SEDEVACANTISTS AND SSPX- KETTLE CALLING THE POT BLACK OVER THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE

The Dimond Brothers like Fr.Joseph Pfeiffer, Superior of the Society of St. Pius X-SO are sure cases of the baptism of desire are visible to us in real life and so are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

The Dimond brothers have  a video on the Internet  criticizing Fr.Joseph Pfeiffer for not rejecting the  baptism of desire like them. They  accuse him and the SSPX groups of being heretics.

Since the sedevacantists Peter and Michael Dimond assume that the baptism of desire is visible and known to us they reject it.They believe this would be a contradiction of the dogma. They reject the baptism of desire even though it is affirmed by the Council of Trent.

They have criticized the SSPX-SO not knowing it is the kettle calling the pot black. They both assume that the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not just a reference to cases in principle but to defacto known cases i.e. one can phone or meet on the street someone saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance.

So the sedevacantists Peter and Michael Dimond and the SSPX–SO condemn Vatican Council II .For them the Vatican Council II's  ‘implicit intentions’, invincible ignorance etc do not fit with the Catholic dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

It also caught my attention that this breakaway group being led by the priests and Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer in particular - Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer is one of the most outspoken members of the SSPX on the issue of "Baptism of Desire," "Salvation Outside the Church," and arguments that you don't need the Catholic faith for salvation.-Brother Peter Dimond, MHFM video

Peter Dimond does not think it through that one can affirm implicit baptism of desire along with the literal interpretation of outside the church there is no salvation. It does not contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction.

Lefebvre says that souls can be saved in non -catholic religions; Schmitberger said it; Fellay said it - it's in their publications - that's what all their priests believe - they hold that the non -catholic Vatican II church is non - catholic, yet it is still the Catholic Church and it's leaders are Catholic!

If souls are saved in other religions with the baptism of desire etc it is irrelevant to the literal interpretation of the dogma since these cases are known only to God.

Father Feeney, when in the 1940's and 1950's most of the world's bishops had embraced the idea that salvation could be attained outside the Catholic Church, which paved the way for the acceptance of Vatican II with little resistance, was severely persecuted for upholding the dogma Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation

Yes the Vatican like the sedevacantists and the SSPX groups are all one the same boat. For them the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are explicitly known to us even though they cannot name any case in 2012.

When they all see the fault  they will know  that Vatican Council II is a  Council which is not a break from the past.

-Lionel Andrades

Subject: SSPX mini-schism

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/E-Exchanges.php

http://catholic2007.blogspot.it/2012/10/sspx-mini-schism-25-october2012-feast.html

THE POEM OF THE MAN GOD BY MARIA VALTORTA

When Edward Pentin interviewed Archbishop Augustine Di Noia for the National Catholic Register he spoke to him about extra ecclesiam nulla salus  and observed that implementing the dogma was not important in the Church. In that interview the Vice President of Ecclesia Dei, Vatican quoted Ralph Martin of the Charismatic Renewal Movement.

Ralph Martin like the Archbishop assumes that we can see the dead saved. Martin cites those saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience (LG 16) and Archbishop Di Noia those with God's grace, 'elements of sanctification' (LG 8) who are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

When they realize that they have made an objective mistake what will be their reaction?.Hower will Cardinal Gerhard Muller also respond (he has made the same mistake in another NCR interview) when they realize that objectively, factually the dead are not visible to us.

I write this after reading a good review of Maria Valtorta's The Poem of the Man God.In the five volumne book is  the traditional understanding of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.There are no known exceptions.

The account of The Poem of the Man God is by Bishop Richard Williamson who interestingly makes the same mistake as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican archbishops. He assumes that those saved with the baptism of desire are explicitly known to us and so are exceptions to the dogma.

Like the other SSPX bishops he is saying that the Holy Office 1949 made a mistake when they assumed that the baptism of desire etc was an exception to the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation.

Interestingly The Poem of the Man God was initially approved at Medugorje. It was a source of controversy in the 1990's when I was there. Finally the Franciscans decided to state that it was not a message of Our Lady. This met the polticial standards set by the Vatican with their explicitly known baptism of desire etc.

Now Medugorje promotes Vicka's message which says most people on earth go to Heaven. This contradicts Ralph Martin's book on salvation and the New Evangelisation.

When the error of the visible dead is exposed by the Vatican, Medugorje would have to go back to theseer Marija's apparition in which Our Lady recommended that she read this book.

This great truth is underlined again and again in the full-length portrait of Judas given in Maria Valtorta's "Poem of the Man-God". This - in English - five-volume life of Our Lord, based on visions supposedly given by Our Lord himself to a bed-ridden Italian woman during the Second World War, is much controverted. But in our time of all-round and on-going betrayal of the Catholic Church, who can dispute the reasonableness of the last of the seven reasons given supposedly by Our Lord for his granting this panorama of his life to mankind in mid-20th century? - "To acquaint you with the mystery of the fall of a soul upon which God had bestowed extraordinary benefits... to acquaint you with the process by which servants and sons of God fall, changing into devils and deicides, killing the God who is within them by killing grace... Apply yourselves to studying the horrible but all too common figure of Judas, a knot tying together, like twisting snakes, all seven capital vices... how many people, in all walks of life, imitate Judas by giving themselves over to Satan and hurtling to their eternal death!" Judge for yourselves the authenticity of the portrait of Judas Iscariot as presented in the "Poem of the Man-God"... http://williamsonletters.blogspot.it/2009/02/judas-and-newchurch.html

 

-Lionel Andrades

Ralph Martin assumes that we can see the dead saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience

Ralph Martin fails to notice that Lumen Gentium  16 is not an exception to Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation. He also assumes that we can see the dead saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience and so LG 16 is an exception to all needing to enter the Catholic Church to avoid Hell, with no known exceptions on earth.

14. 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 and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. -Lumen Gentium 14

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.

Evangelisation is about being saved. The New Evangelisation must recognize doctrinally that all non Catholics are on the way to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church and there are no exceptions.

We do not know whosoever knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary would refuse to enter could not be saved.

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14.

So this passage does not contradict the teaching that ALL need to enter the Church for salvation.

When Vatican Council II mentions that a person can be saved with an 'implicit intention' this is known only to God and so is not an exception to ALL needing to enter the Church for salvation.-Lionel Andrades

http://www.renewalministries.net/files/freeliterature/freeing_the_new_evangelization.pdf

http://www.renewalministries.net/?module=Home

Esquilino problems

Last Saturday at Ponte Milvio,Rome an elderly man representing the Esquilino localities( Seven Hills) of Rome, expressed his concern at two mosques being opened between basilicas.He has been among those protesting in the area and it has been reported in the Rome newspapers. 

VATICAN COUNCIL II

Looking at the issue via Vatican Council II I could understand his concern.

Dignitatis Humanae,Vatican Council II mentions that in a society with a secular Constitution a non Catholic has religious liberty. One cannot physically or legally oppose a Muslim's freedom to worship.Morally, for a Catholic, outside the church there is no salvation.All need 'faith and baptism' for salvation (AG 7).A non Catholic has an obligation to enter the Church and to remain in it for salvation.Morally he does not have religious liberty.This is also the Islamic understanding of exclusive salvation in Muslim countries where Christians do not have freedom to worship and profess their faith freely.

Catholics have the religious right according to our Faith, to proclaim Vatican Council II(Dignitatis Humanae) in agreement with the dogma on salvation. We have the moral right because of our Catholic Faith to say other religions are not paths to salvation.This includes Islam. We have a moral right to say non Catholics are on the way to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.

LUMEN GENTIUM

Lumen Gentium states non Catholics need to convert into the Church (LG 14).

14. 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 and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. (emphasis added)

This is the same message as Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II. Those saved in invincible ignorance or the 'seeds of the word'(AG ) are not known exceptions to AG 7 and LG 14.

So when LG 14 also says the following and it is not contradictory.It is not a known exception.

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14.

The above passage is not an exception to the earlier part of LG 14 on the necessity of the Church for salvation.

We do not know any case in 2012 of someone 'knowing that the Catholic Church was ....' and who refused to enter or remain in it and was saved or not saved. Since we cannot judge or know, this is a non issue. It does not contradict the earlier part of LG 14 (or AG 7) which says faith and baptism are needed for all for salvation.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:45), "neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4:12). 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. (emphasis added)

So Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Lumen Gentium is not a break with the past as the cardinal suggests.If we could judge,if we knew who is saved in invincible ignorance etc then it would be break with the past. It would contradict the dogma.

NOSTRA AETATE

Nostra Aetate does not state that non Catholics are saved in general in their religion.Neither does it state that non Catholics do not have to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.We do not know any 'good and holy' non Catholic in 2012 who is saved.

So Nostra Aetate does not contradict AG 7 and LG 14.Nor does it contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the Syllabus of Errors.It is not a break with the past since there are no known exceptions.That a good and holy non Catholic can be saved and this would be known only to God is not a problem. It is not a break with the past because these unknown to us cases in the present times are irrelevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.They are irrelevant because they are unknown.

DIGNITATIS HUMANAE

Dignitatis Humanae mentions that in a society with a secular Constitution a non Catholic has religious liberty. One cannot physically or legally oppose his freedom of religion.Morally, for a Catholic, outside the church there is no salvation, all need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7).A non Catholic has an obligation to enter the Church and to remain in it for salvation.Morally he does not have religious liberty.

Among the non Catholics saved who knows and does not know will be decided by God.We cannot judge.This does not contradict AG 7 or LG 14.

So when it is clear that Vatican Council II (AG 7) is in agreement with the dogma on salvation and that LG 16,NA etc do not contradict AG 7 then we Catholics have the religious right according to our Faith, to proclaim Vatican Council II(Dignitatis Humanae)  in agreement with the dogma on salvation. We have the moral right because of our Catholic Faith to say other religions are not paths to salvation. We have a moral right to say non Catholics are on the way to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.

 

 In principle (hypothetically) there can be salvation outside the church however defacto (explictly) we do not know any such case.Also in principle it is possible that all these extraordinary cases could receive also the baptism of water. We don't know. So when Vatican Council II refers to de jure (in principle) cases of non Catholics being saved it is in agreement with Tradition.It does not Contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction. All need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation and we do not know anyone who does not need 'faith and baptism' for salvation in Rome.Lumen Gentium 14 says all who 'know' and do not enter cannot be saved.Non Catholics in Rome know about the Vatican. Their mosques are near basilicas.

-Lionel Andrades

Photos from the website of Militia Christi.

LUMEN GENTIUM 14: FUTILE DISCUSSION ON CATHOLIC ANSWERS

There was a futile discussion on the Catholic Answers forum. The  subject was Lumen Gentium 14.

Lumen Gentium 14 like Ad Gentes 7 indicates that Catholic Faith and the baptism of water are the ordinary means of salvation. The ordinary means of salvation is not those who do not know about the Church or, those who do know and who are known to us.

LG 14 affirms the 'ordinary means of salvation'(Redemptoros Missio 55) .ALL need to enter the Church and not just those whom we think know or do not know.

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

When LG 14 mentions those 'who know' it is referring to those who knew about Jesus and the necessity of the Church and who did not enter or persevere in it and who were judged by God. It does not indicate that in general we know these cases or that we can judge them.Personally we cannot.

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14

Then when LG 14 refers to those who are saved with an implicit 'intention' it does not mean that we can judge these cases or that they are 'known exceptions' to all needing to enter the church with 'faith and baptism'. The intention is implicit for us and explicit only for God. Since it is not explicit for us it does not contradict the earlier part of LG 14 quoted above.

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. -Lumen Gentium 14

So LG 14 does not contradict the traditional teaching on salvation. It does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the Syllabus of Errors.

Vatican Council II ( LG 14,AG 7) is saying outside the church there is no salvation, the Churchis necessary for salvation, all need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to go to Heaven and avoid Hell.-Lionel Andrades

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=466493

It was Christ himself who told Constantine the Great to fight in his name. God is not indifferent but active in our history- Roberto de Mattei

Pof. Roberto de Mattei was speaking yesterday at a Conference on Constantine the Great (Costantino il Grande).It was  organised by the Lepanto Foundation and held  near St.Peter's Basilica. It marked  the 1700th anniversary of the battle at the Milvian Bridge (Ponte Milvio).

Prof. Roberto de Mattei said that this was the first time ever that the Cross of Christ appeared to a Sovereign before a battle.It confirms that God is not indifferent but active in our history.

No Holy War was held under the apparition of a Cross. This was the first Holy War for Christians. They fought in the name of the one true God.It was Christ himself who told Constantine to fight in his name.

The sign in the sky was seen by the whole army and not just Constantine.All saw the sign with the words. They did not doubt.The prodigy was not finished here. The second vision was seen only by Constantine in a dream.

The era of Constantine ended the epoch of the catacombs and was a time of liberty for the Church.Before in thousands Christians were tortured, decapitated and exiled. The Collosium, he said, is a symbol of years of persecution.

Ironically at Vatican Council II,Prof.Mattei observed, Yves Congar said that the Church has exited from the Constantine period.

Today the Faith cannot be proclaimed aloud but has to be kept private.Diocletian lives today, he said but so does Constantine.

The Communists today want a mere Christianity, without Constantine.

The persecution in present times  is juridical, psychological and spiritual.Throughout the world Christians are persecuted and the life of every Christian is one of struggle.

Let us pray for a militant spirit, he said, like Constantine.

Prof. Massimo Viglione presented a brief history of Constantine and his times. He said that on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross last month Pope Benedict XVI remembered Constantine. -Lionel Andrades

TRADITIONALLY IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THEY ACCEPTED THE ' RIGORIST INTERPRETATION' OF THE DOGMA ALONG WITH INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE AND IMPLICIT DESIRE

Padre Angelo Fiorentino F.I writes that the Catholic Church is the unique door to eternal salvation (Unica Porta del salvezza eterna la chiesa cattolica) but he does not cite Ad Gentes 7(AG 7), Vatican Council II (1) to support his view. The Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions AG 7 under the title Outside the Church No Salvation (CCC 846)

Padre Fiorentino in an article in Il Settimanale di Padre Pio (Oct.28,2012.pp.16-17) states that faithful Catholics baptized in the Catholic Church, possess the Holy Spirit and are fully incorporated in the Church. They are bound to a unique profession of faith, they accept all the Sacraments and they are in communion with the Pope and the bishops. They have the guarantee of salvation unless they die with un-confessed mortal sin.

He does not mention AG 7 or the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says all need 'faith and baptism 'for salvation.ALL.

Neither does he mention that only in principle Vatican Council II refers to those who can be saved in other religions, in invincible ignorance etc. In principle only and not as a known fact.This is an important point omitted.

Now it seems that Padre Fiorentino is saying that the Church is the only door to salvation and so every one needs faith and baptism for salvation and yet he is also saying that outside the church, there is  known salvation. This is contradictory.

When the Catechism says God is not bound to the Sacraments (CCC 1257) it refers to cases in principle only, not as defacto, known cases. In 2012 there is no case known personally of a non-Catholic saved in invincible ignorance etc. We cannot see the deceased. By not addressing this point, of Vatican Council II referring to only in principle cases, the article has the familiar yes and know position.It says every one needs to enter the church but some known people on earth do not.

Th Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate could review  the following points:-

1. Do we personally know any one saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance in 2012? (Are they visible to us?)

2. Do we know any one in 2012 saved with the ‘seeds of the word’ (Ad Gentes ), imperfect communion with the Church (Unitatis Redintigratio) or a good conscience (Lumen Gentium )?

3. If we do not know any of these cases in 2012 then they do not contradict Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II which says all need 'faith and baptism' for salvation? (There are no known exceptions to AG 7?).

4. If there are no known exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 then there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

5. It would mean there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus?

6.If Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma on salvation then the Council is saying all non Catholics need to convert into the Church for salvation ?( The message of AG 7 and the dogma?)

At the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate seminary in Boccea, Rome the seminarians are not taught that invincible ignorance etc are accepted  only in principle.Since these cases are not known defacto, explicitly, they can be accepted only in principle, in faith. There is no choice. So they are not an exception to AG 7 when mentioned in Vatican Council II. This is important. Since it changes the entire interpretation of Vatican Council II to a traditional Council.

One of the priest formattors at the Franciscn Friars of the Immaculate Seminary is Fr.Francesco Giordano, who is working towards a doctorate at the Holy Cross University on the subject of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.He received his Masters Degree from the Angelicum University,Rome  under Bishop Charles Morerod O.P not knowing that invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire can only be accepted in principle. They are not exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney's literal interpretation.

Vatican Council II like the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors says faith and baptism are necessary for salvation (AG 7,LG 14).These are the texts also not cited by Padre Angelo Fiorentino F.I a member of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate who publish Il Settimanale di Padre Pio.

So LG 16, which the article mentions, refers to cases in principle only .LG 16 does not contradict AG 7.Neither does AG 7 contradict itself when it says:

Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him -AG 7

Neither does it contradict itself when it also states:

Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it."-AG 7

Only God can finally judge who knows and who does not know and who is saved and who is not saved. We know that those in manifest mortal sin are oriented to Hell. We know because the Church says so.In general only God can judge the population.Ad Gentes 7 still says ALL need faith and baptism for salvation. This is the ordinary means of salvation.

So when  Padre Fiorentino mentions that all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church he does not contradict AG 7 which says all need faith and baptism for salvation.

Being saved in invincible ignorance and a good conscience is not an exception to St.Francis of Assisi's 'rigorist interpetation' of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Neither is being saved with the baptism of desire etc an explicit exception to St.Maximilian Kolbe's literal interpretation of the dogma,expressed in his writings.

We do not know anyone saved in invincible ignorance and only in principle we accept the possibility of this happening. This is how it was understood traditionally. It is not a personal opinion but the traditional teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. They accepted the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma along with invincible ignorance and implicit desire.-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,Vatican Council II

Per Constantino un segno straordinario apparve in cielo egli vide una croce di luce sulla quale erano tracciate le parole IN HOC SIGNO VICES ( con questo segno vincerai)- Daniele Sebastianelli, a Ponte Milvio, Roma

Discorso a Ponte Milvio di  Daniele Sebastianelli, Responsabile, Militia Christi,Roma (27.10.2012)

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=13aa954bdfad0156&mt=application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D291d3bb45d%26view%3Datt%26th%3D13aa954bdfad0156%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dsafe%26zw&sig=AHIEtbQVC0EvUqK_PtH2_KBiL8avyLThAQ

1700 th ANNIVERSARY FOR THE APPARITION TO KING CONSTANTINE AND HIS VISTORY AT THE MILVIAN BRIDGE CELEBRATED IN ROME

Today Sunday morning the 1700th anniversary of the victory of King Constantine in the battle at the Milvian Bridge was celebrated at a Mass held in Latin in the Extraordinary Form at the Church San Giuseppe a Capo le Case, Rome.Also celebrated today was the  traditional feast of Christ the King.

 Father.Marco in his homily asked that the Church recognize and celebrate this day.

On Saturday evening at the Ponte Milvio (Milvian bridge) over the Tiber River there was a gathering to recall the apparition of Constantine.There was a procession and lamps were lit.

Constantine with his army was marching.. when he looked up to the sun and saw a cross of light above it, and with it the Greek words "Εν Τούτῳ Νίκα", En toutō níka, usually translated into Latin as "in hoc signo vinces," both phrases have the literal meaning "In this sign,[you shall] conquer;" a more free translation would be "Through this sign [you shall] conquer". At first he was unsure of the meaning of the apparition, but in the following night he had a dream in which Christ explained to him that he should use the sign against his enemies...-Wikipidea

On Saturday, Daniele Sebastianelli, Responsible of Militia Christ spoke of the different ways Catholics (Christians) were tortured and exiled.It was after Oct.28,312 A.D that Catholics were free to live their faith without persecution.

Fr.Marco today morning said that Constantine's victory was a plan of God for the Church and the salvation of all people.It was divine intervention in our history, he said, when Constantine saw a cross.

Members of the Militia Christi came to the Milvian Bridge venue in a possession, Father.Nicholas Gruner the Fatima Priest, carried the statue of Our Lady. Father Marco led the prayers in Latin.Representatives of other organisations were there too.

Mons. Ignacio Barreiro the Spiritual Director of Militia Christi was hospitalised on Saturday. His condition has improved it was announced today.Father.Marco praised him for his service to the traditionalist community -Lionel Andrades

FOR CARDINAL GODFRIED DANNEELS VATICAN COUNCIL II SAYS THERE IS KNOWN SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH SO IT IS A BREAK FROM THE PAST

At his talk in Southwark,England this month Cardinal Godfried Daneels made a wrong assumption.For him the  text of Vatican Council II is a break with the past. It says there is known salvation outside the Catholic Church. So this must contradict Tradition.Every reference to a non Catholic saved is a case of a known person dead, saved but now visible to him. So this is a break from the past.He can see these deceased who are exceptions to the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.

This is irrational and there is no text in the Council to support the cardinal.Let us analyse the text briefly.

LUMEN GENTIUM

Lumen Gentium states non Catholics need to convert into the Church (LG 14).

