Wednesday, July 11, 2012

BISHOP GERHARD MULLER NEEDS TO ACCEPT VATICAN COUNCIL II WHICH INDICATES ALL LUTHERANS NEED TO CONVERT FOR SALVATION


Ad Gentes 7 says all need Catholic Faith for salvation.This would include the Lutherans too.

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.

Bishop Gerhard Muller the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is shown on the Catholic Family News website giving a blessing along with a Lutheran pastor.

According to Vatican Council II that Lutheran pastor is on the path to Hell since it is not enough to just believe in Jesus one must live the Faith in the Catholic Church.

Bishop Muller according to EWTN News (Jul 6,2012) says that the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) needs to accept Vatican Council II.

The SSPX could also  ask him also to accept Vatican Council II (AG 7).-Lionel Andrades

Photo from Catholic Family News .Bishop Muller,Prefect of the CDF gives a joint blessing with a Lutheran pastor.
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page44/muller_ecumenical_vespers.html
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page46/muller.html
http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page43/page43.html

FEENEYISM IS IN ACCORD WITH MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS


There are Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) websites which refer to ‘Feeneyism’. This is a major doctrinal error of the SSPX and influences their understanding on Vatican Council II.

They are rejecting the literal, traditional understanding of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and are assuming that the baptism of desire is not only known in principle but also in fact, in reality. This is a factual error of the SSPX bishops who suggest that we know non Catholics in Heaven or on earth, saved with the baptism of desire. In fact no one of us knows these cases.

Like Wikipedia, the SSPX on its websites call knowing the dead; those saved in Heaven, as exceptions to the dogma which support. This seems a contradiction. The dogma says there is exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church and everyone needs to be a member and they claim the baptism of desire is known and so is an explicit exception to the dogma.

Fr. Leonard Feeney was affirming the centuries-old teaching as it was known by the Church Fathers, Church Councils, the saints, Vatican Council I and II and all the Catechisms of the Catholic Church.

Feeneyism which affirms the literal interpretation of the dogma and accepts in principle implicit  baptism of desire, with no known explicit implicit desire/ baptism of desire, is in accord with the Magisterium of the Church.(Dominus Iesus 20, Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846,Vatican Council II (AG 7), Ecclesia di Eucarestia, Redemptoris Missio 55 etc)

It is the SSPX which is in heresy for assuming there are known exceptions to the dogma and then being unable to name any such person on earth.-Lionel Andrades

WIKIPEDIA TELLS CATHOLICS WHAT IS HERESY FOR THEM AND THE VATICAN NOR THE SSPX ISSUES A CORRECTION


Catholics are being taught their Catholic Faith wrongly by Wikipedia, the on- line encyclopaedia. Wikipedia calls Feeneyism a heresy of the Roman Catholic Church. No cardinal, bishop or Vatican spokesman issues a correction – and neither does the SSPX which gives doctrine importance.

Wikipedia calls Feeneyism a heresy implying those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the dogma. They can be explicit exceptions since for them these cases are personally know to us.

Fr. Leonard Feeney is in heresy for all of them for affirming the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and for not endorsing explicitly known baptism of desire and invincible ignorance.

The thrice defined dogma itself does not affirm baptism of desire and invincible ignorance while no Church document claims that these cases are explicit and known to us.

The Church Fathers mention invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire but nowhere state that we can know these cases personally in Heaven or on earth.

Wikipedia goes ahead and calls it heresy and expects all Catholics to believe that the baptism of desire is an obvious exception to the dogma.-Lionel Andrades

Fr.Leonard Feeney said ALL non Catholics are going to Hell unles they convert-Vatican Council II has the same messsage.So also the Catechism

For the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) the priest from Boston supported by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 presents a model of Vatican Council II.

Can the SSPX accept Vatican Council II in accord with Fr.Leonard Feeney and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in its literal interpretation?

They could but first they would have to wade clear of so much minsinformation in the secular media.

