Monday, May 12, 2014

Daphne McLeod resigns : how will PEEP interpret Vatican Council II ?


Daphne McLeod has resigned as Chairman of the English-based Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice (PEEP) organisation, which, over many years now, has exposed errors in the religious education textbooks used in Catholic.The  new Chairman is Mr.Graham Moorhouse according to Catholic Truth of Scotland.
'The PEEP committee has set itself the task of producing a catechesis course for six to thirteen year olds that can be emailed to children and their parents weekly. This is a major commitment which involves writing several hundred modules, so volunteers are
urgently needed to help with this project.
Volunteers need to be teachers or have teaching experience, either at primary school level or as successful homeeducators.'
 
Obviously only volunteers who accept orthodox Catholic teaching on all the “hot button” issues of the day will be accepted, it is stated.
 
How will Mr.Graham Moorhouse catechize with respect to Vatican Council II ?
As I mentioned in a previous post the use of an inference in Vatican Council II is not Catholic doctrine or theology. It is not part of the Deposit of the  Faith.
 
To infer that the dead-saved with ' a ray of the Truth' is visible to us is an intellectual observation.
Upon this intellectual observation is built the theology of the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales. 
 
 So in Ad Gentes 7 one can infer that all do not need to enter the Church but only 'those who know' about Jesus and the Church and they are visible on earth.If they were not visible on earth, it would mean  that all need faith and baptism for salvation  (AG 7).There would be no exceptions. Only God can know who 'knows'  about the Church (AG 11,LG 14) and who was in invincible ignorance(LG 16).When they are invisible for us they refer to implicit cases. They are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 
When Cardinal Gerhard Muller was asked about the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , he said 'The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” 1 He is inferring here that 'whosoever knowing'  refers to cases visible to us on earth. So they become  explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This inference is irrational.It is the familiar visible-dead premise.
Once it is understood that the inference is false and irrational Vatican Council II 'changes' fundamentally.
1.PEEP must affirm all texts and documents in Vatican Council II in accord with the traditional and literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Affirm the dogma on exclusive salvation according to the Church Councils, the popes, saints,Fr. Leonard Feeney and the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012.2
2.Nostra Aetate 2 (saved with a ray of the Truth) does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Nostra Aetate is in agreement with the SSPX and PEEP  traditional position on other religions and salvation.
3.Unitatitis Redintigratio  3 ( imperfect communion with the Church) does not contradict the dogma on exclusive salvation.We do not know anyone in 2014 saved in imperfect communion with the Church.We cannot name anyone.
4.Ad Gentes 11 ( seeds of the Word) does not contradict the dogma on exclusive salvation, the Catechism of Pope Pius X or the Syllabus of Errors.
5.Lumen Gentium 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth) does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus .
6.Dignitatis Humanae says a Catholic has a right to proclaim his Faith. This would be done with the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.
DH says in a state with a secular Constitution a non Catholic is legally free to profess his religion.This is a defacto situation in which Catholics can still at all levels ( political etc) affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus i.e non Catholics are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.
7.Gaudium et Specs does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which says 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.AG 7 is in agreement with the dogma on salvation and there are no exceptions mentioned in any text of Vatican Council II to AG 7.
The key to this interpretation of Vatican Council II is the inference.
 
Once it is understood that we cannot infer that the deceased-saved are visible to us, Vatican Council II changes radically.It would be in accord with PEEP's traditional catechesis.
 
It would also mean that Cardinal Richard Cushing  and the Jesuits  in Boston were in heresy for implying(inferring) that there were explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Presently members of PEEP could be making this same inference.
If the Bishops Conference states that PEEP's catechesis must accept Vatican Council II  PEEP  would respond positively.They accept Vatican Council II in accord with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and without the visible-dead inference. PEEP would reject the common interpretation of Vatican Council II  with the dead man walking and visible premise.
 
The SSPX and PEEP could affirm Vatican Council II and also Catholic Tradition. The teachings of the Catholic Church for them would be the same before and after Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades


1
NCR:
Do you, nevertheless, accept there’s been a weakening of the Church’s teaching because of this underlying confusion of terminology? One example sometimes cited is that the teaching of “no salvation outside the Church” seems to have become less prominent.
Archbishop Gerhard Muller:
That has been discussed, but here, too, there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the third century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the third century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly — and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.
June 5, 2013
Archbishop Gerhard Muller was using the false premise : here is the proof! 
2
 it seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation;
 
 
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/MAYnewsletter14.pdf

Fr.Zuhlsdorf also uses 'the inference' in the interpretation of Vatican Council II

