Friday, February 13, 2015

Michael Voris, Edward Pentin and John Allen miss the story

Michael Voris, Edward Pentin and John L.Allen Jr. are refusing to say that the magisterium has made an objective error in the Letter of the Holy Office 1949.
Michael  Voris in the The UnCatholic Internet-Mic'd Up seems to project his media as also secular and liberal.He  did not ask direct and blunt questions when speaking to John L. Allen and Edward Pentin, both liberals on the issue of the Letter of the Holy Office,the Marchetti Letter.At other times Michael Voris uses a clear and direct approach when referring to the bishops and asks lay persons to do the same.
Here is the irrationality of the Letter of the Holy Office they all do not want to touch.
LETTER OF THE HOLY OFFICE
Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth.-Letter of the Holy Office
(Lionel: We do not know any one in 2015 who is saved or will be saved with implicit desire or in invincible ignorance.So who knows or does not know, is known only to God.The Letter implies that we know who these cases are and so not every one needs to enter the Church as Fr.Leonard Feeney taught.Only those who 'know' need to enter the Church, as compared to the dogmatic teaching which says all need to formally enter the Church.Cardinal Marchetti mixes up a theoretical case with practically all needing the baptism of water in the present times.
 He is lost in the forest here.)
 
In His infinite mercy God has willed that the effects, necessary for one to be saved, of those helps to salvation which are directed toward man's final end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, can also be obtained in certain circumstances when those helps are used only in desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
(Lionel: Why mention that a person can be saved in desire and longing with reference to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Where are these cases ? What are their names? The cardinal assumes there are known cases and so it is relevant to the dogma. He assumes there are exceptions to the dogma.Hypothethical cases are defacto exceptions. He is confused here.
All at sea. Ignorant. )
This we see clearly stated in the Sacred Council of Trent, both in reference to the sacrament of regeneration and in reference to the sacrament of penance (, nn. 797, 807).-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
(Lionel. No where does the Council of Trent say that there are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus or that we know in real life who these people are for them to be exceptions.In Cardinal Marchetti's mind they are visible and known. So for him they are exceptions.
Missed the bus.)
Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
(Lionel: The dogma says all need to be incorporated into the Church actually as a member and he denies it. For him there are known cases of persons who do not need to be incorporated as members of the Church.
Still lost.)
However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
(Lionel :'This desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance..' in other words this case is known, explicit, objective for Cardinal Marchetti. So it is an exception to the rigorist interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney.
In a soup.Confused.)
These things are clearly taught in that dogmatic letter which was issued by the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, on June 29, 1943, (AAS, Vol. 35, an. 1943, p. 193 ff.). For in this letter the Sovereign Pontiff clearly distinguishes between those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and those who are united to the Church only by desire.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
(Lionel: 'those who are actually incorporated into the Church as members, and 'those who are united to the Church only by desire' . 'Those who are united to the Church only by desire' will be saved, while being outside the visible limits of the Church.Since these cases are visible and known for Cardinal Marchetti they are exceptions to all needing to be incorporated into the Church as members for salvation. This is inferred and so Fr.Leonard Feeney is pulled up.He had to say that they were known exceptions to the dogma and there was salvation outside the Catholic Church.He has to say that not all people need to defacto be members of the Church for salvation.He did not and so criticized him.
He is still in a tangle here.)
From what has been said it is evident that those things which are proposed in the periodical , fascicle 3, as the genuine teaching of the Catholic Church are far from being such and are very harmful both to those within the Church and those without.-Letter of the Holy Office.
(Lionel : From the Housetops was saying there are no known exceptions to the dogma.
They were expected to say the Emperor has clothes on.)
Hence, one cannot understand how the St. Benedict Center can consistently claim to be a Catholic school and wish to be accounted such, and yet not conform to the prescriptions of canons 1381 and 1382 of the Code of Canon Law, and continue to exist as a source of discord and rebellion against ecclesiastical authority and as a source of the disturbance of many consciences.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
(Lionel: They were saying that there are no known exceptions.
It was nothing new. It was traditional.)
Furthermore, it is beyond understanding how a member of a religious Institute, namely Father Feeney, presents himself as a "Defender of the Faith," and at the same time does not hesitate to attack the catechetical instruction proposed by lawful authorities, and has not even feared to incur grave sanctions threatened by the sacred canons because of his serious violations of his duties as a religious, a priest, and an ordinary member of the Church.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
(Lionel: The lawful authorities were saying that there were exceptions to the strict interpretation of the dogma. Implicit desire and being saved in invincible ignorance, referred to known cases saved without the baptism of water. So there was known salvation outside the Church for the lawful authorities.
Dictatorship of relativism within the Church.)
Finally, it is in no wise to be tolerated that certain Catholics shall claim for themselves the right to publish a periodical, for the purpose of spreading theological doctrines, without the permission of competent Church authority, called the "" which is prescribed by the sacred canons.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
(Lionel: The competent authorities were saying that all persons do not need to enter the Church but only those who 'knew', those who were not in invincible ignorance or the baptism of desire and who were saved. So all need to enter the Church except for this category- of exceptions.
The magisterium went off the tracks here.)
Therefore, let them who in grave peril are ranged against the Church seriously bear in mind that after "Rome has spoken" they cannot be excused even by reasons of good faith. Certainly, their bond and duty of obedience toward the Church is much graver than that of those who as yet are related to the Church "only by an unconscious desire." Let them realize that they are children of the Church, lovingly nourished by her with the milk of doctrine and the sacraments, and hence, having heard the clear voice of their Mother, they cannot be excused from culpable ignorance, and therefore to them apply without any restriction that principle: submission to the Catholic Church and to the Sovereign Pontiff is required as necessary for salvation.-Letter of the Holy Office 1949
(Lionel: They were being criticized for saying there are no exceptions.
Even today, it is the same old story.)
They are not reporting on the real story - that it is the magisterium which has made a mistake, an objective mistake.
-Lionel Andrades
 
The UnCatholic Internet-Mic'd Up
 

No comments: