Saturday, July 20, 2013

Faithful Answers could help by discussing this issue :Educate Mark Shea and the rest of them at Catholic Answers and EWTN.

Liberal Mark Shea comes to the defense of his friends at EWTN and Catholic Answers who like him interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition.Recently I wrote a piece on how Jimmy Akins assumes there is known salvation outside the Church, so he rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the traditional teaching on other religions.He also rejects the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, in particular Veritatis Splendor. He assumes that we cannot judge a mortal sin since the inner motivation of a person is not known.This is contrary to Veritatis Splendor and is the error of Fr.Charles Curran.Veritatis Splendor says the outer action indicates the inner intention and a mortal sin is always a mortal sin.
 
Jimmy Akins says that we can never really know if there is a mortal sin. This is the typical liberal position. He writes in the National Catholic Register that 'deliberate consent' and 'full freedom'(CCC 1857) cannot be known to us. Exactly! Since it cannot be known to us so only the first condition, grave matter, is sufficient to identify a mortal sin. We do  not need three conditions but one.
So now Mark Shea, who claims like the Jewish Left that Fr.Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for heresy, criticises Faithful Answers  on his blog. He claims interestingly that FA  wants to provide an alternative to Catholic Answers, and EWTN. If they do want to provide an alternative I would be glad. Since Mark Shea and the other convert apologists on Catholic Answers and EWTN  interpret magisterial texts with the Cushing premise.
 
FA could provide an alternative to Catholic Answers and EWTN who are in heresy often with the support of the USSCB, by  identifying  the Richard Cushing Error used by Catholic Answers, EWTN and Mark Shea- though presently also by Robert Sungenis on  FA.FA could discuss this issue.
 
Regarding Robert Sungenis, point out to Mark Shea that Vatican Council II (AG 7) indicates all Jews in the present time need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water to go to heaven and avoid Hell.This is the official teaching of the Catholic Church according to magisterial texts including Vatican Council II- and we  don't know any exceptions and neither does any magisterial text mention any exceptions. Presently Sungenis and Shea assume that there are known exceptions to AG 7.This was also the error of Robert Sungenis' former Bishop in Harrisburg,PA but Sungenis did not mention the Cushing error.
 
When Patrick Madrid, Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples accept  that we do not know any non Catholic saved in the present times, in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire, then they would have to admit, to be rational, that there are no exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Then would  Mark Shea have the courage to affirm the dogma and disappoint his leftist friends and supporters within and outside the Church?
 
Presently the aplogists at  EWTN and Catholic Answers are getting away with heresy and mortal sin since the traditionalists and other  Catholics are not identifying the Richard Cushing Error  being used by liberal Catholics.They are using this error to create liberal new doctrines in faith and morals with the support of the secular media and Catholics like Mark Shea. .This is not part of the Mystical Body of Christ as Mark Shea claims. This is heresy. These apologists, him included, should not be given the Eucharist at Holy Mass.
 
There was a book written critical of  EWTN titled EWTN a Network Gone Wrong  in which I could safely presume that the  authors did not mention the use of the Richard Cushing mistake by the apologists.Neither did they mention  the  Archbishop of the diocese in which EWTN is situated making the same error.
Faithful Answers could help by discussing this issue.Educate Mark Shea and the rest of them at Catholic Answers and EWTN.
-Lionel Andrades

Harmonize the medieval magisteria​l statements with the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office

There are so many good Catholics trying to 'harmonize the medieval magisterial statements on extra ecclesiam nulla salus with the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office ' (1) while making the Richard Cushing mistake of assuming that de jure (in principle) teachings are known de facto ( in reality in the present times). This results in a theology which suggests we can see the dead now in Heaven, who are exceptions to the medieval magisterial statements on extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Of course, they are doomed to failure with this irrational exercise.
 
Yes, the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 can be reconciled with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus if the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are considered implicit and unknown to us in the present times. It is then not an exception to the dogma.
 
Fr.Brian Harrison writes  'Now, Fr. Feeney and his SBC followers(St.Benedict Center) would probably say that I am trying to ‘square the circle’ here, so that my efforts to harmonize the medieval magisterial statements with the 1949 Letter are inevitably doomed to failure.'
 
No it would not inevitably be doomed to failure, as long as Fr.Harrison would  specify that the baptism of desire etc are never explicit for us and so are irrelevant to the medieval magisterial texts.It is definitely not an exception, known  or unknown, as the medieval popes, Doctors of the Church and saints knew.So Thomas Aquinas would affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma and also accept that there could be 'a man in the forest' saved in invincible ignorance.The 'man in the forest' is not an exception to the medieval magisterial statements on extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
The liberals say Jesus said those who are not against us are for us.Fine, but we do not know who these persons are in the present times to judge them as being exceptions to all needing to convert into the Church for salvation.
 
Then it is said that the good thief at the Crucifixion went to Heaven without the baptism of water. Fine, so even if there is a case in 2013 who is going to Heaven without the baptism of water it would not be known to us. So how could it be an exception to all needing faith and baptism for salvation with no exceptions. 
 