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf commenting on the 19 Oct: Beatification of Paul VI  wrote 'as I thought..the next phase of the canonization of Vatican II will occur 19 October.' In his interpretation of Vatican Council II Fr.Zuhlsdorf also uses 'the inference'.
As I have mentioned in another blog post  SSPX'S POSITION HAS DRAMATICALLY CHANGED, the traditionalists can now interpret Vatican Council II without the false premise, without 'the inference'.
This applies also to Fr. Z judging from his past posts. He uses 'the  inference' when reading and writing on Vatican Council II. To infer that the dead-saved with ' a ray of the Truth' etc  is visible to us is an intellectual observation. It is not Catholic doctrine or theology.

Upon this intellectual observation (inference) is built a  theology, that all do not need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. This is the theology of the liberals using the inference.It is the theology of those who are happy with the beatification of Pope Paul VI and Pope John XXIII, for the wrong reasons.They assume that Vatican  Council II is a break with Tradition not realizing that it is a break with Tradition because they use an irrational inference in the interpretation of the Council.

 For instance  in Ad Gentes 7 the liberals (and traditionalists) infer, that all do not need to enter the Church but only 'those who know' about Jesus and the Church and they are visible on earth.This is how they read Vatican Council II on salvation.This is a new doctrine.This is how they interpret Vatican Council II.Implicit for us statements in Vatican Council II are inferred to be explcit for us.
 
If they were not visible on earth, it would mean  that all need faith and baptism for salvation  (AG 7).There would be no exceptions.Vatican Council II would be traditional on exclusive salvation in the Catholic Church.
 
This new doctrine on salvation is irrational since only  God can know who 'knows'  about the Church (AG 11,LG 14) and who was in invincible ignorance(LG 16). They are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This is a point Fr.Z has missed out in earlier posts on Vatican Council II. Commentators assumed there were known exceptions and he did not correct them.
 
When Cardinal Gerhard Muller was asked about the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , he said 'The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” 1 He is inferring here that 'whosoever knowing'  refers to cases visible to us on earth. So they become  explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This inference is irrational.It is the familiar visible-dead premise.
 
Once it is understood that the inference is false and irrational the canonical-status position of the  Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) changes dramatically.Vatican Council II 'changes'. Fr.Z would have to look at Vatican Council II differently.
 
1.Fr.Z needs to affirm all texts and documents in Vatican Council II in accord with the traditional and literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Affirm the dogma on exclusive salvation according to the Church Councils, the popes, saints,Fr. Leonard Feeney and the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012. 2
2.Nostra Aetate 2 (saved with a ray of the Truth) does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Nostra Aetate is in agreement with the SSPX traditional position on other religions and salvation.

3.Unitatitis Redintigratio  3 ( imperfect communion with the Church) does not contradict the dogma on exclusive salvation.We do not know anyone in 2014 saved in imperfect communion with the Church.We cannot name anyone.

4.Ad Gentes 11 ( seeds of the Word) does not contradict the dogma on exclusive salvation, the Catechism of Pope Pius X or the Syllabus of Errors.

5.Lumen Gentium 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth) does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.


6.Dignitatis Humanae says a Catholic has a right to proclaim his Faith. This would be done with the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.

DH says in a state with a secular Constitution a non Catholic is legally free to profess his religion.This is a defacto situation in which Catholics can still at all levels ( political etc) affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus i.e non Catholics are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.

7.Gaudium et Specs does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which says 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.AG 7 is in agreement with the dogma on salvation and there are no exceptions mentioned in any text of Vatican Council II to AG 7.
 
The key to this interpretation of Vatican Council II is the inference.

Once it is understood that we cannot infer that the deceased-saved are visible to us, Vatican Council II 'changes' radically.It is the same Vatican Council II of Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI.

It would also mean that Cardinal Richard Cushing  and the Jesuits  in Boston were in heresy for implying(inferring) that there were explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.  This is the common heresy, the widespread heresy also in 2014.It is being made unknowingly by Catholic religious and laity.

-Lionel Andrades
 

1
NCR:
Do you, nevertheless, accept there’s been a weakening of the Church’s teaching because of this underlying confusion of terminology? One example sometimes cited is that the teaching of “no salvation outside the Church” seems to have become less prominent. 
 

Archbishop Gerhard Muller:
That has been discussed, but here, too, there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the third century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the third century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly — and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.
 
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-the-church-is-not-a-fortress/#ixzz2VLejK3GH

June 5, 2013
 Archbishop Gerhard Muller was using the false premise : here is the proof! 