14. 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 and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. (emphasis added)

This is the same message as Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II. Those saved in invincible ignorance or the 'seeds of the word'(AG ) are not known exceptions to AG 7 and LG 14.

So when LG 14 also says the following and it is not contradictory.It is not a known exception.

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.-Lumen Gentium 14.

The above passage is not an exception to the earlier part of LG 14 on the necessity of the Church for salvation.

We do not know any case in 2012 of someone 'knowing that the Catholic Church was ....' and who refused to enter or remain in it and was saved or not saved. Since we cannot judge or know, this is a non issue. It does not contradict the earlier part of LG 14 (or AG 7) which says faith and baptism are needed for all for salvation.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:45), "neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4:12). 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. (emphasis added)

So Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) is in agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Lumen Gentium is not a break with the past as the cardinal suggests.If we could judge,if we knew who is saved in invincible ignorance etc then it would be break with the past. It would contradict the dogma.

NOSTRA AETATE

Nostra Aetate does not state that non Catholics are saved in general in their religion.Neither does it state that non Catholics do not have to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.We do not know any 'good and holy' non Catholic in 2012 who is saved.

So Nostra Aetate does not contradict AG 7 and LG 14.Nor does it contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus or the Syllabus of Errors.It is not a break with the past since there are no known exceptions.That a good and holy non Catholic can be saved and this would be known only to God is not a problem. It is not a break with the past because these unknown to us cases in the present times are  irrelevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.They are irrelevant because they are unknown.

DIGNITATIS HUMANAE

Dignitatis Humanae mentions that in a society with a secular Constitution a non Catholic has religious liberty. One cannot physically or legally oppose his freedom of religion.Morally, for a Catholic, outside the church there is no salvation, all need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7).A non Catholic has an obligation to enter the Church and to remain in it for salvation.Morally he does not have religious liberty.

Among the non Catholics saved who knows and does not know will be decided by God.We cannot judge.This does not contradict AG 7 or LG 14.

So when it is clear that Vatican Council II (AG 7) is in agreement with the dogma on salvation and that LG 16,NA etc do not contradict AG 7 then we Catholics have the religious right according to our Faith, to proclaim Vatican Council II(Dignitatis Humanae) (2)  in agreement with the dogma on salvation. We have the moral right because of our Catholic Faith to say other religions are not paths to salvation. We have a moral right to say non Catholics are on the way to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.

So Vatican Council II is not a break with the past.

For Cardinal Danneels Vatican Council II is a break with the past because:

1) There is known salvation outside the Catholic Church according to Vatican Council II. There is known salvation since the dead saved in invincible ignorance etc are visible to him and so are exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

2) Since there is known salvation outside the Catholic Church Nostra Aetate, Lumen Gentium, Dignitatis Humane etc contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition in general.

3) Even if in principle (hypothetically) there can be salvation outside the church  for Cardinal Gottfried Danneels, defacto (explictly) we do not know any case. He does not know any such case.So when Vatican Council II refers to de jure (in principle) cases of non Catholics being saved it is not a break with the past but an agreement with Tradition.

Once these errors are corrected Vatican Council II is traditional and in agreement with the past.

-Lionel Andrades

1.http://www.rcsouthwark.co.uk/yof_card_danneels_lecture.pdf

http://www.rcsouthwark.co.uk/

2.

14. In order to be faithful to the divine command, "teach all nations" (Matt. 28:19-20), the Catholic Church must work with all urgency and concern "that the word of God be spread abroad and glorified" (2 Thess. 3:1). Hence the Church earnestly begs of its children that, "first of all, supplications, prayers, petitions, acts of thanksgiving be made for all men.... For this is good and agreeable in the sight of God our Savior, who wills that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1-4). In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church.(35) For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Christians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, "in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth" (2 Cor. 6:6-7), and let them be about their task of spreading the light of life with all confidence(36) and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood.

The disciple is bound by a grave obligation toward Christ, his Master, ever more fully to understand the truth received from Him, faithfully to proclaim it, and vigorously to defend it, never-be it understood-having recourse to means that are incompatible with the spirit of the Gospel. At the same time, the charity of Christ urges him to love and have prudence and patience in his dealings with those who are in error or in ignorance with regard to the faith.(37) All is to be taken into account-the Christian duty to Christ, the life-giving word which must be proclaimed, the rights of the human person, and the measure of grace granted by God through Christ to men who are invited freely to accept and profess the faith.-Dignitatis Humanae

http://www.rcsouthwark.co.uk/yof_card_danneels_lecture.pdf

http://www.rcsouthwark.co.uk/

DOES CARDINAL DANNEELS ASSUME THAT VATICAN COUNCIL II BROKE WITH THE PAST BECAUSE OF THE DEAD VISIBLE TO US INTERPRETATION ?

Danneels: Vatican II broke with past-The Tablet

25 October 2012

The Church broke away from its negative and "world-rejecting" past at the Second Vatican Council, a senior cardinal has said.

In a speech given last week at Clifton Cathedral in Bristol and St George's Cathedral in Southwark, south London, Cardinal Godfried Danneels said that Vatican II represented a "discontinuity with past thinking" comparable to that at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, when the Nicaean Creed was formulated.

Lionel: How can Vatican Council break away from the past unless the cardinal is assuming that in the text of the Council, every time there is a reference to a non Catholic saved, it is of a person known to us , and so this is an exception to the dogmas and tradition in general.

No where in Nostra Aetate is it said that non Catholics do not have to convert into the Church for salvation or that they are saved in general in their religion. Instead Nostra Aetate 4 says Catholics are the new people of God.

Vatican Council II also indicates that all non Catholics need faith and baptism for salvation(AG7). This is in agreement with the dogma on exclusive salvation. There are no known exceptions.LG 16 does not contradict AG 7.


So the cardinal can only mention 'the spirit of Vatican Council II' he cannot cite text from the Council which shows that it is a break from the past especially with reference to the other religions.

In Southwark, where he was speaking, the bishops and priests assume that the baptism of desire is a known exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

According to their Vocations Director, candidates with a religious vocation have to accept that the dead, visible and saved with the baptism of desire, are very visible to them all.

They have to believe this irrationality,according to the Vocation Director, since Fr.Leonard Feeney according to him, was excommunicated for denying the baptism of desire. In other words, Fr.leonard Feeney said that  he could not see the dead saved with the baptism of desire, who are exceptions to the traditional literal interpretation of the dogma .So they excommunicated him.The cardinals who issued the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 could see these cases.

Blogger Fr.Tim Finnigan, from Southwark also affirms this irrationality.Perhaps it is expected of him by the Archbishop of Southwark, Peter Smith. This is also the position of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of England and Wales.

Similar to Archbishop Peter Smith, Cardinal Daneels, could be making the same error as the bishops and priests of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) and so they all assume that the Council is modernist and a break with the past.

The report continues.

His remarks however appear to conflict with Pope Benedict XVI's analysis that the Council should be understood as reform within continuity. The Pope has also criticised the "hermenuetic of discontinuity" as an analysis of Vatican II.

Lionel: If one uses the false premise of the dead saved being visible to us, then there has to be a hermeneutic of discontinuity.

The Belgian cardinal was speaking as part of lecture series in both dioceses to mark the start of the Year of Faith.

Lionel: In the Year of the Faith it is alleged that we can see the dead who are saved and who visible here on earth. They are not only exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus but  even Vatican Council II (LG 16 etc) is a break from the dogma, the Syllabus and the rest of Tradition.

Danneels, who was present as an expert at the Second Vatican Council in 1962, told audiences that the council had demonstrated that the Church's traditions and practices "need not necessarily remain that [unchangeable] way for eternity".

Lionel: They have changed obviously because a new premise has been accepted by the liberals and traditionalists.-Lionel Andrades

1.

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/latest-news/4706
http://www.rcsouthwark.co.uk/yof_card_danneels_lecture.pdf
http://www.rcsouthwark.co.uk/

ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE WAS A MODERNIST FOR INTERPRETING VATICAN CONCIL II WITH THE EXPLICIT,VISIBLE TO US BAPTISM OF DESIRE

The Council does not contradict the Society of St.Pius ( SSPX) position on other religions unless it is assumed that the dead saved are visible to us.Indications are that the Archbishop made this error.

Bishop Richard Williamson comes across as a modernist for implying the baptism of desire is visible to us and so his interpretation of Vatican Council II is modernism.With this false premise the Council has to be in error.In itself the Council is not modernist.

Similarly Bishop Bernard Fellay is a modernist because of his interpretation of Vatican Council II, with the visible dead theory , which supposely  contradict Tradition.

