass, a priest would be obligated to withhold communion. If someone had shown up in my sacristy drunk, or high on drugs, no communion would have been possible either. If a Catholic, divorced and remarried (without an annulment) would make that known in my sacristy, they too according to Catholic doctrine, would be impeded from receiving communion. This has nothing to do with canon 915. Ms. Johnson’s circumstances are precisely one of those relations which impede her access to communion according to Catholic teaching. Ms. Johnson was a guest in our parish, not the arbitrer of how sacraments are dispensed in the Catholic Church.- Fr. Marcel Guarnizo, Archdiocese of Washington D.C

The Eucharist is not to be given to the Quaker, Lutheran or Buddhist. Since outside the Church there is no salvation. They are outside the Church. They are not saved.

Fr. Marcel Guarnizo could have been endorsing the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The same interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney, the Church Fathers, popes, Councils, Catechisms, Vatican Council I and II and Michael Voris at Real Catholic TV.com.

Ad Gentes 7 Vatican Council II says all need to enter the Cburch for salvation. All includes the Quaker,Lutheran and Buddhist. (1).

Lumen Gentium 14 says faith and baptism are necessary for salvation. The Buddhist does not have faith or baptism. The Lutheran does not have Catholic Faith.(2)

Dominus Iesus says though Christ died for all, for salvation all need to enter the Church with faith and baptism. Non Catholics do not have faith and baptism. They need to respond and enter the Church to saved.(3)

The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the infallible teaching mentioned by Pope Pius XII in the Letter of the Holy Office says all need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell. (4)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church repeats the teaching of Vatican Council II and other magisterial texts. All need to enter the Church with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water, one needs to enter the Church as through a door.(5)

Note: There are no known cases on earth of a non Catholic saved in invincible ignorance, the baptism of desie, a good conscience, the seeds of the Word etc. We can only accept in principle that these are possibilities known only to God. So they do not contradict any of the magisterial texts mentioned above.
-Lionel Andrades

1.

Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door.-Ad Gentes 7

2.
This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church.-Lumen Gentium 14

3.
Above all else, it must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”.77 This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation”.-Dominus Iesus 20

Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.

However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
catholicism.org/category/outside-the-chu…

5.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.-Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 (See also 845)
Note: All salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body refers to those who are saved 1) with the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance etc and those who are saved 2) with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. N.1 is not in conflict with N.2. They are not explicit exceptions.

Thursday, March 15, 2012
Fr. Marcel Guarnizo Defends Himself :If a Quaker, Lutheran or Buddhist, desiring communion introduced himself as such, before Mass, a priest would be obligated to withhold communion
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/fr-marcel-guarn…

THAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE A VISIBLE MEMBER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND NOT JUST THE VIEW OF FR.LEONARD FEENEY
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/that-everyone-n…

FR.LEONARD FEENEY HELD THE SAME DOCTRINE AS THE CHURCH FATHERS, POPES, COUNCILS,CATECHISMS, VATICAN COUNCILS I AND II AND MICHAEL VORIS AT REAL CATHOLIC TV.COM
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/frleonar-feeney…

THAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE A VISIBLE MEMBER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE OFFICIAL TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND NOT JUST THE VIEW OF FR.LEONARD FEENEY

So powerful is the secular liberal media that they have ‘catechized’ generations of Catholics over half a century. The leftist, mainstream media keeps repeating that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for saying everyone needs to be a visible member of the Church. The media does not say that everybody needing to be a visible member of the Catholic Church, is the official teaching of the Church according to magisterial documents. It cannot state this. Since the lie is their leftist ideological position.

It is made to seem that Fr. Leonard Feeney held a different view from that of the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. The magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church, it is made to appear, accepts ‘the mainstream teaching’ of the non-Catholic owners of the media.

They suggest that Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong with a ‘minority view’. They imply that Catholics know of people saved in Heaven, in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. So these cases known in general, are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. They are allegedly exceptions to the Fr. Leonard Feeney’s interpretation. If there can be known exceptions to the dogma, example the baptism of desire, then it is assumed that Fr.Leonard Feeney was wrong. Also it is assumed that he was excomunicated for this error.

So the media indicates that the Catholic Church does not teach anymore the error of Fr. Leonard Feeney. Why? Since we know, it is assumed, of visible cases of the baptism of desire.

In other words: deny the dogma, deny the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Since we know of cases in Heaven in general, saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.

