Monday, January 20, 2014

Traditionalists who have been denying the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus do not want to consider a Vatican Council II which is pro Fr.Leonard Feeney


It is becoming clearer for many Catholics, that Vatican Council II is pro extra ecclesiam nulla salus and they do not want a Vatican Council II in which they have to affirm the dogma on exclusive salvation.For instance Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro in Rome would not affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. He would say there are exceptions to the dogma.He would agree that there are no known exceptions to the dogma. But he was not going to affirm the position of Fr.Leonard Feeney in public.
He would say Vatican Council II is ambigous. It has statements for and against Tradition. Of course for him the Council would contradict  Fr.Leonard Feeney.If he would say in public that all non Catholics need to enter the Church to avoid Hell he would be cautioned and may be penalized by the Vicariate in Rome.

 

Now we realize that it is Vatican Council II itself which  says 'all need faith and baptism for salvation' (AG 7) and 'all need to enter the Church as through a door '(AG 7).So it is the Council which is saying extra ecclesiam nulla salus. And we do not know any one on earth saved in invincible ignorance of the Gospel, or anyone condemned who did not enter the Church even after being informed with the necessary knowledge. So these cases cannot be used an excuse to deny the dogma and AG 7. Neither are being saved 'in imperfect communion with the Church' or 'elements of sanctification and truth' known to us in particular cases for them to be exceptions to the dogma.

So what will Monisgnor Barreiro who offers the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass, do now? Will he be able to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in public ? Or will he continue to discuss Vatican Council II assuming there are exceptions to the dogma even when he knows there are no exceptions. Would Vatican Council II be considered anti Semitic etc?

Dr.John Rao, New Catholic  at Rorate Caeili and the SSPX (USA/Canada) are among so many traditionalists who were denying the dogma on exclusive salvation, will they now accept a Vatican Council II which is pro-Fr.Leonard Feeney. They would use Fr.Leonard Feeney as an excuse for denying the dogma but now it is asked : if Fr.Leonard Feeney accepted or rejected the baptism of desire what difference does it make to the dogma. It is irrelevant. Since there are no known cases of the baptism of desire in 2014. These cases would have to be visible and known to us for them to be exceptions to the teaching that all need to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation. 

For Michael Voris, Robert Sungenis and so many apologists Vatican Council II was ambigous. When they realize that the Council is not ambigous on the issue of other religions and ecumenism will they support the new understanding of  Vatican Council II ? Will they affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus just Fr.Leonard Feeney and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the St.Benedict Centers in the USA?
 
Vatican Council II is pure Feeneyism. We could see a whole new group of Feeneyites in traditionalists and others who in the past thought Feeneyism was a heresy.
 
There is no discussion on this subject since there so many traditionalists who do not want to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in public. They do not want to discuss the issue of Vatican Council II emerging traditional if all salvation referred to in the Council is considered invisible for us.
-Lionel Andrades

Rasha Lampa's Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus link list has become obsolete

Rasha Lampa's Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus link list has become obsolete since she does not consider the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance as being irrelevant to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. She approaches the issue theologically. The baptism of desire etc are physically not visible to us on earth, for them to be exceptions or relevant to the literal interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
Rasha's  research and defense of the dogma is appreciated however the link list needs to be updated with the fact that there are no known exceptions in 2014.
For her Vatican Council II is not in perfect agreement with Fr.Leonard Feeney since she assumes there are known exceptions to the dogma mentioned in the Council.
-Lionel Andrades

http://nosalvationoutsideofthecatholicchurch.blogspot.it/
http://catholicism.org/pro-father-feeney-blogs.html

"No Salvation Outside the Church" Link List:
The most extensive list of links on the web relating to the defense of the Dogma "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus"(EENS)



Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
http://nosalvationoutsideofthecatholicchurch.blogspot.com/
 

More nonsense on Rorate Caeili

From  Rorate Caeili with comments.
Ecce quam bonum et quam iucundum...
The division of the Traditional Catholic world was a master stroke by the enemies of the 1962 Missal and of the Roman Catechism. They have managed to sow discord between friends and to establish fratricidal hatred among priests who used to march together hand in hand. The first group began to treat their brothers as radicals, the second called the others sellouts. The former were convinced that those who remained under Abp. Lefebvre would soon fall in total schism, and the latter thought with certitude that their former brothers would abandon both Mass and Catechism.

What can we say more than a quarter-century later? That, on both sides, these judgments were, in great measure, overreactions.

On its own side, for all its known problems, the Society of Saint Pius X did not become schismatic or a parallel "church". It has always kept contacts with Rome and has made what it considered necessary in order to regularize its situation with the successive popes, even if, for reasons that its superiors considers prudential (and with which we ourselves may prudentially disagree), regularization has not been achieved for the moment. On the other side, the Ecclesia Dei communities never abandoned the Traditional Mass, nor traditional Catechesis.
 
Lionel: Vatican Council II is in perfect agreement with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors and New Catholic at Rorate Caeili is not permitted to discuss this issue by the Jewish Left.He received a phone call from the Reformed Rabbi who teaches Ecumenism at the  University of St.Thomas Aquinas, Rome. New Catholic is permitted to say that Vatican Council II is a break with the past. This is the liberal,left position.He is not permitted to say that Vatican Council II supports  the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.So he does not discuss this subject.
 
Rorate reports the same nonsense about  Vatican Council II being a break with the past. Obviously it would be a break with the past if you assume all salvation mentioned in the Council are visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.If you can see the dead in Heaven, and on earth, who are now saved in invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word, imperfect communion with the Church and good and holy things in other religions, then the Council will be a break with the dogma and the past.
 
So 'the traditional Catechesis' is 'never  abandoned' by Rorate  except with reference to Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston 1949.


 It must be said in all honesty: on the side of the SSPX, recognition of the Pope remains, and the desire for its work to be recognized is still sought, according to different measures that vary from person to person. On the side of the Ecclesia Dei communities, there remains a disapproval of the new Mass (regardless of the fact that it is considered both valid and legitimate) and of the alteration of traditional doctrine, both of which are also expressed differently from person to person. The exceptions within these groups confirm the rule in both communities.
 
Lionel: 'the alteration of traditional doctrine'
It is Rorate Caeili which alters traditional doctrine when it assumes all references to salvation in Church texts are visible to us. So the baptism of desire etc is a visible exception to the traditional catechesis.
 
A problem has been that, throughout the years, some religious authorities, while the situation remained by itself already quite confusing, proclaimed fatwas, dogmatizing attitudes that would require a certain pliancy and lots of understanding. We heard, for instance: "Visiting the SSPXers? Don't even think about it, or you'll be excommunicated!" Or still: "Go to a Mass with those sellouts? You'll lose your faith there!"
 
Lionel:  Which of the following two interpretations is  sell out for New Catholic ?
1. If you say Vatican Council II does contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition on the issue of other religions and Christian communities and churches, it means you consider all salvation, referred to in Vatican Council II as being visible to us, explicit on earth and Heaven. It is true the Council does contradict the dogma.The Council would contradict the dogma when this irrational premise is used!
2.If you say Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition on the issue of other religions and Christian communities and churches, it means you consider all salvation, referred to in Vatican Council II as being invisible to us, on earth.They are hypothetical cases, possibilities, known only to God. It is true Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma.The Council would not contradict the dogma when the irrational premise is not used!
 
Obviously the first interpretation is a sell out and this is the one held by the SSPX and Rorate Caeili. It is also the one held by the Vatican Curia but we will not have the SSPX pointing it out since they are making the same error.
 
The irrational interpretation is also heresy.

In the documentary on the life of Abp. Lefebvre which was recently released in America, a famous professor and journalist, Jean Madiran, who had distanced himself from the SSPX in 1988, made nonetheless this brave declaration regarding the Lefebvre consecrations: "It is hard for me to say today that he was mistaken." Since he passed away in 2013, it is, at least in a small way, his testament. That the most famous French layman of the Traditionalist struggle is willing to affirm this soon before dying should make us ponder. Many faithful in the young generation refuse this mutual demonization whose only motivation seems to be the fear of having some sheep escape to the neighboring pasture.

Now, is this text an appeal to mix everything up? Absolutely not. May each one continue to advance in one's own post. The scenario that has come up in the past few decades, even more so after the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum of Benedict XVI, is the worst thing that the Progressives could have imagined considering the very dire circumstances of the 1969-1988 period:
 
Lionel: The Progressives like the SSPX use the irrational premise in the interpretation of Vatican Council II and both sides seem unaware of it. Among those who are aware, there are Catholics who do not want to affirm in public the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So they are not going to say Vatican Council II is in harmony with Fr.Leonard Feeney. and there is no contradiction.
 
 a Society of Saint Pius X that remains somewhat strong, and that keeps presenting to Rome its doctrinal misgivings;
 
Lionel: The 'doctrinal misgivings' are part of the Society of St.Pius X position as it is that of Rome. In the Vatican-SSPX talks neither did Cardinal Luiz Ladaria S.J nor Fr.Jean Marie Gleize (SSPX) mention that salvation referred to in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 and Vatican Council II are not known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation. Neither has Rorate Caeili correspondents have ever referred to this.They will not even discuss it.
 
 and Ecclesia Dei communities that spreaded out throughout the world, slowly but surely, and with great determination, making clear to the bishops every single day what the Church has always willed and stood for, especially in liturgical matters.
Lionel: In liturgical matters the Church does not say there is any Church- document which contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Rorate implies Vatican Council II does just this.Vatican Council II does not state that there are known exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
Are not both in a way the heirs of Marcel Lefebvre, who unfailingly asked for the "experience of Tradition" to be allowed?
 
Lionel: It is not part of 'the experience of tradition' before the 1940's to claim that those saved with the baptism of desire are explicit, objectively known, visible in the flesh and not hypothetical cases.
 
Now then, what is to be done in the future? The forceful proclamation of the faith!
Lionel: One first has to have it! Something foreign, something new has been added to the faith since the 1940's in Boston. It was the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuits there who were part of the Boston Heresy. They suggested there were known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
And to work cum et sub Petro without complaining!
 
Lionel: Rorate could inform Petro that all salvation referred to in Vatican Council II is implicit, hypothetical, accepted in theory. They are possibilities but not defacto known, visible on earth and explicit for us. So Vatican Council II is traditional on the issue of other religions and Christian communities (AG 7) unless one uses irrationality in the interpretation; unless one claims that the dead now in Heaven are visible to us.
 
 May the fans of the Ecclesia Dei and Summorum Pontificum communities not be afraid of the first response.
Lionel: Odds are that those fans like New Catholic imply they can see the dead in Heaven.
 
 And may those of the Society of Saint Pius X not shy away from the second. In times of troubled waters and unknown obstacles, the unity of all like minded traditional Catholics is essential, with mutual tolerance and acceptance.
 
Lionel:  Catholic doctrine does not change. There cannot be unity with irrationality like a visible to us baptism of desire, or explicitly known cases in 2014 saved in invincible ignorance, who are supposed to be 'known' exceptions to Tradition.
 
The SSPX (N.America) has published a book by the Angelus Press, which says Pope Pius XII condemned Fr.Leonard Feeney for not accepting the baptism of desire etc as an exception to the dogma.
In spite of being informed many times, the book written by Fr.Francois Laisney has not been pulled down. We just have to accept it  that this is the SSPX ( N.America District) and Rorate Caeli's political position. O.K. Pope Pius XII made an objective mistake according to the SSPX and New Catholic. He assumed there were cases of people saved with the baptism of desire, who are now in Heaven and visible to us on earth. They would have to be visible on earth to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
 
Dr.John Rao who participated in the last Angelus Press Conference (N.America)  was asked two simple questions(1). He refused to answer since he did not want to affirm the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Instead he along with John Vennari  kept repeating  the same nonsence about Vatican Council II, which supposes that the dead-saved are visible to us and so the Council is a break with the past.
They are publicly 'respecting' the views of the Jewish Left.
-Lionel Andrades



1.
TWO SIMPLE QUESTIONS

1) Do we personally know the dead now saved in invincible ignorance, a good conscience (LG 16) etc,can we see them, are they physically visible to us in 2013 ? Answer: NO

 
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 ? Answer: THERE ARE NONE.
 
 
 
 



http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/more-party-line-irrationality-from.html#links


Archbishop Muller and the SSPX are both using the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II with the false premise of being able to see people in Heaven

Abp. Müller: “The canonical excommunication of the bishops for their illegal ordinations was revoked, but a de facto sacramental excommunication remains for their schism; they put themselves out of communion with the Church." (1) 
 
1. If you say Vatican Council II does contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus,the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition on the issue of other religions and Christian communities and churches, it means you consider all salvation, referred to in Vatican Council II as being visible to us, explicit on earth and Heaven. It is true the Council does contradict the dogma.The Council would contradict the dogma when this irrational premise is used!
2.If you say Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition on the issue of other religions and Christian communities and churches, it means you consider all salvation, referred to in Vatican Council II as being invisible to us, on earth.They are hypothetical cases, possibilities, known only to God. It is true Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma.The Council would not contradict the dogma when the irrational premise is not used!
 
Either way it depends not on Vatican Council II but if you consider all salvation referred to in the Council as being visible or invisible, explicit or implicit.
 
So I can accept Vatican Council II affirming all salvation mentioned in the Council is invisible for me and so there are no known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition with reference to other religions and Christian communities and churches.
 
I affirm Vatican Council II and I deny that there are known exceptions to the dogma in 2014. So while affirming Vatican Council II I deny the 'theology of religions' since there is no known salvation outside the Catholic  Church in 2014.
I reject the new ecclesiology and affirm the traditional ecclesiology since there is no known exception outside the Church.So there is no basis for a new ecclesiology.
 
I attend Mass in the vernacular. I also attend the Traditional Latin Mass. Ecclesiology and doctrine are not dependent on the liturgy as the secularists and the Left assume.
 
Archbishop Muller and the SSPX are both using the irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II with the false premise of being able to see people on Heaven.Perhaps the error is unintentional and innocent.
 
So the SSPX could affirm Vatican Council II without the false premise, without indicating all salvation mentioned in the Council is visible for them. They would then still be affirming their traditional values. Ad Gentes 7 (all need 'faith and baptism') is in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Protestants and Orthodox Christians do not have Catholic Faith, which include the moral and faith teachings of the Catholic Church, needed to avoid mortal sin and maintain Sanctifying Grace.Hindus, Jews,Muslims etc do not have Catholic Faith nor the baptism of water needed for salvation.
 
The SSPX members  could still offer/attend the Traditional Latin  Mass since they would not be denying Vatican Council II nor their traditional values.The Council is traditional without the Muller error.
 
Vatican Council II is traditional without the  'visible salvation in Heaven' error. The SSPX does not put themself out of the Church if they affirm Vatican Council with the traditional ecclesiology.
 
The irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II leads to heresy. This is the heretical interpretation of the Vatican Curia being forced upon the SSPX. They affirm Tradition and Archbishop Muller wants them to affirm new doctrine; that of being able to see the dead in Heaven. No Church document makes this claim but this is being implied by him.
-Lionel Andrades

1.
http://www.dici.org/en/news/concerning-a-statement-by-abp-muller-on-the-schism-of-the-society-of-st-pius-x/