The clue is in Vatican Council II.Since they believe that the Council contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors, they must be assuming that those who are dead and saved are known to us. So these cases are exceptions.

With this false premise of the visible dead, the Council has to be interpreted as modernist with errors.A false premise must produce errors.

If for them Lumen Gentium 16 contradicts extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the rest of Tradition it is because they assume, those saved with a good conscience or invincible ignorance, are visible to us.Since they are visible and known to them, for the bishops they are exceptions.LG 16 is modernist for them.

This has been the modernist interpretation of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The SSPX bishops were also modernists in their understanding of Vatican Council II and other religions.

The Council without the false premise affirms the dogma on salvation and the Syllabus of Errors.Vatican Council II is traditonal. -Lionel Andrades

BISHOP WILLIAMSON ASSUMES THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS EXPLICIT FOR US-SO VATICAN COUNCIL II IS MODERNIST. ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE COULD HAVE MADE THE SAME ERROR

In his response to the two questions Bishop Richard Williamson, says 'the Church holds the doctrine of the baptism of desire'.Implicit or explicit baptism of desire ? Baptism of desire known to us or known only to God ? He does not clarify.

Here are the two questions I asked him.

1) Do we personally know the dead saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc ?

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

Does he personally know any of the dead saved with the baptism of desire ? Can he see the dead? Are they visible to him? He has either not understood the question or may be he has understood the baptism of desire as always explicit for us.

I think he has always understood the baptism of desire as visible for us.So it is an explicit exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So could not answer the two questions.

Since the baptism of desire, invincible ignorance and a good conscience are always visible for him  he assumed that these cases, and Vatican Council II,contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also the Syllabus of Errors.

So Vatican Council II is modernist for him.If these cases were not visible then the Council would affirm the dogma and Tradition.This could have been the basic problem faced by Archbishop Lefebvre too.

The Society of St.Pius X(SSPX) Chapter (July 19,2012) may have realized this mistake and so has affirmed the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and mentioned there are no exceptions.The baptism of desire is not an exception.-Lionel Andrades 

BISHOP RICHARD WILLIAMSON RESPONDS TO THE TWO QUESTIONS : EXCLUSIVE

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/10/bishop-richard-williamson-responds-to.html#links

BISHOP RICHARD WILLIAMSON RESPONDS TO THE TWO QUESTIONS : EXCLUSIVE

I have just received the following e-mail from his Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson however he does not directly answer the two questions.

He has said that the 1.' The Church holds the doctrine of Baptism of Desire.' This is true and it is not being denied.However the Church does not say that the baptism of desire is explicit for us instead of implicit. We accept an implicit baptism of desire along with the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Then he states:'2. What we know or do not know is not the same as what exists or does not exist.' This is a hypothetical, abstract statement and not a response to the question.
-Lionel Andrades

________________________________________

Dear Sir/Madame:

Thank you so very much for your recent correspondence. Please find a brief reply from His Lordship below, and excuse the tardiness, as His Lordship's assistants have been much occupied recently.

Meanwhile, be assured of our prayers and continued humble efforts on behalf of Christendom and the Faith.

Regards,

The Administrator

Dinoscopus.org

admin@dinoscopus.org

Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 10:55 AM

To: admin@dinoscopus.org

Subject: Re: FW: Two questions for His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson from Mr.Lionel Andrades in Rome Sept.1,2012

________________________________________

Dear Mr Andrades,

1 The Church holds the doctrine of Baptism of Dsire.

2 What we know or do not know is not the same as what exists or does not exist.

God bless, +Richard Williamson.

__________________________________________

From: Lionel Andrades [mailto:lionelandrades10@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2012 3:24 PM

To: editorial@dinoscopus.org

Subject: Two questions for His Excellency Bishop Richard Williamson from Mr.Lionel Andrades in Rome Sept.1,2012

To the Most Rev.Bishop Richard Williamson,

Dear Bishop Williamson,

I have been asking many religious the following two questions and I hope you would also kindly answer them.

1) Do we personally know the dead saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc ?

2) Since we do not know any of these cases, there are no known exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus ?

In Christ

Lionel Andrades

Catholic Layman in Rome

E-mail : lionelandrades10@gmail.com

 

YOUTUBE BISHOP RICHARD WILLIAMSON MAKES A DOCTRINAL ERROR

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/youtube-bishop-richard-williamson-makes.html#links