Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Rodney Pelletier,Simon Rafe and Michael Voris : error in premium programs Baptize All Nations,Moral Compass and possibly God's Green Earth

Rodney Pelletier,Simon Rafe and Michael Voris interpret the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 as saying that salvation is visible to us on earth and these deceased who are visible on earth, are explicit exceptions to all needing to convert into the Catholic Church in the present times.This is irrational and the stuff of fantasy.
 
This error is there in all their premium programs including Baptize All Nations,Moral Compass and possibly the new program, God's Green Earth.
Michael Voris says outside the Church there is no salvation but he also means that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to outside the Church there is no salvation. So if he did not infer that all 28 of them working at Church Militant.Com can see the dead on earth who are exceptions to all needing to be formal members of the Catholic Church, he would be rejecting the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257-1260 etc.
 
 
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual error and the Catechism of the Catholic Church instead of correcting it, affirmed the error.
To suggest that there are known exceptions to the defined dogma on exclusive salvation, is heresy.It is  a mortal sin. This heresy is now widespread in the Catholic Church. It has been overlooked by the popes, from Pius XII to Francis.
-Lionel Andrades
 
 
 

Special Report - Sodomy Priest -Michael Voris



Monday, September 29, 2014

Remnant newspaper and Fr.Francois Laisney (SSPX) contradict the General Chapter Statement 2012 which said there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus
Now Archbishop DiNoia continues – no longer rightly – and says “the Church has always affirmed [the possibility of salvation of non-Christians], and it has never denied it.” This is not only false, but even explicitly opposed to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Pope Pius IX explicitly says it is a Dogma, and it has been taught as such – unanimously – from the very beginning. What he may be confused about is that the Church – in the proper explanation of that dogma – teaches Baptism of Blood and Baptism of desire [read my little book about it published by the Angelus Press], but the Church does not teach that those souls who are saved by these “baptisms” are saved “outside the Church” – on the contrary!
The Church explicitly affirms that these souls are part of the Church; this is often expressed as being part of the “soul” of the Church (See St Pius X’s catechism). It was bad theologians from the 1930s that started to say that these were saved “outside” the Church, completely forgetting that the Church teaches the necessity of the Catholic Faith and charity in order to have Baptism of Blood or Baptism of desire. Sorry, your Excellency, it is not possible to be a Saint without the Catholic Faith; it is not possible to be formally Lutheran or Anglican and be a Saint.  “He that does not believe shall be condemned”, said Our Lord Himself, and He certainly would not settle for a false faith. It is therefore the true Faith that He requires. So if someone who looks to be a Lutheran outside is saved, it is because he is a Catholic inside; it is in spite of the Lutheran church, not by it that he is saved.
We will pray that, to enable him to successfully fulfil his mission as vice-president of the Ecclesia Dei commission, His Excellency will correct his doctrine on that most important point of Faith.-Fr.Francois Laisney SSPX

Fr.Francois Laisney:
Now Archbishop DiNoia continues – no longer rightly – and says “the Church has always affirmed [the possibility of salvation of non-Christians], and it has never denied it.” This is not only false, but even explicitly opposed to the dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.

Lionel:
 Fr.Francois Laisney and the SSPX believe that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Here we have Archbishop Di Noia also saying that the Church has always affirmed the possibility of salvation of non Catholics.In other words these possibilities are visible exceptions. So why is Fr.Laisney complaining ? They are both saying the same thing.

Fr.Francois Laisney:
 Pope Pius IX explicitly says it is a Dogma, and it has been taught as such – unanimously – from the very beginning. 
Lionel:
The text of the dogma does not mention any exceptions. It does not mention the baptism of desire etc.So why does Fr.Francois Laisney  and Archbishop Lefebvre assume that there are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This contradicts the dogma.It also contradicts the General Chapter Statement of the SSPX (2012) which says there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Fr.Francois Laisney:
What he may be confused about is that the Church – in the proper explanation of that dogma – teaches Baptism of Blood and Baptism of desire [read my little book about it published by the Angelus Press], 
Lionel: 
Which is a heretical book criticized so often.
The Church no where teaches that the baptism of desire and blood are explicit for us and so are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This has been wrongly inferred by Fr.Francois Laisney and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

Fr.Francois Laisney:
but the Church does not teach that those souls who are saved by these “baptisms” are saved “outside the Church” – on the contrary!
Lionel: 
If they are saved outside or inside the Church you would not know. These cases are hypothetical for us and known only to God.

