Thursday, February 5, 2015

Neither Michael Voris nor the Archbishop of Detroit are willing to say that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake : they will not discuss it

 
Michael Voris was asked by the Archdiocese of Detroit to change the name Real Catholic TV.No reason was given.It was assumed that the ADL threatened the diocese with anti-Semitic laws.So to protect the Archdiocese,Archbishop Allen Vigneron  asked Michael not to use the name Catholic.
Now neither Michael Voris or the Archbishop of Detroit are willing to say that the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake. They are not willing to discuss it.Since it would mean that Vatican Council II is in agreement with the Feeneyite 'rigorist interpretation' of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
They would be affirming extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney and not Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani.This would not be appreciated by the Jewish Left.
On Jan.27,2015 I sent the Archdiocese of Detroit an e-mail 1 and I also send a copy of it to Church Militant TV. None of the two have responded.Michael Voris was not willing to follow up this story with the Archdiocese.He did so recently with the girl who knelt and was refused Holy Communion at Mass in a Detroit church.
This issue was too hot for Michael Voris who is criticizing the bishops, who are silent like him, because they do not want litigation from the Left.
 
 Michael Voris will now only safely approach this subject  by criticizing Fr.Robert Barron for saying that most people  go to Heaven. Church Militant TV  will also in general say outside the Church there is no salvation when they  mean theologically that the baptism of desire and being saved in ignorance are exceptions to the dogma. Here he makes the same error as the archbishop of Detroit  and Fr.Robert Barron.
 
I sent copies of my blogpost and a related report to Rodney Pellettier , a producer and researcher at Church Militant TV, who has two degrees in theology. No response!
Rodney's theological formation could be the one  approved by the Left and the USCCB i.e there are known exceptions to the dogma, the Cushing-Marchetti version. He would have been taught that Marchetti was correct.. The baptism of desire referred to known, defacto,objective cases in the present times. So the baptism of desire is an explicit exception! It is an exception  to the traditional interpretation of extra  ecclesiam nulla salus according to Mother Angelica.
So presently Michael Voris  says Vatican Council II is amibous.2 This is because he is  using the Marchetti inference. He assumes that LG 16,LG 8,UR 3,NA 2,AG 11 (seeds of the Word) refer to explicit cases,defacto and personally known in February  2015. So they are objective exceptions to the traditional interpretation of outside the Church no salvation which he affirms in general, but stays clear of theology.The fault is not with Vatican  Council II which is not amibous on this issue. The fault is there with his assuming that all salvation mentioned in Vatican Council II refers not to hypothetical cases for us but actual cases in the present times. So they become exceptions to the dogma for him.This was Marchetti's original error and it has been generally accepted by the Church including the Archdiocese of Detroit and Birmingham, Alabama where EWTN and the NCR are located.
Whatever be ones views or prejudices on the Fr.Leonard Feeney issue, LG 16, UR 3 ,NA 2 are not explicit, they do not refer to cases who we know or can know who are saved without the baptism of water.Physically, in real life there cannot be any such case for us.






Michael Voris once asked Fr.Jonathan Morris,  an ex Legionary of Christ priest now incardinated in the Archdiocese of New York : who would Fr.Jonathan say , does not need to enter the Church to be saved ? For Fr.Jonathan there was known salvation outside the Church. There were exceptions to the dogma. This was the 1949 error of Cardinal Marchetti.
This now could be Church Militant TV's attitude to Vatican Council II and other magisterial documents.Where does Vatican Council II say there are exceptions to the dogma ? Where is the Baptism of desire case in Detroit this month which is an exception to the dogma?
Presently in the interpretation of Vatican Council II Church Militant TV makes the same error as the SSPX and the sedevacantists.The distinction between Feeneyism and Cushingism is not there. 3The traditional interpretation  is rejected with the Marchetti-Richard Cushing  inference.
When  Real Catholic TV had to change its name bloggers were referring to Canon Law. 4.The real issue was extra ecclesiam nulla salus.It is not  accepted by the Left . Also there is no tolerance for the concept of the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political institutions.
Discussions of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the Marchetti inference and Vatican Council II are not permitted.-Lionel Andrades
1.
January 27, 2015

Archdiocese of Detroit : the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made a factual mistake.Changes teaching on Vatican Council II

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2015/01/archdiocese-of-detroit-letter-of-holy.html

2.

Vatican Council II is not ambigous on the issue of other religions and Christian communities

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/vatican-council-ii-is-not-ambigous-on.html
 
3.
SSPX-SO and MHFM do not realize that the Magisteria (two magisteriums) is created by two interpretations of Vatican Council II (Cushingism and Feeneyism).
http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/sspx-so-and-mhfm-do-not-realize-that.html
 
The Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) refer to the 'Vatican Council II sect' which Vatican Council II are they referring to, according to Cushingism or Feeneyism ?


http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/the-most-holy-family-monastery-mhfm.html


4.

Archdiocese of Detroit and Canon Law

The Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) refer to the 'Vatican Council II sect' which Vatican Council II are they referring to, according to Cushingism or Feeneyism ?

http://eucharistandmission.blogspot.it/2013/09/the-most-holy-family-monastery-mhfm.html

2 comments:

Terry Carroll said...

Whenever I respond to someone asking us about EENS, I send them the following links:

http://catholicism.org/doctrinalsummary.html

http://files.audiosancto.org/20130519-Outside-of-the-Church-There-Is-No-Salvation.mp3

http://files.audiosancto.org/20140126-Justification-Baptism-and-Salvation-Through-the-Catholic-Church.mp3

http://files.audiosancto.org/20140608-Save-Yourself-from-this-Perverse-Generation-Salvation-is-Only-Through-the-Church.mp3

If you think we should be sending something else, please and let me know.

Catholic Mission said...

The issue is that the baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani made an objective mistake.
There is no known case of the baptism of desire .
Church documents before 1949 mention being saved with implicit desire and invincible ignorance but do not claim that they are known to us in personal cases to be exceptions to the dogma. Neither do they state flat out that they are exceptions.
This was the wrong inference made in the Americanist movement and Marchetti contributed to it.
None of these links address this issue.