Saturday, September 1, 2012

A NON BAPTIZED ABORTED BABY SAVED IS NOT KNOWN TO US PERSONALLY AND SO IS NOT AN EXCEPTION TO THE DOGMA ON EXCLUSIVE SALVATION IN THE CHURCH

If God did grant a non baptized aborted baby to enter Heaven then that would indeed be an exception to the need for the baptism of water for all, says a post on the extra ecclesiam nulla salus forum.So Comumba's next question is : If you say there are no exceptions how can this be possible? (1)

It is important to keep in mind that for Columba the aborted non baptized baby is known to us.Since the baby is known to us, for her, it is an exception to the dogma on exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.

If the non baptized aborted baby who entered Heaven was just a possibility known only to God it would not contradict the teaching that every one on earth needs the baptism of water with Catholic Faith for salvation.It would also mean that we do not know any non baptized baby in 2012 who is saved. This is rational. We do not know any of these cases for them to be considered exceptions.
-Lionel Andrades



1.
George wrote:
IF and I say if God granted that an aborted baby were to be in Heaven with Him that is NOT an exception to needing Baptism of water. God is not bound by His Sacraments.

If God DID grant that an non-baptized aborted baby entered heaven then that indeed would be an exceptrion to the need for Baptism. It matters not whether God binds himself to act exclusively through the sacraments of His Church (not all of which are necessary for all but at least one is necessary for all) the non-baptized baby entering heaven would remain an exception to the necessity of Baptism. If you say there are no eceptions how can this be?

POPE BENEDICT XVI MAKES THE RICHARD CUSHING ERROR AND ASSUMES VATICAN COUNCIL II CONTRADICTS THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS

The pope and his Curia have made an objective mistake and are now forcing it upon the SSPX with threats of an ecclesial rupture.

“If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus. [...] Let us be content to say that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.”-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Principles of Catholic Theology, 1987, pp. 381-2, Ignatius Press 1987)

I altered the text in such a way as to express our faith that Christ is the Savior for all, that there are not two channels of salvation, so that Christ is also the redeemer of the Jews, and not just of the Gentiles.
But the new formulation also shifts the focus from a direct petition for the conversion of the Jews in a missionary sense...-Light of the World-Conversations with Peter Seewald (Ignatius Press.p.107)

For Pope Benedict XVI there is salvation outside the Church since he assumes that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.From here the problems start for all of us.

For centuries there was only one channel of salvation and it was Jesus in the Catholic Church.This is no more the one channel of salvation for our pope.Since he believes there can be non Catholics saved in invincible ignorance etc.There are exceptions to the one traditional channel.

When he says there are 'not two channels of salvation' he means there is only one channel of salvation which is Jesus Christ who saves all and so all who are saved are saved through Jesus and the Church. So every one does not need to enter into the one traditional channel of salvation which was the Catholic Church.Christ is the redeemer of the Jews and the Gentiles.So they do not have to enter the Church, the one channel for salvation.

This is the new theology. It is based on the error of assuming those saved with the baptism of desire etc are exceptions to the defined dogma.

This is an objective error since we cannot see these cases.It is a factual error. Since it is accepted it is assumed further that Vatican Council II contradicts the dogma on exclusive salvation.Lumen Gentium 16 refers to those saved in invincible ignorance so it is taken for granted(superficially)  that there is salvation outside the church and LG 16 contradicts the dogma.Since LG 16 contradicts the dogma obviously it would have to contradict the Syllabus of Errors for the pope.

So from this error has devolved new theories like the theology of religions and the ecclesiology of communion. The pope has approved them. He has probably also asked the Society of St.Pius X to accept this new theology  the last time Bishop Bernard Fellay,Superior General of the SSPX, went to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith office.
-Lionel Andrades
Sept.1,2012
First Saturday

Seminarians have no rights

When I was a seminarian at two seminaries in Rome I could not take my case to the Supreme Tribunal. Since seminarians have no rights like priests.

Even if I did, the Prefect of the Vatican Tribunal is making the same error as the priests and professors at the Roman seminaries.For example a  seminarian at the North American College, Rome could appeal to Cardinal Raymond Burke.He would say his professors are irrational. They are saying that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This would mean the baptism of desire is known to us. These cases are visible to us and so they are known exceptions to the traditional teaching .

Cardinal Raymond Burke would perhaps refer him to the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith who are getting so many of these complaints and could do nothing but refer the case back to the Superior who was not doing anything in the first place or was the subject of the complaint.

For instance there could be a complaint that Cardinal Raymond Burke and traditionalist priests because of the Richard Cushing Error do not affirm a defined dogma. This is heresy in public. Yet they offer the Traditional Latin Mass.If the seminarian makes this complaint would he be penalized?

One complains with specifics against the Rector and the CDF sides with Rector since the seminarian has no right to complaint. He is in the seminary to learn and to accept the liberal dissent.

Everyone seems to know  what is being taught in the seminaries and pontifical universities but the seminarian cannot file a petition to the Supreme Tribunal.He cannot try and right a wrong.Lionel Andrades