Robert Sungenis, Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P, Chad Arneson and other apologists on Faithful Answers (1) could not handle questions on salvation and the magisterium so they got rid of them.
Faithful Answers could not respond to rational comments/questions on Catholic salvation. So they have deleted posts which were there for a few days. After discussing the issue among themself they may have decided to delete four posts on the subjects of salvation, magisterium and sedevacantism.The apologists did not want to identify the common use of an irrational premise and confusion over dejure and defacto statements , the Richard Cushing Error.So just like Catholic Answers and other Catholic websites they have put aside this subject.
No one defends Magisterium!
In one post I asked them if they could defend the Magisterium.None of the apologists could defend the Magisterium!
The Magisterium can be defended but they do not know how to do it. It's simple. The Magisterial texts do not contain any heresy. It is the use of the Cushing premise which makes text heretical and ambiguous.
The Magisterium can be defended but they do not know how to do it. It's simple. The Magisterial texts do not contain any heresy. It is the use of the Cushing premise which makes text heretical and ambiguous.
They could not defend the Magisterium since the Vatican Curia like the apologists have made an objective error.The result is a liberal, irrational theology which is also politically correct.
The convert apologists here have been repeating the same errors on EWTN, Catholic Answers etc.No correction has come from Catholic traditionalists nor from the sedevacantists mentioning Cardinal Richard Cushing's irrational premise.
SSPX(USA)
This week when asked two questions which would expose the Cushing premise, even the Society of St.Pius X(SSPX-USA) refused to answer (2). They would be admitting that they were wrong about Fr.Leonard Feeney(3).They made a mistake.
The same mistake was made by Robert Sungenis on a video on salvation still available on Youtube.
1.If Robert Sungenis admits that he does not know any case in the present times, saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire, it means there is no known exception to the literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
2.This means all Muslims, Jews and other non Catholics need to to convert into he Catholic Church to avoid Hell.Also all Christians need to convert into the Church according to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Faithful Answers may not be willing to say this on the issue of Catholic salvation.
3.If Robert Sungenis and Faithful Answers recognize that there are no known exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the thrice defined dogma, then the Council does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The Council is traditional on the issue of other religions and Christian communities.This is contrary to the position of Robert Sungenis on his website.It contradicts also Cardinal Walter Kaspar. The Council is not ambiguous on the issue of other religions.
So Vatican Council II in Ad Gentes 7 (4) is saying :
a) All need faith and baptism for salvation (non Catholics do not have faith and baptism)
b) All Christians need Catholic faith for salvation.(Catholic faith includes the Sacraments, the teachings on faith and morals, the interpretation of Scripture and the recognition of the Holy Father).
So according to Vatican Council II (AG 7) the Orthodox Christians and Protestants need to be visible members of the Catholic Church for salvation ( to avoid Hell).
It would also mean that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 upheld the traditional teaching on salvation when it mentioned 'the dogma', the 'infallible statement'.The Letter did not mention any known exceptions to 'the dogma', the 'infallible statement'.Implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were never exceptions.They are possibilities which we accept can happen and if they do happen they would be known only to God.So the Church Councils and popes never mentioned any known exceptions to the defined dogma.They were only possibilities and so irrelevant to the teaching that all need to convert into the Church visibly.
It was the secular media and the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Richard Cushing who made it seem relevant.This confusion was also carried over into Vatican Council II. They were blocked however by the conservatives at the Council.Since no Council text says implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are known to us in personal cases for them to be exceptions to Ad Gentes 7 (all need faith and baptism) and the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Faithful Answers refuses to defend the Magisterium which also has made the error of the Archbishop of Boston. Faithful Answers has an article by Brunero Gherardini which seems a show window display.They have no apologetics.The issue is related to the liturgy (5) and sedevacantism.The Richard Cushing Error is also being used by Brunero Gherardini.
May be over time they will be able to affirm the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church and proclaim the Good News, without excluding the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation.-Lionel Andrades
1.
http://www.faithfulanswers.
2.
1) Do we personally know the dead saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc ?(Can we see them physically in 2013?)
5.
IMPEDIMENT IN THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/impediment-in-traditional-latin-mass.html#links
When they interpret Vatican Council II according to Cushingism and not Fr. Leonard Feeney it has its influence on the liturgy
1.
http://www.faithfulanswers.
2.
1) Do we personally know the dead saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc ?(Can we see them physically in 2013?)
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 ?
SSPX (USA/Canada) Communications Office confirms: they will not answer the two questions http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/07/sspx-usacanada-communications-office.html#links
3.
ROBERT KENNEDY ASKED RICHARD CUSHING TO SUPPRESS FR. LEONARD FEENEY
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2010/07/robert-kennedy-asked-richard-cushing-to.html
4.
Richard Cushing Error in Ad Gentes 7 and Nostra Aetate http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/05/richard-cushing-error-in-ad-gentes-7.html#links
ROBERT KENNEDY ASKED RICHARD CUSHING TO SUPPRESS FR. LEONARD FEENEY
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2010/07/robert-kennedy-asked-richard-cushing-to.html
JESUIT SUPERIOR GENERAL REVIEW THE FR.LEONARD FEENEY CASE : THERE IS NO KNOWN CASE OF A PERSON SAVED WITH THE BAPTISM OF DESIRE WHICH IS VISIBLE
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2011/11/jesuit-superior-general-review.html
4.
Richard Cushing Error in Ad Gentes 7 and Nostra Aetate http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/05/richard-cushing-error-in-ad-gentes-7.html#links
5.
IMPEDIMENT IN THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS?
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/impediment-in-traditional-latin-mass.html#links
When they interpret Vatican Council II according to Cushingism and not Fr. Leonard Feeney it has its influence on the liturgy
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2012/08/when-they-interpret-vatican-council-ii.html
NUMBER OF PRIESTS NOT ANSWERING THE TWO QUESTIONS INCREASES
Posts
1 comment:
Lionel said:
" 2.This means all Muslims, Jews and other non Catholics need to convert into the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.Also all Christians need to convert into the Church according to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Faithful Answers may not be willing to say this on the issue of Catholic salvation. "
********************************
If a 'catholic' does not accept, believe and teach the above quotation then they are not CATHOLIC by definition. Once a person obeys , believes and comprehends the above, then and only then can someone grasp that there are no exceptions to No Salvation outside the Catholic Church.
JMJ,
George Brenner
Post a Comment