Here is Wikipedia for example:

It is traditionally believed that sacramental baptism ("baptism of water") is the only way to be properly baptized. In addition, "the Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament- Wikipedia,Feeneyism

Wikipedia implies that the baptism of blood and desire are  known to us and so are explicit exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. This is not true. The baptism of desire etc are possibilities and do not contradict the 'strict interpretation' of the dogma. Wikipedia assumes that it does and so supposes there are two interpretations of the dogma, the strict and non-strict version. In the non strict version of Vatican Council II, the liberal version,  Lumen Gentium 16 ('invincible ignorance and a good conscience) and Lumen Gentium 8 ('elements of sanctification')  would be exceptions; exceptions  to the strict interpretation of the dogma.

If the SSPX can see through this error they would realize that there is only one interpretation of Vatican Council II and it is not the liberal, non traditional one.

Wikipedia again:

Feeneyism is a term for the Roman Catholic heresy associated with Leonard Feeney (1897–1978), a Jesuit priest and founder of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Fr. Feeney favoured a strict interpretation of the doctrine extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the Church there is no salvation").- Wikipedia, Feeneyism

It is a heresy for Wikipedia since they assume that the baptism of desire is a defacto, explicit exception to the dogmatic teaching on exclusive salvation being there in only the Catholic Church.They do not realize that to imply that the dogma has defacto exceptions is the real heresy.

Wikipedia:
Father Leonard Feeney (Lynn, Massachusetts February 18, 1897 – Ayer, Massachusetts January 30, 1978 ) was a U.S. Jesuit priest who defended the strict interpretation of the Roman Catholic doctrine, extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("outside the Church there is no salvation"), arguing that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are unavailing and that therefore no non-Catholics will be saved. –Wikipedia, Fr.Leonard Feeney.- Wikipedia, Fr.Leonard Feeney

The Church has always taught that no non-Catholic will be saved unless he or she converts into the Catholic Church. Wikipedia calls this the 'strict interpretation' and assumes that it is the personal opinion of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 supported Fr.Leonard Feeney in its initial paragraphs. If the Letter assumed that the baptism of desire etc were known to us (in the latter paragraphs) and so exceptions to the dogma then it made a mistake. It is an objective, factual mistake since we do not know anyone personally saved with the baptism of desire, we cannot see any such case in real life. It is a fact that we do not know those who are in Heaven.
So if we are not careful we can also have a strict and non strict interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism like Vatican Council II supports Fr. Leonard Feeney.

So without this error, Vatican Council II is a traditional document in agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney and in accord with the centuries old interpretation of the salvation dogma.
-Lionel Andrades


CARDINAL RAYMOND BURKE SAYS THE 1983 CODE OF CANON LAW HAS REMOVED THE STIPULATION THAT A PRIEST IN MORTAL SIN SHOULD NOT OFFER MASS WITHOUT FIRST AVAILING OF THE SACRAMENT OF CONFESSION


In an interview with the Catholic News Agency (July 10) the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal, Vatican praised the 1917 Code of Canon Law which was clear that a priest in mortal sin should not offer Mass without availing of the Sacrament of Reconciliation.This law which was there in the 1917 code 'has been eliminated'. Cardinal Raymond Burke says he thinks that law should be reintroduced.(1)

It may be mentioned that there are cardinals, bishops and priests in the USA who give pro abortion politicians the Eucharist. They know it is wrong and yet they persist.
Then there are Catholic religious who reject the Creed and defined dogmas and yet they are allowed to offer Mass under the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

The new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has not denied controversial statements he has made about the Catholic Faith and yet is allowed to offer Mass.Similarly Pope Benedict XVI and Vatican Curia cardinals have stated that Jews do not have to convert in the present times contradicting the Nicene Creed, the Bible, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican Council II (AG 7).
-Lionel Andrades

(1)

Similarly, the cardinal commended the 1917 Code for its clear stipulation that a priest in the state of mortal sin should refrain from celebrating Mass “without first availing himself of sacramental confession” or as soon as possible “in the absence of a confessor,” when the Mass is “a case of necessity” and he has “made an act of perfect contrition.”

“Well, simply that canon that was in the 1917 code was eliminated and I think it should be reintroduced, because the idea of worthiness pertains in a preeminent way to the priest who is offering the sacrifice,” he said.