The media is to never let out the secret that these cases are known only to God and are unknown to us humans.If they did reveal the secret, over 50 years of propaganda would come to an end.

So they will never state that Fr. Leonard Feeney’s interpretation of the salvation dogma outside the church no salvation, is the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

Those who can discern realize that Fr. Leonard Feeney held the same doctrinal teaching on salvation as Jesus, the Church Fathers, and the popes including Pope Pius XII, the Church Councils which defined the dogma, and the saints who were faithful to the dogma, the Catechisms, Vatican Councils and the Bible according to the Catholic Church. This was Jesus’ teaching. (Mk.16:16, Jn 3:5 etc)

For salvation every one with no exception needs to be a visible, formal member, i.e with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water, is the official Catholic teaching for all Catholics, including those who attend the Novus Ordo Mass in the different languages.-Lionel Andrades

FR.LEONARD FEENEY HELD THE SAME DOCTRINE AS THE CHURCH FATHERS, POPES, COUNCILS,CATECHISMS, VATICAN COUNCILS I AND II AND MICHAEL VORIS AT REAL CATHOLIC TV.COM
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/frleonar-feeney…

IF THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 CONSIDERED THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE AS A DEFACTO EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA IT WOULD BE AN OBJECTIVE ERROR: WE DON’T KNOW ANY SUCH CASE
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/if-letter-of-ho…

ALL THE CATECHISMS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAVE TAUGHT THE RIGORIST VIEW OF EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/all-catechisms-…

The Vatican Councils of the Catholic Church have clearly taught that formal membership in the Catholic Church IS absolutely necessary for salvation
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/vatican-council…-

No pope has said that those saved in invincible ignorance are known to us and so are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/no-pope-has-sai…

Being saved in invincible ignorance is not a defacto exception to the teaching of Cantate Domino Council of Florence
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/being-saved-in-…

Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is in agreement with the rigorist interpretation of outside the church no salvation
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2012/02/blog-post.html

Whether they know it or not non Catholics with the stain of Original Sin on their soul and mortal sins committed in that state and without the Sacraments outside of which there is no salvation, are all oriented to Hell
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/whether-they-kn…

When one is clear that all those saved are explicit only in Heaven it is not difficult to affirm ‘the formal necessity of belonging to the Church’
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/when-one-is-cle…

Ultra Traditonalists in accord with Vatican Council II on extra ecclesiam nulla salus
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/ultra-traditona…

DOES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACH THAT MUSLIMS ARE SAVED ?
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/does-catholic-c…

CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN ROME AGREE WITH FR.LEONARD FEENEY: THERE IS NO BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT WE CAN KNOW OF
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Catholic priests

NON CATHOLICS CAN BE SAVED IN INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE, BAPTISM OF DESIRE AND IT DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS- Daphne McLeod, Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, England
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/non-catholics-c…

RADICI CRISTIANE SAYS CLEARLY CHURCH HAS NOT CHANGED LITERAL MEANING OF DOGMA AND INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE AND BAPTISM OF DESIRE ARE NOT DEFACTO EXCEPTIONS.
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/radici-cristian…

The Catholic Legate - John Pacecho, Art Sippo,Peter Vere contradict each other ?
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/catholic-legate…

VATICAN RECOGNIZES DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS WITH RIGORIST INTERPRETATION : INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE (LG 16) AND BAPTISM OF DESIRE ARE NOT DEFACTO EXCEPTIONS
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/vatican-recogni…

eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/that-everyone-n…

Michael Voris affirms rigorous interpetation of dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus :says there is no "anonymous Catholic"

eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/michael-voris-a…

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Michael Voris affirms rigorist interpretation of dogma outside the church no salvation: says there is no “anonymous Catholic”

When Michael Voris on Real Catholic TV refers to outside the church there is no salvation he means, outside the church no salvation as interpreted by the Church Councils, the popes, the saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney. Since the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience are explicit only in Heaven

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 endorsed the rigorist interpretation of the dogma when it directly referred to the ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible’ statement. (1)

Michael Voris also on Real Catholic TV.com proclaims the dogma outside the church there is no salvation (2) and says on another video that there is no anonymous Catholic.

There is no anonymous Christian no known case of a Catholic saved ‘anonymously’. If there was an anonymous Catholic in the present times it would be known only to God. So it could not be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which he endorses in its rigorist interpretation. There can only be the rigorist interpretation! We can never know cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire, with a good conscience or the seeds of the Word, with elements of sanctification or in imperfect communion.

All the Catechisms of the Catholic Church including the present one (3) have affirmed the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus as did the Vatican Councils (4).

We accept the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as possibilities. We accept in principle that a non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance. De facto (explicitly, in reality) we do not know any such case.

Fr. Karl Rahner S.J’s theory of the ‘anonymous Christian’ is irrelevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since we do not know any single case of a person saved as an anonymous Christian it does not contradict Vatican Council II which affirms the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It states all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (to avoid Hell) ( Ad Gentes 7,Lumen Gentium 14).

No pope or Councils has stated that the baptism of desire etc is an exception to the dogma or that we know explicit cases. So Michael Voris on Real Catholic TV is affirming the teaching of the Magisterium before and after Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades

1.

IF THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 CONSIDERED THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE AS A DEFACTO EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA IT WOULD BE AN OBJECTIVE ERROR: WE DON’T KNOW ANY SUCH CASE
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/if-letter-of-ho…

2.
youtu.be/gaCbMcn46Wc , youtu.be/vp8zQhQE1iM youtu.be/gaCbMcn46Wc
youtu.be/GCf8C1Xcpds youtu.be/EhZK6U0papc

3.
ALL THE CATECHISMS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAVE TAUGHT THE RIGORIST VIEW OF EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/all-catechisms-…
4.
The Vatican Councils of the Catholic Church have clearly taught that formal membership in the Catholic Church IS absolutely necessary for salvation

eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/vatican-council…-
5

No pope has said that those saved in invincible ignorance are known to us and so are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/no-pope-has-sai…

Being saved in invincible ignorance is not a defacto exception to the teaching of Cantate Domino Council of Florence
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/being-saved-in-…

eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/michael-voris-a…

Michael Voris affirms rigorist interpretation of dogma outside the church no salvation: says there is no "anonymous Catholic "

eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/michael-voris-a…

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Michael Voris affirms rigorist interpretation of dogma outside the church no salvation: says there is no “anonymous Catholic”

When Michael Voris on Real Catholic TV refers to outside the church there is no salvation he means, outside the church no salvation as interpreted by the Church Councils, the popes, the saints and Fr.Leonard Feeney. Since the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience are explicit only in Heaven

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 endorsed the rigorist interpretation of the dogma when it directly referred to the ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible’ statement. (1)

Michael Voris also on Real Catholic TV.com proclaims the dogma outside the church there is no salvation (2) and says on another video that there is no anonymous Catholic.

There is no anonymous Christian no known case of a Catholic saved ‘anonymously’. If there was an anonymous Catholic in the present times it would be known only to God. So it could not be an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus which he endorses in its rigorist interpretation. There can only be the rigorist interpretation! We can never know cases of non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire, with a good conscience or the seeds of the Word, with elements of sanctification or in imperfect communion.

All the Catechisms of the Catholic Church including the present one (3) have affirmed the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus as did the Vatican Councils (4).

We accept the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance as possibilities. We accept in principle that a non Catholic can be saved with the baptism of desire or invincible ignorance. De facto (explicitly, in reality) we do not know any such case.

Fr. Karl Rahner S.J’s theory of the ‘anonymous Christian’ is irrelevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Since we do not know any single case of a person saved as an anonymous Christian it does not contradict Vatican Council II which affirms the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It states all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (to avoid Hell) ( Ad Gentes 7,Lumen Gentium 14).

No pope or Councils has stated that the baptism of desire etc is an exception to the dogma or that we know explicit cases. So Michael Voris on Real Catholic TV is affirming the teaching of the Magisterium before and after Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades

1.

IF THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 CONSIDERED THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE AS A DEFACTO EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA IT WOULD BE AN OBJECTIVE ERROR: WE DON’T KNOW ANY SUCH CASE
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/if-letter-of-ho…

2.
youtu.be/gaCbMcn46Wc , youtu.be/vp8zQhQE1iM youtu.be/gaCbMcn46Wc
youtu.be/GCf8C1Xcpds youtu.be/EhZK6U0papc

3.
ALL THE CATECHISMS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAVE TAUGHT THE RIGORIST VIEW OF EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/all-catechisms-…

4.
The Vatican Councils of the Catholic Church have clearly taught that formal membership in the Catholic Church IS absolutely necessary for salvation
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/vatican-council…-
5

No pope has said that those saved in invincible ignorance are known to us and so are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/no-pope-has-sai…

Being saved in invincible ignorance is not a defacto exception to the teaching of Cantate Domino Council of Florence
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/being-saved-in-…

Sia laudati Gesu e Maria,

Il Concilio Vaticano II anche Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica sono in accord con il dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
CCC 845,846 ha detto che tutti bisogna entrare la Chiesa Cattolica. Ad Gentes 7 e Lumen Gentium 14 anche sono in acoordo con interpretazione traditionale di extra ecclesiam nulla salus..