2
 it seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation;
 
http://www.dici.org/en/news/society-of-st-pius-x-general-chapter-statement/
 

Israeli Parliament will hold special meeting to pay tribute to Pope John XXIII

Israeli Parliament will hold special meeting to pay tribute to Pope John XXIII
http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/news/israeli-parliament-will-hold-special-meeting-to-pay-tribute-to-pope-john-xxiii/
 
The inference is not theology or a doctrine I mentioned in a previous post. To infer that the dead-saved with ' a ray of the Truth' is visible to us is an intellectual observation. It is an inference.
Upon this intellectual observation is built the Jewish Left theology for Catholics, which says  all do not need to enter the Catholic Church for salvation. In other words Jews do not need to convert. This is how the Jewish ADL understands Vatican Council II, according to its website. So the Vatican Council II initiated by Pope John XXIII is to receive a special tribute from the Zionists.They use an irrational inference.
 
The political Left, infer in Ad Gentes 7, that  all do not need to enter the Church but only 'those who know' about Jesus and the Church and they are visible on earth. They are visible on earth, thats the catch!
 
If they were not visible on earth, it would mean that all need faith and baptism for salvation (AG 7).There would be no exceptions.

Remember, we do not know who 'knows' about the Church (AG 11,LG 14)  and is damned and who was in invincible ignorance(LG 16) and was saved.When they are invisible for us they refer to implicit cases and not explicit cases. They are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.For the liberal Jewish rabbis these cases are not invisible for us but visible in the flesh. So they become exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

When Cardinal Gerhard Muller was asked about the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus , he said 'The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” 1 He is inferring here that 'whosoever knowing' refers to cases visible to us on earth. So they become explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. This inference is irrational.It is the familiar visible-dead premise.
 
Once it is understood that the inference is false and irrational the canonical-status position of the Society of St.Pius X (SSPX) changes dramatically. This  is the Vatican Council II of Pope John XXIII.
1. We can  affirm all texts and documents in Vatican Council II in accord with the traditional and literal interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. We can affirm the dogma on exclusive salvation according to the Church Councils, the popes, saints,Fr. Leonard Feeney and the SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012.2 The Zionists cannot do so.
2.Nostra Aetate 2 (saved with a ray of the Truth) does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Nostra Aetate is in agreement with the SSPX traditional position on other religions and salvation.
3.Unitatitis Redintigratio 3 ( imperfect communion with the Church) does not contradict the dogma on exclusive salvation.We do not know anyone in 2014 saved in imperfect communion with the Church.We cannot name anyone.
4.Ad Gentes 11 ( seeds of the Word) does not contradict the dogma on exclusive salvation, the Catechism of Pope Pius X or the Syllabus of Errors.
5.Lumen Gentium 8 ( elements of sanctification and truth) does not contradict extra ecclesiam nulla salus .This is the Vatican Council II of Pope John XXIII.
6.Dignitatis Humanae says a Catholic has a right to proclaim his Faith. This would be done with the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church.
DH says in a state with a secular Constitution a non Catholic is legally free to profess his religion.This is a defacto situation in which Catholics can still at all levels ( political etc) affirm extra ecclesiam nulla salus i.e non Catholics are oriented to Hell unless they convert into the Catholic Church.
7.Gaudium et Specs does not contradict Ad Gentes 7 which says 'all' need 'faith and baptism' for salvation.AG 7 is in agreement with the dogma on salvation and there are no exceptions mentioned in any text of Vatican Council II to AG 7.
The key to this interpretation of Pope John XXIII's Vatican Council II is of course the inference.
Once it is understood that we cannot infer that the deceased-saved are visible to us, Vatican Council II changes radically.The Jewish Left interpretation of Vatican Council II then becomes irrational.
 
It would also mean that Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits in Boston, a Jewish Left stronghold,  were in heresy for implying (inferring) that there were explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
 

The Vatican Council II being tributed  by the Jewish Left uses a false inference which results in an irrational theology. Without the false premise Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI's  Vatican Council II is in agreement with Catholic Tradition. The teachings of the Catholic Church are the same before and after Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades

1
NCR:
Do you, nevertheless, accept there’s been a weakening of the Church’s teaching because of this underlying confusion of terminology? One example sometimes cited is that the teaching of “no salvation outside the Church” seems to have become less prominent. 

 
Archbishop Gerhard Muller:
That has been discussed, but here, too, there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the third century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the third century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly — and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.

2
it seems opportune that we reaffirm our faith in the Roman Catholic Church, the unique Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find the means leading to salvation;...