Monday, May 20, 2013

Technically most of the apologists at EWTN would have to resign-if they are going to be honest and say there are no known exceptions to the dogma




There are no known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus so technically most of the apologists at EWTN would have to resign. They do not meet EWTN's liberal  standards on the Catholic Faith.This is if they are going to be honest and say that there are no known exceptions to the dogma in the present times. In 2013 we personally do not know any one who is an exception.

I don't know about Scott Hahn.
But the rest of the apologists have been assuming that we can see the dead who are living exceptions to the interpretation of the dogma by Fr.Leonard Feeney.For the apologists, the 'rigorous interpretation' of the dogma was outdated  since they assumed there were known exceptions.For the apologists those saved in invincible ignorance or implicit desire were living exceptions to the old, traditional interpretation of the dogma. This suited EWTN.

Now we know that in no Catholic Magisterial document is it  mentioned that there are known or unknown exceptions to the dogma.So the apologists and EWTN's present position is not the teaching of the Catholic Church but the interpretation of the leftist media.It was one major con operation.Since the 1940's the media has been feeding us the lie.

There are only possibilities mentioned in Magisterial texts, the possibilities of non Catholics saved with implicit desire or inculpable ignorance - but these are not exceptions. If they are not known, they are not exceptions for us, known or unknown.In their very nature they cannot be exceptions.Since they are explict for God and always implicit for us.

So, are the apologists on EWTN going to affirm the traditional interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church,as did Mother Angelica ?
Or are they still going to pretend that this is all a bad dream which will go away ?
-Lionel Andrades

Still no theological response from apologists Fr.Brian Harrison and Robert Sungenis

There is still no theological response from apologists Fr.Brian Harrison and Robert Sungenis. I have been sending these reports to the two apologists.
They have been reading these blog posts which mention them.I would be surprised if they responded theologically.
What are they going to say? That they can see the dead on earth?
Neither are they admitting that their theology is based on an irrationality- the ability to see the deceased.
Sungenis does not admit that he was mistaken nor does he respond apologetically to show me where I am wrong.
-Lionel Andrades

No response from John Salza: also protecting his position on EWTN?

I get no response from the Catholic apologist John Salza who usually answers  questions from others regarding the Catholic Faith.He participates in discussions and debates.
I have commented on some of his posts on the Internet and also mailed him queries at his e-mail address.
 He never responds to my comments or questions on the Catholic Faith. I suspect he does so even after knowing the answer.
Sometimes I get some feedback. It will be a note saying that he will respond to my queries as soon as possible.
If John Salza responds and says the obvious, it could be the end of his appearance on EWTN.
If he says that we do not know any person in 2013 saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire, so these cases cannot be exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus - this could affect his earnings as an apologist.Many people will misunderstand him. He would be saying that the Catholic Church,after Vatican Council II, holds the literal interpretation of the dogma on salvation.
He would also be exposing the leftist media lie about Fr.Leonard Feeney.
So John Salza says nothing.
-Lionel Andrades
 
 
Here are the two questions for John Salza.
 
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 ?

 

Apologists Patrick Madrid and Peter Vere in trouble

Apologists Patrick Madrid and Peter Vere wrote a book in which they criticized the traditionalists of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX).
Now they realize that Vatican Council II is affirming the traditional position of the SSPX on different religions and Christian commmunities and churches. This would be embarassing, if not frightening, for them.
 
 
How can they affirm the very beliefs of the SSPX which they criticized in the book?
What will become of their source of income at EWTN etc, if they say that Vatican Council II (AG 7) says Jews need to convert for salvation and members of Christian communities are on the way to Hell, without Catholic Faith?
-Lionel Andrades

Robert Sungenis responds : but still without any apologetics.

I have received this response from the apologist Robert Sungenis. I am posting it unedited.
 
 
Lionel,
Here is my response. You can post this, and this only.
To whom it may concern: Lionel Andrades, in my opinion, is dishonest and I want nothing to do with him. When he contacted me by email several weeks ago and began corresponding with me about the Church's doctrine of Extra Ecclesium Nulla Salus [EENS], I told him that my dialogue with him was private and that I did not give him permission to post any of it, or even his opinions about it. Mr. Andrades ignored my request, and continues to do so even though I have reminded him of his sin, which includes detraction, false accusations, and slander. In my opinion, Mr. Andrades has not only distorted my teachings and beliefs on the Church's doctrine of EENS, he is also ignorant of the Church's true teaching. Having appointed himself as the sole arbiter of the Church's teaching, Mr. Andrades parades around the Internet, using his own views as the standard of judgment, and condemns and publicizes the condemnation of anyone who deviates from his own views. I must say that, in examining Mr. Andrades' blog, many other people have seen his sin of detraction for what it really is, and no one seems interested in what he has to say, since, the last time I looked, he has received no responses to his diatribes. The only response that will be listed (if Mr. Andrades wants to have the least semblance of honesty) is the one I am writing presently. In my opinion, it is quite ironic that Mr. Andrades parades around the Internet questioning everyone's salvation, yet it appears that he has a log in his own eye that he has never removed. Hence, it is he who should be examining whether he himself is still saved, since the sins of dishonesty and detraction are mortal. I would implore everyone who reads this to pray for the soul of Lionel Andrades.
Robert Sungenis
May 19, 2013
Copy to Fr. Brian Harrison
____________________________________________
 
Lionel:
Before I posted the original report about Sungenis on the First Saturday of this month I e-mailed him and asked him to make any clarification he wanted.He did not respond.So I went ahead and posted the report on my blog.
 In earlier correspondence with me he mentioned that I should consult him before posting any thing. So he knew that the correspondence was not private. I also mentioned in our correspondence that I had asked him questions ( to which he did not respond) with the intention of quoting him. I have done this in the past too but the reports about him in the past were positive.This one was not.I have sent him the e-mail copies of what I mention here i.e (1)informing him asking him for clarifications, (2) his mentioning that before quoting him I should consult him and (3) my mentioning that I want to quote.
He had no response apologetically to the initial copy and neither does he have any now, after so many reports are written, with his apologetics being the subject.-L.A