Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Cardinal Raymond Burke approved the article. Fr.Hardon like Cardinal Marchetti makes this wrong inference in the article.

Comments from the blog post Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error 1
Anonymous:
Lionel, you are failing to read the sentence before those you are emphasizing:

"Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."
Lionel:
Baptism is necessary for every one.
All need faith and baptism says Vatican Council II (AG 7).
The Church knows of no means to eternal beatitude other than the baptism of water says the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257.
If there is an exception, it would be known only to God.
So why mention something which is unknown to us? This was the error in 1949.
_______________

Therefore, for any who have NOT had 'the possibility of asking for this sacrament' its effects may be attained through desire.
Lionel:
We do not and cannot know of any such case.
So why was it mentioned in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Why was it inferred to be an exception to the traditional interpretation of the dogma?
The fault was with Cardinal Francesco Marchetti.
He was implying that these cases were examples of known salvation outside the Church and so Fr. Leonard Feeney was wrong.
In other words he personally knew of persons saved as such and so they were contradictions to the dogma.
Why mention something which is hypothetical and then also suggest that this case was saved without the baptism of water? How would Cardinal Marchetti know ?
___________________

Otherwise, you would deny Beatitude to many saints and prophets of the Old Testament, to mention of a few.
Lionel:
The prophets and saints of the Old Testament who were saved, went to Heaven only after the Resurrection of the awaited Jewish Messiah. Until that time they had to wait in Abraham's Bosom.
__________________________

Anonymous:
Thus, there is no contradiction in what was asserted by Cardinal Burke and Fr. Hardon and others.
Lionel:
Like Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani, Fr.John Hardon assumed that being saved with implicit desire ( and without the baptism of water) or in invincible ignorance, were exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma.This is accepted by Cardinal Raymond Burke.

We now know that those who are saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance, allegedly without the baptism of water, are in Heaven. So how can they be explicit exceptions on earth to the strict interpretation of the dogma, it is asked.This was a factual mistake made by Cardinal Burke and the late Fr.John Hardon.
Fr.John Hardon also assumed that the Church Fathers and Church documents before 1949 tell us that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. There is no such magisterial document before 1949. They only refer to persons being saved with implicit desire or in inculpable ignorance. They do not tell us that these cases are known to us.Nor is it said that they are explicit exceptions to the dogma. This has to be inferred- wrongly. Fr.Hardon like Cardinal Marchetti makes this wrong inference in the article.
 

Fr.John Hardon also assumed that the Church Fathers and Church documents before 1949 tell us that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. There is no such magisterial document before 1949. They only refer to persons being saved with implicit desire or in inculpable ignorance. They do not tell us that these cases are known to us.Nor is it said that they are explicit exceptions to the dogma. This has to be inferred- wrongly. Fr.Hardon like Cardinal Marchetti makes this wrong inference in the article.Cardinal Raymond Burke approved the article.
-Lionel Andrades


 
 


Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/cardinal-raymond-burke-interprets.html


Rome made a mistake in 1949 and Fr.John Hardon did not notice it
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/rome-made-mistake-in-1949-and-frjohn_3.html


The Catechumen you refer to is a hypothetical case for you and me. So it is not an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : Fr.John Hardon too did not notice this. http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/the-catechuman-you-refer-to-is.html

For Cardinal Raymond Burke these hypothetical cases are explicit exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/for-cardinal-raymond-burke-these.html


VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS 
 

 
1
March 4, 2015
Cardinal Raymond Burke approved Fr. John Hardon's error

CAIR, Left fail to strongarm Ted Cruz into pulling out of event with Robert Spencer

RSYAF032815

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/03/cair-left-fail-to-strongarm-ted-cruz-into-pulling-out-of-event-with-robert-spencer

UK: Muslim judge convicts Christian preacher of hate speech

Mike-Overd
UK: Muslim judge convicts Christian preacher of hate speech
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/03/uk-muslim-judge-convicts-christian-preacher-of-hate-speech

The Council of Trent does not state that these cases are physically or personally known to us to be exceptions to the dogma.This has to be wrongly inferred.

wineinthewater
If the Church ever actually held the rigorist interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, then she threw it away long before 1949. Pope Pius XI rejected the rigorist interpretation in his encyclical Quuanto Conficiamur Moerore.
Lionel:
Please cite the text.
I don't think it says any where that there are known exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma.

