Wednesday, May 27, 2015

The Eucharist | Truth Still Matters #27 - Hubert Sanders

http://www.hubertsanders.com/eucharist-truth-still-matters-27/

http://www.hubertsanders.com/Truthstillmatters/Eucharist/TheEucharist.mp4?_=3

Jesuit theologians were present at the Synod preliminary meeting : ominous

Cardinal Walter Kaspar has said in an interview that if the Church could change its teachings on ecclesiology then why cannot it do so also on giving the Eucharist to married and divorced Catholics.
He means that the whole Church, traditionalists included, have accepted the Marchetti Error, which gave birth to the new theology.It is part of magisterial documents and is mentioned in Vatican Council II.
Feeneyism which was magisterial according to the pre-1949 Church was replaced with Cushingism ( there are known exceptions to the dogma).This is the liberal theology  which is irrational, non traditional and accepted by the contemporary Magisterium, including the two popes.
Pope Francis chaired the May 25-26, 2015  meeting of the Ordinary Council of the Synod of Bishops preliminary meeting.It is preparing for this October’s synod. It was held at the Gregorian Pontifical University in Rome, the Jesuit University, where Fr. Francois-Dumortier S.J is the  Rector. He is also one of the theological consultants for the October Synod.

Fr.Francois-Dumortier will suggest ( based on their being alleged salvation outside the Church) that there can be an exception made in our understanding of the Eucharist being given to the divorced and remarriage. Cardinal Walter Kaspar already let out the secret, before the last Synod on the family had begun.
As I mentioned in a previous blog post 1 his understanding is : if we can change extra ecclesiam nulla salus (EENS) why not everything else? If we could get away with it once (1949) with theology why not a second time? So theology will be used to change Church teaching in October 2015.
Even the traditionalists and the conservative Catholics accept that there is salvation outside the Church.So it will be easy this time too for the Jesuit theologians.
Michael Voris and John Henry Weston were there reporting at the last Synod and I think of the many blog posts which I have sent them and they still do not understand what I am saying.Or for some reason they do not want to comment on it.
Similarly the Society of St. Pius X are not going to expose the error since then they will have to admit that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre made a mistake. So there will be silence also from Chris Ferrara, John Vennari and the SSPX priests in the USA.
The FSSP is now part of the Church, with full canonical status. So they are not going to say that the baptism of desire had nothing to do with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney.
They accept the new ecclesiology like Fr.John Zuhlsdorf. Fr.Z has a report on his blog and does not mention this issue. Since he accepts Marchetti's Error like Cardinal Kaspar and Pope Francis. 2
It is not good to be considered a Feeneyite if you want a career n the Catholic Church.
So the Jesuit theologians are expected to use the same irrationality they used in the Boston Case. They will present a theology again based on an irrationality. They will infer that we humans can personally see people in Heaven saved without the baptism of water- and they are expected to get away with it again.
-Lionel Andrades


 
1.

Pope Francis is counting on the Jesuit theologians to work 'the old trick' for the Synod : modus operandi

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/pope-francis-is-counting-on-jesuit.html

2.
 

Check list of doctrinal errors on Church Militant.com

Church MilitantI am an admirer of Church Militant.com. I remain one of their supporters by watching the Vortex regularly.I appreciate the hard work of Michael Voris. I agree with his understanding of outside the Church there is no salvation.

However there is confusion.Since Michael accepts the liberal theology of the contemporary magisterium on this issue,as does Christine Niles. This was clear in the Mic'd Up program on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It was a good program however doctrinally and theologically Christine stayed clear of controversy, for whatever reasons.
She did not affirm the dogma in agreement with Vatican Council II.Instead she chose to interpret this issue in the same way as the SSPX ,traditionalists and sedevacantists i.e she went to the dogma for support and interpreted Vatican Council II and the Catechism, using Cushingism instead of Feeneyism.
This was a break with the pre-1949 Magisterium since she was using Cushingism.While her intepretation of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II was a break with the dogma, which she affirmed. Since she was rejecting Feeneyism for irrational Cushingism.
However this program on EENS with Fr.Roman Manchester was a very good beginning on the subject of EENS. Over time she can adapt and clarify her theology and thinking.There can only be a rational  or irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II with respect to EENS and it is easy and simple to choose the traditional, rational one.
What I mention in this blog post is not for the sake of criticism( I see Church Militant as a friend)  but it is because I have confidence in Michael Voris and the CM staff, who I know will identify the error and correct it for the sake of Jesus and the Church.We are all working for the same aim.
If any one can bring this issue out in the open and bring the Church back on the doctrinal rails, it would be Church Militant.
 
Doctrinal Errors on Church Militant. com which need to be corrected.They are based on statements made on the Vortex and Mic'd Up programs.
1.Every one does not need to be a card carrying member of the Catholic Church in the present times.
2.There are people saved through Jesus and the Church in other religions and they are known to us.
3.Cushingism is correct and Feeneyism is wrong.The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 is accepted.
4.SSPX must accept Vatican Council II with Cushingism and not Feeneyism.
5.The SSPX is in schism for not accepting Vatican Council II with Cushingism.
6.The baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
7.Since the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are exceptions to the dogma it is inferred that these cases are personally visible, objectively seen.
8.Lumen Gentium  16, Lumen Gentium 8, Nostra Aetate 2,Unitatis Redintigratio 3, Ad Gentes 11 ( seeds of the Word)  etc contradict the rigorist interpretation of  the thrice defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
9..Vatican Council II is a break with the Syllabus of Errors.
10..The Magisterium did not make a factual error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
11. There is no mistake in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846,1257.It cannot be misunderstood.
11.Catholic children in the Archdiocese of Detroit schools are not being taught a factual error during Religion Class.
-Lionel Andrades

CM,SSPX,MICM deny the Faith to please superiors

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/cmsspxmicm-deny-faith-to-please.html 

Michael Voris does not say every one needs to be a card carrying member of the Church for salvation. For him there are exceptions.
 
Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren
 
Apparition Theology which Church Militant and Fr.Barron accept, contradict the exclusivist ecclesiology of Augustine and Aquinas.
 
SSPX must continue to reject Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents interpreted with the false premise and conclusion ? : ChurchMilitant TV still does not respond
 
Church Militant TV's Simon Rafe and Ryan Fitzgerald will not answer : SSPX

SSPX must continue to reject Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents interpreted with the false premise and conclusion : ChurchMilitant TV comment incomplete  http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/04/sspx-must-continue-to-reject-vatican.html

 
ChurchMilitantTV removes comments : irrational theology which David Obeid and Luke Macik have to teach to be approved by the bishop
 
Superintendents of Catholic Schools in the Archdiocese of Detroit agree : irrationality being taught in Religion Class
 
Bishop Arturo Cepeda, Director of the Department of Evangelization, Catechesis and Schools,Detroit has no denial : he agrees an irrationality is taught to Catholic school children
 
CMTV and the Archdiocese of Detroit
 
Mic'd Up (The Real Spirit of Vatican II) has not quoted AG 7, LG 14 which is in line with the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
Why should Catholic students in schools be taught all this irrationality and heresy?
 
Did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make a factual mistake and so school children in the Archdiocese of Detroit have to use an irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II ?
 
Apparition theology in Detroit
 
The SSPX must keep rejecting Vatican Council II according to Cushingism.
 
Pope Benedict expected the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) to accept Vatican Council II with the theology of Cushingism. This is doctrinal heresy
 
Two standards on doctrine
 
SSPX show the Vatican the Marchetti error carried over into Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus and other magisterial documents
 
Vatican Council II (premise-free) agrees with the SSPX position on an ecumenism of return and non Christians needing to convert for salvation
Church Militant TV (CMTV) could help resolve the CDF-SSPX doctrinal issue by identifying the exact doctrinal error
 
Mic'd Up: Catholic School Daze
 
This is irrationality and heresy being promoted by ' the Church' since 1949.The post 1949 Magisterium contradicts the pre-1949 Magisterium
 
Vocations to the religous life have to accept an irrationality in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
 
This is a superflous passage in Vatican Council II (LG 16)
 
So if LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 are not explicit for us in 2015 ( and they are not) then there is nothing in Vatican Council II to contradict Feeneyism.

VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/02/vatican-council-ii-says.html

Questions and Answers : Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. It has an exclusivist ecclesiology
 
Questions and Answers : Vatican Council II affirms the Social Kingship of Christ the King
 
Every one needs to be a card carrying member of the Catholic Church today for salvation
 
All the Jews in Sydney and Boston are oriented to Hell according to Vatican Council II
 
SSPX, MICM and traditionalists are interpreting Vatican Council II according to the Left
 
Those who are saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not outside the Church, they are saved with the baptism of water in the Catholic Church
 
Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary liberalism: same as Cardinal Walter Kaspar http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/slaves-of-immaculate-heart-of-mary.html
 
Compartmentalise your thinking on the baptism of desire and blood with the dogma
 
Ecclesiology is not changed with I.I and BOD.It never was.Vatican Council II was always orthodox on salvation.The ecclesiology was exclusivist.
 
Joseph Shaw would not say that all need to formally enter the Church for salvation in Britain. This would be the old ecclesiology.Instead he would say that there are exceptions. This is the new ecclesiology.
 
Joseph Shaw is not going to tell Muslims at Oxford that the Chuch says all need to formally enter the Church to avoid Hell. Neither is Gavin D'Costa going to say this in Bristol.
 
Now the error has been identified. Over time people will realize that what Feeney believed in was de fide and it was Cushing and Marchetti who were in heresy
 
The error was not corrected. Cushing brought it into Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) with no opposition. Even the traditionalists agreed with him!
 
No text in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore or the Council of Trent says there are exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus
 
We have two options. We can interpret the text either way. One way is traditional and the other is irrational
 
Ad Gentes 7 can be interpreted with Feeneyism or Cushingism
 
St.Thomas Aquinas was a Feeneyite
 
Contemporary Magisterium is in doctrinal error : Rome Vicariate, Ecclesia Dei, SSPX,FSSP,CMRI agree
 
I accept the Magisterium of the Catholic Church according to magisterial documents.I reject the contemporary magisterium i.e persons in power
 
Rome Vicariate, Ecclesia Dei, SSPX, FSSP, CMRI agree Marchetti made a mistake and Feeney was correct
 
John Lamont, Thomas Pink, Joseph Shaw remain politically correct and keep their mandatum to teach theology
 
The dogma tells us all need to be formal members of the Church and objectively we do not and cannot know of any exception
 
No correction has to be made in the text.I am affirming Vatican Council II when I hold the rigorist interpretation of the dogma
 
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.
 
Without the irrational premise, inference and conclusion there is no spirit of Vatican Council II in the interpretation of the documents
 
Doctrinal difficulties exist within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's position on Vatican Council II and Tradition
 
The Magisterium made a mistake at Vatican Council II when it accomodated the Marchetti 1949 error
 
Vatican Council in general is being interpreted with an irrationality.Catholics do not know that there is a choice.Eliminate the premise and the Council dramatically changes.
 
Pope Francis is counting on the Jesuit theologians to work 'the old trick' for the Synod : modus operandi
 
How can everyone be wrong and only you be correct

The 'mainstream' Church has to begin the reconciliation process with doctrinal truth.They have to admit that there are no exceptions to the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS, on March 19,2015

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/03/the-mainstream-church-has-to-begin.html 

If the Holy See chooses to interpret Vatican Council without the false premise there can be a reconciliation.The announcement has first to be made by the Holy See.

If the Magisterium accepts that Vatican Council II can be interpreted without Marchetti's irrational premise and conclusion then the Church comes back to Tradition, as Bishop Williamson sought

Fr.John Zuhlsdorf does not believe in the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus : advice on interfaith marriages

When the laity are aware of the false premise, they will not fall for this ruse

 
Once a traditionalist or sedevacantist has an insight into all this Vatican Council II dramatically changes
 
When Redemptoris Missio and Dominus Iesus were issued neither did Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger know of any exceptions to the dogma
 
Cardinal Raymond Burke interprets Church documents with an irrational premise and conclusion and offers the Traditional Latin Mass
 
Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict also used the false premise and conclusion from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949
 
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
 
How can you presume to know who will be saved with the baptism of blood ( martrydom) and without the baptism of water in future or this year?
 
This is irrational. Even a non Catholic would realize it.Yet this is what is inferred when it is assumed there are exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 in Vatican Council II

I could interpret these passages in Vatican Council II without using the irrational premise and conclusion

 
So it is the same passage and we have interpreted it differently. You have used an irrational premise and I have avoided it.
 
Parts of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church do affirm the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney
 
Vatican Council says we really cannot have a reasonable hope that all men are saved
 
________________________________
 

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Michael Voris uses liberal theology and yet critcizes Michael Coren

 
According to Michael Voris one needs Grace to be saved and that Grace is there in the Catholic Church.He said this in the Mic'd Up program on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
And yet acording to Michael Voris a person can have that grace outside the Church. So there is salvation outside the Church? In a Vortex issue on is there salvation for non Catholics, he says not every one needs to be a card carrying member of the Church. So he assumes there is salvation outside the Church. He cites CCC 846. So he infers that those who are saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are known cases in the present times.They would have to be known to be exceptions. So for him they are exceptions to the dogma.Only if they are visible they can be exceptions.They are visible for his staff in Detroit. This is also being taught to school children there in Catechism class.

For Michael Voris there are exceptions since he cites the Catechism of the Catholic Church (846) indirectly. This is his theology whether he knows it or not.So there is salvation outside the Church for Michael Voris . So also for Christine. She quoted the Letter of the Holy Office on the Mic'd Up show.The Letter mentions exceptions to the Feeneyite version of the dogma.
Since there are exceptions to the dogma for Michael Voris according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846, he says all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church. This is Apparition Theology. It accomodates seeing the dead who are now in Heaven without the baptism of water.It is based on knowing people in the present times (2015) who can or will be saved without 'faith and baptism' (
AG 7).So why all the fuss about Michael Coren leaving the Catholic Church and joining the Anglicans ?. According Church Militant's Apparition Theology Coren could be saved as an Anglican since there is known salvation outside the Church.He could be an exception to the dogma. The Church Militant staff 's position on extra ecclesiam nulla salus is contradictory and not traditional.They use the same liberal theology as the magisterium and many of the traditionalists, including the SSPX and the St.Benedict Centers.
It is Cushingism. It comes from Marchetti's error. Mic'd Up participants never mentioned Fr.Leonard Feeney or affirmed clearly the rigorist interpretation of the dogma supported by Vatican Council II.
So with the Letter of the Holy Office and the Catechism of the Catholic Church they were on air, contradicting Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441 which was cited in part. Christine omitted the phrase,'Jews, heretics and schismatics'
Regarding Coren, with liberal theology on
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, accepted at Church Militant.com, he could be saved outside the Church, since there is salvation outside the Church according to the new theology. If there is one person who can be saved outside the Church then there could be many as the liberals believe.If there are many then....
He could be saved through Jesus and the Church as the Catechism (846) and Michael Voris tells us.
Church Militant promotes the new theology on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, with the approval of the local bishop and the Vatican and yet criticizes
Michael Coren for leaving the Catholic Church?
I mentioned in a previous post that Brother Andre Marie MICM has commented on the Mic'd Up Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus website. There is also a comment which refers to him by the Church Militant Moderator.
Brother Andre Marie , Christine Niles and Fr.Roman Manchester are using the same liberal theology;the new theology on extra ecclesiam nulla salus .This is approved by the magisterium.

The message which comes across is: the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are related to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

They needed to avoid entering into the liberal theology cycle.The new theology is an endless circle.It is based on an irrationality. For years supporters of the SSPX and the
St.Benedict Centers have entered into this whirlpool both assuming they are correct, when really being saved in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire refer to "zero cases", as John Martignoni put it. Their reasoning and theology is based on a zero case. This happens when they link invincible ignorance etc with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Marchetti's original error.
The SSPX-St.Benedict arguments imply that there are known exceptions in the present times. These cases would be apparitions!
So there cannot really be anything in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Vatican Council II to contradict the Feeneyite version of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.Physically, in real life we are dealing with zero cases.
Michael Coren is outside the Church, Jesus' Mystical Body and is on the way to Hell according to Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (845,846,1257), Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, the Nicene Creed and John 3:5, Mark 16: 16).
-Lionel Andrades
 

Those who are saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not outside the Church, they are saved with the baptism of water in the Catholic Church

Those who are saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are not outside the Church, they are saved with the baptism of water in the Catholic Church. We do not know any such case in the present times. These are theoretical cases and are not defacto known. Objectively they cannot be seen in 2015.So LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to salvation within the Church.
The Catholic traditionalists must not consider these cases as salvation outside the Catholic Church, outside the visible boundaries of the Church.
Since 1) we do not personally know any such case ( saved without faith and baptism, saved without being a formal member of the Church, 2) no magisterial document before 1949 makes this claim and 3) the dogma says all need to be formal members of the Church with no exceptions, for salvation.
So outside the Church there is no salvation, according to Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades

Monday, May 25, 2015

Prof. Gavin D'Costa is using an irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II. This is unethical.

The University of Bristol is still not telling the truth about the Catholic Church's teachings on other religions according to Vatican Council II.
The text is clear in Vatican Council II. Yet Prof. Gavin D'Costa is using an irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II. This is unethical.
The University is aware of it. Since it is politically correct with the Left they are overlooking D'Costa's lie.
 
He is unable to respond to these blog posts. He  knows he has made a factual mistake regarding Vatican Council II.He is using Apparition Theology based on this objective mistake.He cannot defend his academic papers and talks.
 
Here are two programs at the University of Bristol according to the university website.
25 November 2014: David Marshall, Professor, Duke University. ‘Approaching the other’s text: reflections on writing an introduction to the Qur’an for Christian readers.’
Chair: Gavin D’Costa
10 February 2015: Debate: ‘Muslim-Catholic Relations since Paul VI: The Legacy of Ecclesiam Suam and Vatican II.’
Mustafa Baig, Research Fellow, Institute of Arabic and Islamic Studies, University of Exeter;
Gavin D’Costa, Professor of Catholic Theology, University of Bristol.
Chair: David Leech
 
-Lionel Andrades
 
 

SSPX, MICM and traditionalists are interpreting Vatican Council II according to the Left

What would be the reaction of the Jewish Left if the traditionalists said that Vatican Council II says all Jews and other non Catholics need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell and there is no ambiguity in the Council ?
Possibly they would declare Vatican Council II as being anti-Semitic and criminal !
Vatican Council II (AG 7, LG 14) does say all need faith and baptism and Vatican Council II does not say that LG 16,LG 8, UR 3, NA 2 etc refer to known exceptions to AG 7 and LG 14 in the present times.No where does the Council say that LG 16 etc refers to known exceptions in the present times to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. For there to be an exception it would have to be known in the present times.
Yet this is not how the SSPX and  MICM interpret Vatican Council II. They infer that LG 16 is an exception.The text does not say it. It has to be implied.The Left implies it. So do the traditionalists.Check the sedevacantists websites. It is the same mistake there too.
They interpret Vatican Council II similar to the Jewish Left.They are liberals on Vatican Council II.
Since for them LG 16 etc refers to known exceptions in the present times to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This is the theology used by the liberals and it is approved by the ADL etc.
The SSPX and the MICM are using the same Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani theology as the Vatican.It is approved by liberal rabbis.
If they did not assume LG 16 etc referred to known cases in the present times, they would be accused of various crimes under  laws placed all over the world by the Jewish Left.This includes Italy.
The SSPX and MICM are not saying that every one needs to be a card carrying member of the Catholic Church according to Vatican Council II. Nor will they say that the Council affirms the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus with no ambiguity and all in 2015 need to have their names on the parish baptism register to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.
They are avoiding tension with the Vatican and the Jewish Left which misuses the anti Semitic and other laws.
-Lionel Andrades
 
VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS
 
Every one needs to be a card carrying member of the Catholic Church today for salvation
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/every-one-needs-to-be-card-carrying.html

Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary liberalism: same as Cardinal Walter Kaspar
 
Compartmentalise your thinking on the baptism of desire and blood with the dogma http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/compartmentalise-your-thinking-on.html

Can you look at this issue without the models used by the SSPX and the MICM ?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/can-you-look-at-this-issue-without.html

CM,SSPX,MICM deny the Faith to please superiors

 
Prof. Roberto de Mattei also uses apparition theology
 
 
Any one who says that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are linked to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a liberal
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/any-one-who-says-that-baptism-of-desire.html

Questions and Answers : Vatican Council II affirms the Social Kingship of Christ the King
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/questions-and-answers-vatican-council_7.html

Questions and Answers : Evangelizing with Vatican Council II
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/questions-and-answers-evangelising-with.html

Questions and Answers : Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. It has an exclusivist ecclesiology
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/05/questions-and-answers-vatican-council.html