Fr.Francois Laisney:
The Church explicitly affirms that these souls are part of the Church; this is often expressed as being part of the “soul” of the Church (See St Pius X’s catechism).
Lionel: 
Yes if they are saved. However the Church does not state(except in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949) that these cases are personally known to us and so they are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Fr.Francois has written a book 'Is Feeneyism Catholic? (Angelus Press,SSPX).The book is pure Cushingism. The irrationality runs  through the book.It contradicts the General Chapter Statement on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Fr.Francois Laisney:
 It was bad theologians from the 1930s that started to say that these were saved “outside” the Church, completely forgetting that the Church teaches the necessity of the Catholic Faith and charity in order to have Baptism of Blood or Baptism of desire.
Lionel: 
It was bad theologians like Fr.Francois Laisney who taught there was salvation outside the Church and so has criticized Fr.Leonard Feeney and supported the irrationality in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.

Fr.Francois Laisney:
 Sorry, your Excellency, it is not possible to be a Saint without the Catholic Faith; it is not possible to be formally Lutheran or Anglican and be a Saint.  “He that does not believe shall be condemned”, said Our Lord Himself, and He certainly would not settle for a false faith. It is therefore the true Faith that He requires. So if someone who looks to be a Lutheran outside is saved, it is because he is a Catholic inside; it is in spite of the Lutheran church, not by it that he is saved.
Lionel: 
Archbishop Di Noia cannot judge who will be saved without Catholic Faith (AG 7).He does not know of any case outside the Church who is saved this year or the last year. So all still need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church for salvation.

Fr.Francois Laisney:
We will pray that, to enable him to successfully fulfil his mission as vice-president of the Ecclesia Dei commission, His Excellency will correct his doctrine on that most important point of Faith.-Fr.Francois Laisney SSPX
Lionel:
It is false doctrine to assume that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions. They are not.
Fr.Francois Laisney and the Remant Editor use Cushingism in the interpretation of Vatican Council II similar to Archbishop Augustine di Noia.Cushingism makes the Council irrational, non traditional and heretical.
-Lionel Andrades

On Archbishop DiNoia, Vatican II, and the SSPX

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-1015-laisney-di-noia.htm
POSTED: 10/8/12

For Cardinal Cushing to say that there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus is heresy. It is also irrational.He was to give the imprimatur ?!

‘submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation’, when an irrationality is being taught.
 
Christopher:
3) The Holy Office’s decision: You have argued that the Holy Office was erroneous in its decision to condemn Feeneyism, citing that previous Councils and Teachings are contradicted.
Lionel:
1.No Church document before 1949 said that the baptism of desire was visble to us.
2.No Church document before 1949 said that the baptism of desire was an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
3.And yes, there is no Church doument before 1949 which said that there were explicit exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Christoper:
However, The Holy Office cites the Council of Trent in its decision along with Pope Pius XII’s dogmatic letter on June 29, 1943′
Lionel:
Pope Pius XII and the Council of Trent only refer to implicit desire etc. They do not say that these cases are known and visible to us. They do not say that these cases are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Yet this has been inferred by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Christopher:
You mention that the Holy Office’s decision on the pronouncement of Baptism of Blood and Desire being exceptions to the Extra Ecclesiam Null Salus. The Holy Office has not stated they are exceptions but rather that ‘it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved.’ (see link)
 
                                     LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE 1949
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
‘knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ’, those who ‘know’ or Those who do not know and who are are saved with the baptism of desire are not known to us.Why mention this with reference to the dogma?.
 
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man’s final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing. This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
Why mention all this theology when you do not know a single such case in reality ? Did the Holy Office assume that these cases are visible and are  personally known exceptions?
 
The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
‘Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member'.Why? Do you know of some exception in the area where you live?
 
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Lionel:
So a person with implicit desire (which is not explici)t and one who is ‘involved in invincible ignorance’ are visible ? And so they are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? And ‘ that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member’?
 
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel:
So the Letter is saying that Pope Pius XII assumed implicit for us cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and so ‘one may obtain eternal salvation’ under these conditions, and, ‘ it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member’. Not always required that he be a member of the Church ?. Defacto, this would be heresy.
 
Discussing the members of which the Mystical Body is-composed here on earth, the same august Pontiff says: “Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
This is the traditional extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It is Feeneyism. It will soon be contradicted.
 
Toward the end of this same encyclical letter, when most affectionately inviting to unity those who do not belong to the body of the Catholic Church, he mentions those who “are related to the Mystical Body of the Redeemer by a certain unconscious yearning and desire,” and these he by no means excludes from eternal salvation, but on the other hand states that they are in a condition “in which they cannot be sure of their salvation” since “they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church” (AAS, 1. c., p. 243).-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
He is referring to a hypothetical case and assumes that it is relevant to the dogma.
 
With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire, and those who falsely assert that men can be saved equally well in every religion (cf. Pope Pius IX, Allocution, , in , n. 1641 ff.; also Pope Pius IX in the encyclical letter, , in , n. 1677).-Letter of the Holy Office 1949

Lionel:
‘With these wise words he reproves both those who exclude from eternal salvation all united to the Church only by implicit desire’ .In other words ‘ all united to the Church only by implicit desire’ are physically visible to us and so are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Centers were wrong.
 