_______________________
 

Trent rejected it.
Lionel:
The same with Trent.
The Council of Trent mentions the posibility of a person being saved with implicit desire in a way known to God.
The Council of Trent does not state that these cases are physically or personally known to us to be exceptions to the dogma.
This has to be wrongly inferred. The text does not make this claim.
_____________________
Thomas Aquinas rejected it with his embrace of baptism of repentance and baptism of desire.
Lionel:
St.Thomas Aquinas like St.Augustine held the strict interpretation of the dogma.
He mentions the man in the forest in invincible ignorance. He also says that God will send a preacher to him. So he will be baptised before he dies.
It has to be inferred wrongly that the man in the forest refers to a known case and so it is an exception to the dogma.The text does not state this.Liberal theologians make the irrational inference.

__________________
This is obviously quite the issue for you. But as for me, I will put my faith in the Church.
Lionel:
So will I.
The Church according to magisterial texts including Vatican Council II. None of them are interpreted by me, with the irrational proposition that persons saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma. This would be implying that we can personally see or know these persons on March 31, 2015 for them to be exceptions.

_______________________
If she has erred on this, then she is not the Church founded by Jesus and cannot be trusted about anything.
Lionel:
I see it as an oversight of the magisterium after 1949. It can be corrected and we are back to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma.

______________________
You can toss her non-rigorist view of EENS if you like, but you must likewise be willing to give up her authority behind every teaching.
Lionel:
It is the non rigorist vew of EENS which clashes with her Authority, the Bible and Tradition.

________________________
In an irony, by claiming that she is wrong now, you invalidate any claim to your rigorist position that is based on her authority.
Lionel:
With the rigorist interpretation of EENS the teaching of the Church is the same before and after Vatican Council II.
It is the non rigorist interpretation, the popular one, which is heresy. It rejects a defined dogma and changes the meaning of the Nicene Creed's 'I beleive in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin'.
There is only one known baptism, the baptism of water. We cannot administer the baptism of desire or blood to anyone. These are graces from God.
So it is wrong to imply that there is salvation outside the Church, without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water. None of us knows of an exception in the present times.
-Lionel Andrades
 

I love both! I fell in love with Teresa of Avila many years ago when I felt Jesus calling me to a more contemplative prayer life. I read all her books.

I love both! I fell in love with Teresa of Avila many years ago when I felt Jesus calling me to a more contemplative prayer life. I read all her books...

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/03/28/st-teresa-of-avila-was-a-charming-droll-and-tough-minded-reformer/

St Teresa of Avila was a charming, droll and tough-minded reformer
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2015/03/28/st-teresa-of-avila-was-a-charming-droll-and-tough-minded-reformer/


http://abbey-roads.blogspot.it/2015/03/something-from-teresa-of-jesus-for.html

Moving Mountains -Michael Voris

""Our union with God cannot be accomplished except through suffering."~Fr. Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, Divine Intimacy"
Moving Mountains
https://youtu.be/RSr_nEoYYdQ

https://www.facebook.com/michael.voris.7

Bishop Mark Pivarunas ,CMRI would agree that those saved with the baptism of desire are not physically visible to us today

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AFFIRMS THE STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS: Bishop Mark A. Pivarunas does not know of any exceptions.
The Catholic Church affirms the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The dogma is also in line with Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7) which says 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.All. There are no exceptions.This is the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican Council II.
photo of Bishop Mark PivarunasBishop Mark A. Pivarunas, CMRI would today confirm that those who are saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire, referred to in Vatican Council II (LG 14, AG 7) as possibilities, are not physically visible and personally known to us .Obviously. So today March 31,2015 there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, defined by three Church Councils.Nor are there exceptions to Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II. None.He cannot meet someone in Rome who will be saved without 'faith and baptism'.
The Catholic Church's ecclesiology is still exclusivist.Since there cannot be exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the strict interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The references to invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and LG 8,NA 2,UR 3 etc ( all examples of persons saved but invisible on earth) are possibilities but not exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma, the Feeneyite version.
Bishop Mark Pivarunas, Superior General of the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMRI- Congregatio Mariae Reginae Immaculatae ) would say the obvious i.e salvation in Heaven is not visible, known, explicit in the present times. This is common knowledge.This could be known even to someone who did not know Catholic theology. One does not have to be a Catholic to know that persons in Heaven are not visible on earth. Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani made an objective mistake in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.He assumed there were physically visible exceptions.
The Catholic Church still teaches the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus,for the discerning Catholic.Vatican Council II affirms the rigorist interpretation of the dogma- unless you assume some people in Heaven can be seen objectively on earth.

