Monday, November 24, 2014

The Council can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism. With Cushingism Vatican Council II is a break with the Syllabus of Errors

God has limited himself to the Sacraments according to the dogma and Vatican Council II (AG 7). Yet this is contrary to the statement in CCC 1257 which has come from the irrationality of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It says God is not limited to the Sacraments.This error is based on Cushingism.It is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction to have said in CCC 1257 that God is not limited to the Sacraments and also God is limited to the Sacraments.One of the two statements in CCC 1257 has to be wrong.The statement : God is not limited to the Sacraments contradicts the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition.


Yesterday I was talking to a young man Elia who was better informed than me on Catholic Tradition. He quoted Pope Pius IX saying that if any one changed the liturgy in any way let him be anathema.We know that in 1965 the liturgy was changed.
He thought Vatican Council II was a break with the Syllabus of Errors. I disagreed with him. I mentioned that the Council can be interpreted with Cushingism or Feeneyism. With Cushingism Vatican Council II is a break with the Syllabus of Errors.
The Church has not changed its teaching on other religions according to Church Documents, interpreted with Feeneyism ( no visible exceptions to the dogma).
 
The Vatican, we agreed, is interpreting Vatican Council II as a break with the Syllabus of Errors.
 
Catholics also need to be free to proclaim their faith in Italy .Catholics believe that all Muslims and other non Catholics are on the way to Hell, unless they convert into the Catholic Church, according to Vatican Council II (Ad Gentes 7).
 
Vatican Council II indicates that the Prophet Mohammad is lost eternally since he died without 'faith and baptism'(AG 7). Also he know about the Catholic Church but did not enter. So he could not be saved according to Vatican Council II (Lumen Gentium 14). All non Catholics, are on the way to Hell is the official teaching of the Church before and after Vatican Council II, the Church tells us in its documents.
 
Jesus died to save all, including Muslims. To receive this salvation all need to respond with 'faith and baptism' (Dominus Iesus 20).Those who believe will be saved those who do not will be condemned (Mk.16:16). All need the baptism of water for salvation (John 3:5).
 
Members of other religions are oriented into the Church and are called to be part of the Catholic Church for salvation.(CDF, Notification on Fr.Jaquis Dupuis S.J,2001 ).
 
This is the Catholic Faith. Those who are saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), imperfect communion with the Church(UR 3), a ray of the Truth (NA 2), seeds of the Word (AG 11) are known only to God. So they are not explicit exceptions to all needing 'faith and baptism'.

Mohammad, Ali and the Muslim leaders did not not have the Catholic Faith.They did not have the baptism of water  through which Jesus saves.They were oriented to 'the fires of Hell' (Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441).
Those who are saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), elements of sanctification and truth(LG 8) etc would also have received the baptism of water and Catholic Faith before going to Heaven.Since this is the ordinary means of salvation.This is the norm.This is the teaching of Vatican Council II (AG 7).We do not know anyone in 2014 who is an exception to the norm i.e who is in Heaven without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith.
 
Catholics must have the freedom to proclaim their Faith inspite of so much confusion all about us.The confusion is ecclesiastical .The religious contradict the truth.
The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective error when it assumed that the baptism of desire etc referred to visible- to- us- cases. This is Cushingism. Most Catholics interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism. Cushingism is irrational, non traditional and heretical. Without this irrationality, in the interpretation of Vatican Council II, the Council supports traditional Feeneyism, the exclusive ecclesiology.
Lumen Gentium  16 etc can be interpreted according to Cushingism or Feeneyism and most people choose the irrational way.So they would say that all Jews, Muslims and other non Catholics do not need to convert into the Catholic Church in 2014 in Italy, for example, since there could be exceptions (baptism of desire etc) who are visible to us.They are visible exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus even though these cases are in Heaven? How can you meet or see someone in Italy who is also in Heaven? How can these invisible cases be exceptions to the Syllabus of Errors? So how can there be a change in ecclesiology based on invisible cases?. We cannot see or meet any one saved outside the Church.
 