Lumen Gentium 16 e 8 non e contradizione perche noi non conosciamo qualquno chi ha ricevuto salvezza in invincible ignoranze, buona coscienze,battismo di desiderio ecc.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

ERRORS IN THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: OUTSIDE THE CHURCH NO SALVATION

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) under the sub heading outside the church there is no salvation mentions invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire as exceptions. They are not defacto exceptions.

Vatican Council II also mentions invincible ignorance (LG 16) but nowhere implies that it is an exception to the dogma or the ordinary means of salvation.

The Catechism instead implies that those who are saved in invincible ignorance are visible and known to us, so the baptism of water is needed by only those who know about Jesus and the Church.

The text of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus states that everyone needs to enter the Church. The text of the dogma defined three times is not included in the Catechism.This is all misleading.

To imply that the baptism of desire is a defacto exception to the dogma is heresy. It is indifferentism when one says non Catholics can be defacto saved in their religion and we know who these cases are. This teaching is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. It is irrational and a repititon of the Richard Cushing Error.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in preparing the Catechism did not violate the Principle of Non Contradiction. Since defactro every one needs to enter the Church for salvation (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence) and dejure, in principle, in theory and known only to God a person can be saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

Placing invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire under the subheading Outside the Church NO Salvation however implies that they are relevant to the dogma or defacto exceptions.

For the Catechism to say that the baptism of water is needed for only those who know about Jesus and the Church could imply that those saved in invincible ignorance are defacto known to us in the present time. It implies that we know these particular cases and so we cannot say that everyone on earth with no exception needs Catholic Faith and the baptism of desire for salvation: to avoid the fires of Hell.

Also to suggest that only those who ‘know’ need the baptism of water for salvation would imply that Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated not for disobedience but for heresy. It would also imply that the excommunication was wrongly lifted by the Catholic Church without the priest having to recant or make changes in his writing. It also implies that the popes, saints and Fr. Leonard Feeney were wrong in saying everyone needs to be an explicit member of the Church for salvation. It would also be a contradiction of three Councils which defined the dogma in an extra ordinary mode. The ‘dogma’ is referred to in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 as the ‘infallible statement’.

For a priest to knowingly say that there are defacto exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a first class heresy and a mortal sin. He is refuting the Nicene Creed in which we pray, “I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” and “I believe in the Holy Spirit the Holy Catholic Church”. It was the Holy Spirit which guided the Magisterium of the Church to teach over the centuries that outside the church there is no salvation.

A priest, who knowingly continues in this error, even after being informed, is in manifest public heresy and is not to offer Mass without receiving absolution in the Confessional and making public amends; removing the sacrilege. Similarly it would be a sacrilege for a lay person knowingly in this error to receive the Eucharist.
-Lionel Andrades

ERRORS IN THE CATECHISM ?

eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/errors-in-catec…

Practically everyone needs the baptism of water for salvation while in theory a person can be saved with the baptism of desire - Rector, Church Santa Maria Annunziata, Rome
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/practically-eve…

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church why did Cardial Joseph Ratzinger not mention that the baptism of desire is not a defacto exception to the dogma outside the church no salvation nor to Vatican Council II ?
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/in-catechism-of…

ETERNAL WORD TELEVISION NETWORK (EWTN) SAYS 'SUBMISSION TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION'
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/eternal-word-te…

CHURCH TEXT IS CRITICAL OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON : REFERS TO IMPLICIT AND NOT EXPLICIT (TO US) BAPTISM OF DESIRE
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/church-text-cri…

VICARIATE OFFICES FOR YOUTH AND THE SICK ARE TEACHING ERRORS
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/vicariate-offic…

YOUTUBE VIDEO QUESTIONS TO ASK THE CATHOLIC CHAPLAIN OR PROFESSOR
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/youtube-video-q…

PROFESSION OF FAITH: I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/profession-of-f…

DID THE LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949 CONTRADICT THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS? NO
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/did-letter-of-h…

ROME VICARIATE HIT BY THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR : Centro Della pastorale sanitaria says the baptism of water is not defacto needed for the salvation of all on earth
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/rome-vicariate-…

BOSTON ARCHDIOCESE WEBSITE SAYS NOSTRA AETATE DISMISSES CHURCH INTEREST IN BAPTIZING JEWS AND AFFIRMS GOD’S COVENANT WITH THEM : NOWHERE DOES VATICAN COUNCIL II MAKE THIS CLAIM
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/boston-archdioc…

CATHOLIC ANSWERS SUCCUMBS TO THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/catholic-answer…

MSGR.JOSEPH FENTON AND FR. WILLIAM MOST DID NOT NOTICE THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/msgrjoseph-fent…

USCCB REPORT MAKES ALLOWANCE FOR THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/usccb-report-ma…

FR.LEONARD FEENEY AND HIS COMMUNITIES HAVE ACCEPTED THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE PER SE
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/frleonard-feene…

ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON CARDINAL RICHARD CUSHINGS LEGACY: FOLLOWERS INCLUDE USCCB, EWTN, CATHOLIC ANSWERS, SSPX, SEDEVACANTISTS MHFM
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/archbishop-of-b…

CARDINAL RATZINGER DID NOT VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLE OF NON CONTRADICTION AS CATHOLICS UNITED FOR THE FAITH IMPLY
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/Catholics Unite…

FR.TULLIO ROTONDO AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE ON EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/frtullio-rotond…

LEGIONARY OF CHRIST PRIEST FR.RAFAEL PASCUAL AFFIRMS CANTATE DOMINO, COUNCIL OF FLORENCE
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/Fr.Rafael Pascu…

CATHOLIC LAY PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITA EUROPA DI ROMA AFFIRMS DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/search/label/Corrado Gnerre

Sunday, January 1, 2012

ETERNAL WORD TELEVISION NETWORK (EWTN) SAYS 'SUBMISSION TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION'

EWTN has placed on the Internet the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 addressed to the Archbishop of Boston (1) in which it says ‘submission to the Catholic Church and the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.’ The issue was the interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

This was the same teaching of Fr.Leonard Feeney. He taught everyone needs to be a visible, explicit member of the Catholic Church for salvation.This was not the teaching of the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits there.They said there were exceptions to the dogma and so every one did not have to enter the Catholic Church.The exceptions for them could be people in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire.

EWTN also mentions ‘the dogma’, the ‘infallible teaching’ . The dogma says every one needs to convert into the Church for salvation .No exceptions are mentioned. (2)

EWTN refers to those saved with the baptism of desire etc.Since these cases are known only to God they are not exceptions to the dogma. We do not know a single case in the present times.

Similarly Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance/good conscience) is not an exception to the dogma outside the church there is no salvation. Neither is it an exception to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 issued during the pontificate of Venerable Pope Pius XII which says, ‘submission to the Catholic Church and the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.’

It was Mother Angelica the founder of EWTN who affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and quoted the Church Fathers.She did not consider invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire as exceptions to the Church Fathers’ interpretation of the dogma.

On doctrine/dogma the Letter of the Holy Office was a criticism of the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits who assumed that the baptism of desire etc were defacto known to us and so were exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of outside the church there is no salvation.The Letter of the Holy Office refers to implicit and not explicit (to us) baptism of desire. For the baptism of desire to be an exception to the dogma it would have to be explicit.(3)

EWTN has also posted an article by the late Fr.William Most who also assumes that the baptism of desire etc are visible and an exception to the dogma. Fr.Most implies being saved in invincible ignorance is the ordinary means of salvation and so the American natives were saved before the Catholic missionaries arrived there.

The Letter of the Holy Office indicates, like Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7) that Catholics Faith with the baptism of water is the ordinary means of salvation.So the American Natives before the missionaries were all oriented to Hell just like all non Catholics today in America unless they convert into the Catholic Church.

The ordinary means of salvation is also not just beleiving in Jesus Christ without the Catholic Church according to EWTN. Just beleiving in Jesus is sufficient for salvation is a Protestant teaching rejected by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. All Protestants are lost unless they convert into the only Church Jesus founded, according to EWTN, ‘submission to the Catholic Church and the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.’
-Lionel Andrades

1.
www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdffeeny.htm

2.
catholicism.org/category/outside-the-chu…

3.
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/Letter of the H…
eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/if-you-say-that…

eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/…/eternal-word-te…