Bishop Mark Pivarunas' view would also be supported by Mons. Guido Pozzo, Secretary at Ecclesia Dei, Vatican.So there would no be doctrinal differences with the sedevacantists CMRI, since Vatican Council II ( without the irrationality) is pro-CMRI,SSPX and Tradition in general and especially on the issue of other religions and ecumenism.
Mons. Guido Pozzo cannot know of any exception to the dogma. Vatican Council II does not mention any case of someone saved without 'faith and baptism' in the present times. If it did suggest that there was an exception then it would be an objective mistake. The references to being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire (LG 14,AG 7) in Vatican Council II are not exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma. They have been mentioned in LG 14,AG 7 because of the oversight in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Vatican Council II does not contradict the traditional teaching on members of other religions needing to convert formally into the Catholic Church for salvation and that there can only be an ecumenism of return.
There are also no exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 which says all need to convert into the Church with 'faith and baptism'.
The dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been the traditional basis for affirming the Catholic teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political systems.All need to be Catholic since in Heaven there are only Catholics.

So Bishop Mark Pivarunas differences on other religions and ecumenism do not really exist.
Doctrinally Bishop Mark Pivarunas, the SSPX and the Franciscans of the Immaculate can hold their traditional position on other religions and an ecumenism of return and also accept Vatican Council II (without the irrational premise). They can have it both ways. The irrational premise suggests that we humans can physically see persons saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire and in invincible ignorance. Then it is inferred that these cases in Heaven, physically seen on earth, are explicit exceptions to the dogmatic teaching on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church. This was also the misunderstanding of Bishop Mark Pivarunas.
His irrational inference was that since there are physically known cases of persons saved without the baptism of water on March 31, 2015, there is salvation outside the Church.So the irrational conclusion has been that Vatican Council II contradicts the rigorist interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So the CMRi rejects Vatican Council II.

Bishop Mark Pivaraunas cannot physically know any exceptions to the centuries-old interpretation of outside the Church there is no salvation.This  can be confirmed, by journalists, who contact the CMRI.They would be confirming what is commlon knowledge.-Lionel Andrades
 
Brief History
In 1986, CMRI held its first General Chapter establishing a formal set of Rules and Constitutions. In the same year, the Rule was approved by Bishop Robert F. McKenna, OP, whose episcopal lineage can also be traced to Archbishop Thục.
In 1989, Father Mark Pivarunas was elected Superior General of the Congregation. Father Pivarunas received episcopal consecration in 1991 by Bishop Moises Carmona, also of the Thục lineage.
Pivarunas currently serves as Superior General...
In June 2007, 15 sisters living at Mount Saint Michael in Spokane were expelled from the Congregation because they had come to disagree with the Congregation's sedevacantist and accepted the authority of the post-Vatican II popes.They joined the Diocese of Spokane and formed the Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Church (SMMC) under the authority of the Spokane Bishop William Skylstad.
The Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen serves 29 churches and chapels in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. They also operate the Mater Dei Seminary in Omaha, Nebraska, while the Sisters' motherhouse is located in Spokane, Washington (Mount Saint Michaels Mission). They have expanded into Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; Central and South America, with centers in Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico; and Europe, with Mass centers in England, France, Germany, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Russia, and Ukraine.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_of_Mary_Immaculate_Queen