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
From the Housetops Magazine
Lionel:
They (From the Housetops) did not consider implicit desire as explicit for us and so an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.They were saying that all need to be formal members of the Catholic Church with no exception.
 
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a “Defender of the Faith,” and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities,-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
The lawful authorities in the Archdiocese of Boston were saying that there were known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
Fr.Leonard Feeney would be excommunicated in a few years after this, for holding the traditional interpretation of the dogma and the Archbishop would not deny reports in the secular media saying that the Church has changed its teaching on outside the Church there is no salvation. The Holy Office never objected.
 
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the “” which is prescribed by the sacred canons.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
For Cardinal Cushing to say that there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus is heresy. It is also irrational.He was to give the imprimatur ?!
 
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after “Rome has spoken” they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church “only by an unconscious desire.” Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
Lionel:
‘submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation’, when an irrationality is being taught.
-Lionel Andrades
________________________________________________
 

The baptism of desire has nothing to do with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was the Cushing-.Jesuit con game

 
Christopher:
Baptism of Water: Under the issue of the Baptism of Water you have argued that a convert could go into the Catholic Church and receive the Baptism of Water, however the issue does not address what happens to the individual who suddenly dies at the Church door before even entering the Church.
Lionel:
What you have mentioned here is irrelevant to the dogma.The baptism of desire has nothing to do with extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This was the Cushing-.Jesuit con game.
__________________________________________________
 
Christopher:
Suppose the Muhammadien you referenced, was the said victim of the event above? He arranged a date for his baptism, he preached to his friends and family and on that day he was to be baptised, he dropped down dead. The Feeneyist interpretation would say he was damned because he was not baptised.
Lionel:
The baptism of desire has nothing to do with the dogma.This person you refer to above does not exist in your and my reality.All this theology is irrelevant.
___________________________________________
 
Christopher:
That is what Baptism of Desire deals with, it does not in any way mean that Baptism of Water can suddenly be nullified and replaced. That is what the Holy Office 1949 was stressing in its condemnation of Feeyenism. You argue that the Holy Office 1949 proclamation is an exception to the Extra Ecclesiam Null Salus, but it is actually not contradictory, for the reason that it does not remove the necessity of Baptism, but it is in the context of Acts 17:23 prior to hearing St. Paul and the hypothetical death of a convert before being able to be baptised. You then stress that Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire are not contradictory to Feeneyism, but the Feeneyist’s argue that Baptism of Desire is erroneous given that if a person dies without Baptism of Water like above, they are condemned.
Lionel:
I do not know what you mean by Feeneyist. I am not using the apologetics of the St.Benedict Centers,USA. I am simply saying that for somethng to be an exeption it must exist. For someone to be an exception fundamentally he must exist. I am not into the familiar theology that can be read on the Internet.
-Lionel Andrades
________________________________________________
http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/this-just-in/#comment-25005

CMRI has not responded to these blog posts sent to them :they have to review their position on Vatican Council II

Christopher:
As to how Vatican II contradicts prior teachings, a quick summary can be seen with comparison to Church Teaching at CMRI [http://www.cmri.org/02-v2_non-christian.shtml ].

Lionel:
With reference to CMRI:
Meeting needed between Ecclesia Dei/CDF, SSPX,CMRI and others: all agree that the baptism of desire is not an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/meeting-needed-between-ecclesia-deicdf.html
 
Where does the Catholic Church teach that the baptism of Blood and of Desire are physically visible and known to us in the present times (2014) ?http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/07/where-does-catholic-church-teach-that.html#links
 
Sedevacantists, traditionalists,Departments of Theology suggest Blessed Pope Pius XII made a mistakehttp://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/11/sedevacantists-traditionalistsdepartmen.html
 
Catholics are now aware- the Magisterium has made a mistake
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/07/catholics-are-now-aware-magisterium-has.html
 
-Lionel Andrades

Sunday, September 28, 2014

SSPX must not announce that they reject Vatican Council II



I hope the SSPX will not announce that they cannot accept Vatican Council II.
They must announce that they accept Vatican Council II interpreted without the irrational premise.They must announce that they accept Vatican Council II interpreted with Feeneyism.
They need to announce that they reject Vatican Council II, the Vatican Curia-version, interpreted with Cushingism.
They must announce that they accept Vatican Council II according to the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 which says there are no exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They must clarify that they accept Vatican Council II (without the premise) and also affirm Tradition.



They accept the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as possibilities and not known realities in 2014 so they simultaneously also affirm 'the rigorist interpretation' of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012 on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They must clarify that 'the Hindu in Tibet' whom Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said is saved in his religion through Jesus and the Church,is not a visible exception in 2014  to all needing the  baptism of water for salvation.
If the SSPX announces that they reject Vatican Council II it means they still do not understand that they are rejecting Vatican Council II according to Cushingism and are not aware of the other interpretation which is rational, pro-Tradition and which the liberals hate.
-Lionel Andrades