God has limited himself to the Sacraments according to the dogma and Vatican Council II (AG 7). Yet this is  contrary to the statement in CCC 1257 which has come from the irrationality of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.It says God is not limited to the Sacraments.This error is based on Cushingism.It is contrary to the Principle of Non Contradiction to have said in CCC 1257 that God is not limited to the Sacraments and also that God is limited to the
Sacraments .One of the two statements in CCC 1257 has to be wrong.The statement : God is  not limited to the Sacraments contradicts the Syllabus of Errors and Tradition. -Lionel Andrades

The Council of Trent has only cited implicit desire and did not say it is an exception to the dogma

banner
Lionel, it is nonsense you’re sprouting. You don’t understand BOD at all when you say it is an exception to EENS or that the 1949 letter is wrong. It is based on the Council of Trent and on the 1917 Code of Canon Law when they treat catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own as baptised. This is also why it’s rubbish to hear you say Archbishop Lefebvre is wrong in talking to the catechumen if he dies without baptism through no fault of his own, he will be saved. Or do you contradict even the Council of Trent catechism?!
 
Lionel:
Quo Vadis Petre
Lionel, it is nonsense you’re sprouting. You don’t understand BOD at all when you say it is an exception to EENS
Lionel:
On the contrary I say it is not an exception.
__________________________________
 
Quo Vadis Petre:
 or that the 1949 letter is wrong.
Lionel:
It infers that the baptism of desire is an exception to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
_______________________________________
 
Quo Vadis Petre:
It is based on the Council of Trent and on the 1917 Code of Canon Law when they treat catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own as baptised.
Lionel:
Neither of the two state that these cases are visible and known to us and so are exceptions to the dogma on salvation.
The Council of Trent only mentions implicit desire. It does not state that it is visible to us or an exception to the dogma. This has been wrongly implied by the Letter.
A catechumen can be saved with the baptism of desire ( for me followed by the baptism of water) but it would not be known to us in personal cases to be exception to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in 2014. An exception must exist in our reality. Defacto there are no known exceptions.
______________________________________
 
Quo Vadis Petre:
This is also why it’s rubbish to hear you say Archbishop Lefebvre is wrong in talking to the catechumen if he dies without baptism through no fault of his own, he will be saved.
Lionel:
The Catechuman can be saved. This is acceptable.
However to imply that this case is an exception to the dogma is irrational.
A theoretical case cannot be a defacto exception in 2014.
________________________________________
 
Quo Vadis Petre:
Or do you contradict even the Council of Trent catechism?!
Lionel:
The Council of Trent has only cited implicit desire and it has not said that it is an exception.
____________________________________________
 
-Lionel Andrades
 
 
 

Subdued feast of Christ the King

The big mosaic of the facade of Saint Paul out...There was a subdued 'celebration' of the Feast of Christ the King yesterday, Sunday. There was no mention of Jesus Christ the King of the universe whose Social Reign must extend over all political legislation.
Neither was there mention of extra ecclesiam nulla salus and there being no known salvation outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church.No one is saved without faith and baptism.
The Vatican's theology implies there is known salvation outside the Church. So the dogma has been rejected and also the Social Reign of Jesus Christ over all political legislation.
This great compromise was there yesterday in homilies at Mass in Italian.The Church has adapted itself to the Jewish Left demands.It is non controversial.
The truth , and Catholic doctrines have shelved, to avoid tension.
-Lionel Andrades


http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mosaici_san_Paolo_fuori_le_mura.jpg







All must have faith and baptism for salvation in the Catholic Church for salvation. This is the teaching of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church.

   
Lionel  
Once again this is according to the controversial Letter of the Holy Office 1949. We do not know any one who will be saved in 2014 according to precept or means. This will be for God to judge. So there is no exception here to all needing the baptism of water for salvation in 2014 and there are no exceptions of necessity of precept or means.
For the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 those who are saved with the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are visible to us.This is irrational.So there theology is based on an irrationality.
Here is the on going discussion with Steven Speray. Comments today are in purple.
STEVEN SPERAY:
Wrong. Every post-Trent pope taught it the way I stated.
Nov.24,2014
Lionel:
Please cite the Council of Trent where it says that implicit desire/ baptism of desire is :
1. Visible to us in particular cases in the present times.
2. Are known exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
3:Also  quote any pope before Trent who has said the same (1 & 2)
 