Of Special Interest

Reclaiming a Hijacked Priesthood: Fr. Michael Oswalt speaks of his experiences in a VII seminary Ordained in the modern Catholic Church in 2008, Fr. Michael Oswalt soon came to see that not only were his orders invalid, but that his Church was not truly the Catholic Church. He came to Mount St. Michael in January of 2010 to prepare for ordination in the traditional Catholic rite, and was ordained to the priesthood on June 29, 2011.
View Fr. Oswalt’s online interview (2009) His letter to the clergy of the diocese of Rockford, a superb explanation of why the modern Church is not truly the Catholic Church, was published in Issue No. 138 of The Reign of Mary and may also be read at this link.
Also available: Feb. 2010 Talk at Mount St. Michael (CD)
“Reclaiming a Hijacked Priesthood: One Man’s Story” (CD)
http://www.cmri.org/index.html#EVENTS
________________________________
The Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II are in accord with the sedevacantist position on the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/12/the-catechism-of-catholic-church-and.html

CATHOLIC CHURCH AFFIRMS STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE DOGMA EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS : Cardinal Vallini and Auxiliary bishops of Rome http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/catholic-church-affirms-strict.html

Journalist meets Cardinal Vince Nicols 
 
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/journalist-meets-cardinal-vince-nicols.html

In itself the baptism of desire is not a problem. It is when it is considered an exception to the dogma that the error arises http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/in-itself-baptism-of-desire-is-not.html 

Every one needs to be a Catholic : Those who are taught or not taught, those who know or do not know about the Church, will be decided by Jesus http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/every-one-needs-to-be-catholic-those.html 

The baptism of desire is accepted by me since it is not an exception to the dogma even when it occurs and it is known only to God http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/the-baptism-of-desire-is-accepted-by-me.html

There is so much of confusion since Cardinal Marchetti Selvaggiani (1949) inferred that the baptism of desire was an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/there-is-so-much-of-confusion-since.html

I accept Christ in the Catholic Church and according to the traditional teachings of the Church, the traditional Magisterium which is supported by Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/i-accept-christ-in-catholic-church-and.html

When the Magisterium says God is not limited to the Sacraments it is an objective error since the norm is the Sacrament of Baptism and you and I do not know of any exceptions http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/when-magisterium-says-god-is-not.html

Vatican Council II is in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and not according to the SSPX, sedevacantists and others who use irrational Cushingism
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/vatican-council-ii-is-in-agreement-with.html#links
 
The Council of Trent only referred to the baptism of desire. It did not say that these cases were known and visible to us
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/the-council-of-trent-only-referred-to.html

Whatever be your understanding of Feeneyism objectively you do not know any exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in 2014 http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/12/whatever-be-your-understanding-of.html 

The Council of Trent has only cited implicit desire and did not say it is an exception to the dogma  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/11/the-council-of-trent-has-only-cited.html
 
So if you say someone could be saved with the Baptism of Desire or if you say that someone could not be saved with the Baptism of Desire, either way, it is irrelevant to the dogma on salvation http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/09/so-if-you-say-someone-could-be-saved.html 
 

I accept the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and endorse an implicit for us and visible only for God baptism of desire
Adsum photos
Another baptism of desire list in which it is assumed that the deceased are visible to us http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/08/another-baptism-of-desire-list-in-which.html
 
conf20131009.jpg 
I reject an explicit baptism of desire and affirm the traditional and centuries old interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.If it is not explicit it is not an exception
 
The Letter of the Holy Office makes it an issue. It considers the baptism of desire an exception to extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Invisible persons cannot be an exception on earth to Fr.Leonard Feeney saying every one needs the baptism of water for salvation
 
Fr. Paul Kramer infers cases of the baptism of desire are visible for us.So they are exceptions to the dogma for him http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/fr-paul-kramer-infers-cases-of-baptism.html
 
Did Pope Pius XII make a mistake ? http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/did-pope-pius-xii-make-mistake.html#linksDid Pope Pius XII make a mistake ? : implicit desire, invincible ignorance have nothing to do with extra ecclesiam nulla salus http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/did-pope-pius-xii-make-mistake-implicit.html#links

The Good Thief is not an exception to all needing the baptism of water http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/the-good-thief-is-not-exception-to-all.html#links

Hundreds of saints have used what the secular media calls ‘the rigorist interpretation’ of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/hundreds-of-saints-have-used-what.html#links
I can hold the traditional interpretation of the dogma along with invisible for us and visible for God only, baptism of desire http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/can-hold-traditional-interpretation-of.html
  
I am referring to physics and not theology. Physically with the human eye we cannot see the deceased now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2014/06/i-am-referring-to-physics-and-not.html