Similarly Robert Sungenis believes he can harmonize the medieval magisterial statements on extra ecclesiam nulla salus  with the 1949 Letter of the Holy Office .He affirms the dogma in a vague way or  even with the literal interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard Feeney along with visible to us cases of the baptism of desire etc which are known or unknown exceptions to the  medieval magisterial statements.This would be contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction unless he clarifies that those saved in invincible ignorance etc are known only to God and so are not exceptions to the literal interpretation of the dogma.
Similarly the SSPX  priests state that they affirm the medieval magisterial statements along with the baptism of desire etc which are exceptions. They say every one needs to enter the Church except for those persons saved with the baptism of desire and saved in invincible ignorance. This is a familiar line.
 
What the SSPX priests need to say is that every one needs to enter the Catholic Church in the present times (2013) and there are no known exceptions, the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not exceptions since we do not know any such case in 2013 and no magisterial text states that we can know these cases. -Lionel Andrades
 
 1.
 
Now, Fr. Feeney and his SBC followers would probably say that I am trying to ‘square the circle’ here, so that my efforts to harmonize the medieval magisterial statements with the 1949 Letter are inevitably doomed to failure. Specifically, they would most likely claim that I am hoist on my own petard in trying to defend the sufficiency for salvation of an “implicit desire for the Church” in the hearts of non-Catholic Christians – persons who by definition explicitly refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff. For I have already admitted that we can never, on pain of Vatican I’s anathema, give a new and different meaning to the words of any Catholic dogma. But (my SBC critics are likely to argue) the words “heretics” and “schismatics” in the Florentine profession of faith were certainly understood by the 15th-century Fathers of that Council to include all separated Eastern Christians as well as the pre-Reformation ‘Protestants’ of their day (Hussites, Waldensians, Lollards, and other sectarians). There was no benign ecumenical talk back then of such folks being our “separated brethren”! Therefore (my critics will conclude) the Council of Florence, in consigning to the eternal fire all those dying as “heretics” and “schismatics”, included among these sons of perdition all persons who die professing membership in any non-Catholic community whatsoever, that is, all who die with an explicit will not to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. If this conclusion is correct, the very idea that a non-Catholic’s “implicit desire” for the Church could be sufficient for his or her salvation is heretical. And that is precisely the grave charge leveled boldly by Leonard Feeney at the 1949 Holy Office Letter- Fr.Brian Harrison
 

Catholic Christology without the necessity of the Catholic Church

 Daniel P. Huang, SJ (possibly Father, a priest) in a key note address on ' Christology'  for the East Asian Pastoral Institute,Philippines (Fr. Arthur Leger, S.J. - Director)which has been posted on line presents Christ without the necessity of formal membership in the Catholic Church and  criticizes Fr.Leonard Feeney ,as if ,there are known exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney's literal interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation being there in  only the Catholic Church.
 
He cites Fr. Jacques Dupuis and other liberal theologians some corrected by the Magisterium. He also refers to Fr.Francis Sullivan's controversial book and to  Fr. Bernard Lonergan on other religions. 
 
First, Christ against the religions. Among many authors, this position has been popularly referred to as "exclusivism."12 This position considers all religions to be unmitigated darkness, sheer, sinful idolatry, incapable of saving anyone who belongs them. Salvation is from Christ alone, and Christ can only be encountered, known, worshiped, and followed, to the individual’s salvation, in the Church. This was the position of the famous (or infamous) Fr. Leonard Feeney, who, in the 1940s, accused the Catholic Archbishop of Boston, and later the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, of heresy, because they taught that non-Catholics could be saved. Ironically, it was Fr. Feeney who was excommunicated by Pius XII- Fr. Daniel P. Huang, SJ (1)
  
Christology is one of the theological courses offered at Catholic universities including the Pontifical universities in Rome, in which they reject the necessity of all to accept Christ within the Catholic Church as  visible members; with Catholic Faith and the baptism of water (AG 7).
 
They interpret the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 as saying 'the dogma' the 'infallible statement' is contradicted by known cases of the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, even though no one can name any such case, who is supposed to be an exception to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.

So with this irrationality citing the case of Fr.Leonard Feeney who was excommunicated for disobedience and not heresy, according to the Letter, liberals , contradict Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the Catechism of the Catholic  Church (846 Outside the Church No Salvation).This was the 'tactic' used by many Jesuits.They have used an irrationality to break with Tradition.
-Lionel Andrades
  
 (1)
http://eapi.admu.edu.ph/content/christ-one-savior-world-reflections-our-emerging-christological-question

Robert Sungenis, Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P, Chad Arneson and other apologists on Faithful Answers could not handle questions on salvation and the magisterium : they got rid of them

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.
 
sungenis
 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.
 
 chadarneson
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.com/

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 ?
 
 
3.
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 
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/06/interpreting-vatican-council-ii.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