They only refer to the implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance. They do not say that these cases are visible to us or an exception to the dogma. This was the wrong inference made by the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. There was no precedent for their irrationality.
________________________________________


Lionel:
The Church has always taught in the dogma that baptism of water and formal entry into the Church is absolutely needed at all time(Cantate Dominco, Council of Florence, Vatican Council II, Ad Gentes 7).
SPERAY: I didn't say otherwise concerning external forum.
Lionel:
If the baptism of desire refers to someone who is saved without the baptism of desire you are implying that there is a case in the external forum which is an exception to the dogmatic teaching. It would have to be in the external forum to be an exception.
Steven:
To be a member of the Church in external forum we must be Baptized.
Lionel:
Yes. Baptised with water in the external forum.
Baptised with water as a formal member of the Church.
Defacto needing the baptism of water.
In the external forum, as a formal member, defacto we do not know any one saved with the baptism of desire, for it to relevant or an exception to the dogma.
We do not know any one 'incorporated into the Church' without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water who is an exception to the traditional teaching on salvation.
We do not know any one who 'subsists it' in the Church in 2014 who is an exception to all needing to be a member of the Church in the external forum.
Steven:
That's a different argument. BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE ARGUING. Is it how to understand in the external forum how becomes a member of the Church formally? OR Is it how a person can possibly be saved in the internal forum? TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES.
Lionel:
No there is only issue. The external forum. The internal forum is known only to God. This was the mistake of the Letter of the Holy Office 1949. The Letter mixes up invisible and visible, dejure and defacto,subjective and objective.

Those who are saved with the baptism of desire or blood can be saved with the baptism of water and God will provide the means.
Steven:

God can provide the means without water according to every pope after Trent.
Lionel:
You do not know of any such case. Neither did the popes. If this is your theoretical position, I don't have a problem with it. Since it refers to an invisible case. Invisible cases are not defacto exceptions to the dogma in the present times.My 'theoretical' position would be that the baptism of water must follow. This would be the teaching of the dogma on salvation and Vatican  Council II (AG 7).








To assume that the baptism of desire and blood refer to known cases who are saved without the baptism of water is irrational.Since you do not know any such case.
Steven:
No it's not. We know who is saved by Baptism of Blood and I have written in my books how it doesn't contradict Pope Eugene IV.
Lionel:
We can assume that someone saved as a martyr has been saved without the baptism of water but we do not really know. The saints Including St.Francis Xavier tell us that God has sent people back to earth only to be baptised with water.They then died and went back to God.


How what is unknown be relevant or an exception to the traditional dogmatic teaching on salvation?
Steven:

The Traditional dogmatic teaching on salvation is that God can save a person without Water in extraordinary cases,
Lionel:
The text of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus defined by three Church Councils does not state this. Neither do the popes and saints.
Steven:
and you reject that universal and ordinary teaching of the Church.
Lionel:
It is only the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which implies that defacto, in the external forum, visible to us, God is saving or has saved a person without the baptism of water. This is a new doctrine and irrational one.
If someone is saved without the baptism of water as a possibility known only to God, why mention it here if it is not defacto, in the external forum and invsible for us on earth.
 



Lionel:
Every body needs the baptism of water according to the dogma do you know someone in 2014 who is an exception? Precept or means?
Steven:
Everybody does need baptism, but it's not absolutely necessary in every case for salvation.
Lionel:
Every one needs the baptism of water for salvation, defacto, in the external forum,in 2014. It is absolutely necessary in every case. Would you know of an exception  this year in the USA ,for example ?
Steven:
You can't seem to understand the different nuances. Do you reject that God can save a person without water despite that many popes have officially taught that God can save without water?

Lionel:
God has chosen,.This is His Will.All  must have faith and baptism for salvation in the Catholic Church for salvation. This is the teaching of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic Church. I am only repeating it.
Neither have the popes mentioned having  seen any one in Heaven, who is there without the baptism of water and Catholic Faith. So there are no known exceptions to the traditional teaching of the dogma and Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades