CM,SSPX,MICM deny the Faith to please superiors
Church Militant.com, SSPX and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (MICM) are using liberal theology in the interpretation of Vatican Council II with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and even after being informed are not making the changes. They could simply announce that people saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), seeds of the Word (AG 11), elements of sanctification and truth(NA 2) are not personally known to us in May 2015. So they cannot be exceptions to the rigorist intepretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
To please their bishops or superiors, or for whatever other reason, they are still keeping silent on this issue.
How can being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire be an exception to the dogma when we do not know of any case?Even if someone is saved with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water, it's a 'zero case' for us.
So why aren't the bishops of Detroit, Worcester and Manchester,USA infomed about this in public by Church Militant and the St. Benedict Centers?
In the Mic'd Up program on extra ecclesiam nulla salus Christine Niles quoted Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, the dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus but she left out the phrase 'Jews, heretics and schismatics'. She avoided saying something which would displease some people. She was respecting people and shelving the truth.
She definitely avoided saying people saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are irrelevant to the dogma and they are definitely not exceptions.
Instead she quoted the Letter of the Holy Office and repeated the lie.Then she and Fr.Roman Manchester promoted the irrational theology of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the popular liberal theology.They never said that humanly speaking there cannot be any exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
When you make a link between being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, your in liberal theology, the new theology.
In the past Michael Voris was comfortable in asking Fr.Jonathan Morris in the Archdiocese of New York, to name someone in the present times who did not need to enter the Catholic Church, to be saved.He will not though, put this same question to the bishops in general i.e "Who do they know in 2015 who will be saved without 'faith and baptism' and in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire?"
Similarly Brother Thomas Augustine MICM and Brother Andre Marie MICM, Priors, at the St.Benedict Centers in New England, USA have not announced that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, LG 8, NA 2 etc do not contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney's understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This would put them in opposition to the Vatican.
This would mean their ecclesiology after Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric and this would be ideological for Pope Francis.
REMAIN MAGISTERIAL
Yet they all can affirm being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire along with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma. This was being done in pre-1949 times.The difference between then and now is the use of liberal theology, appartion theology, the dead-man walking theory.
If being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire do not refer to dead-men walking, then they are not exceptions.This is the difference between the past and today.
Do not use the irrational inference and your back to the old theology, the old ecclesiology, usually associated with the Traditional Latin Mass, even though it is independent of the liturgy.
CM, SSPX and MICM must know that they cannot be accused of rejecting the Catholic Faith. Since they are affirming invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire (AG 7,LG 14) and also the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They can have it both ways. It does not have to be an either /or choice.
No one can say that they are denying being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and neither can it be said that they are denying the rigorist, traditional interpretation of the dogma.
They are only rejecting a popular theology, used to interpret Church documents. It is a popular theology which they also use. They are now doing theology, based on an irrational premise i.e being able to personally see in the present times people in Heaven saved without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.Then they infer that these ghosts are exceptions to the dogma.Some accept the conclusion others reject it.
By rejecting the new irrational theology, they are rejecting an interpretation of the dogma, a 'development' of the dogma based on Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani's personal and new theory.
Possibly, CM,SSPX,MICM and others are waiting for some one else to make the first move.They want someone else to pick up the flak before they affirm the truth of the Faith.-Lionel Andrades
Church Militant.com, SSPX and the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (MICM) are using liberal theology in the interpretation of Vatican Council II with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and even after being informed are not making the changes. They could simply announce that people saved in invincible ignorance (LG 16), seeds of the Word (AG 11), elements of sanctification and truth(NA 2) are not personally known to us in May 2015. So they cannot be exceptions to the rigorist intepretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
To please their bishops or superiors, or for whatever other reason, they are still keeping silent on this issue.
How can being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire be an exception to the dogma when we do not know of any case?Even if someone is saved with the baptism of desire followed by the baptism of water, it's a 'zero case' for us.
So why aren't the bishops of Detroit, Worcester and Manchester,USA infomed about this in public by Church Militant and the St. Benedict Centers?
In the Mic'd Up program on extra ecclesiam nulla salus Christine Niles quoted Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441, the dogma on extra ecclesiam nulla salus but she left out the phrase 'Jews, heretics and schismatics'. She avoided saying something which would displease some people. She was respecting people and shelving the truth.
She definitely avoided saying people saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are irrelevant to the dogma and they are definitely not exceptions.
Instead she quoted the Letter of the Holy Office and repeated the lie.Then she and Fr.Roman Manchester promoted the irrational theology of extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the popular liberal theology.They never said that humanly speaking there cannot be any exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
When you make a link between being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, your in liberal theology, the new theology.
In the past Michael Voris was comfortable in asking Fr.Jonathan Morris in the Archdiocese of New York, to name someone in the present times who did not need to enter the Catholic Church, to be saved.He will not though, put this same question to the bishops in general i.e "Who do they know in 2015 who will be saved without 'faith and baptism' and in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire?"
Similarly Brother Thomas Augustine MICM and Brother Andre Marie MICM, Priors, at the St.Benedict Centers in New England, USA have not announced that LG 16, LG 8, UR 3, LG 8, NA 2 etc do not contradict Fr.Leonard Feeney's understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.This would put them in opposition to the Vatican.
This would mean their ecclesiology after Vatican Council II is ecclesiocentric and this would be ideological for Pope Francis.
REMAIN MAGISTERIAL
Yet they all can affirm being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire along with the rigorist interpretation of the dogma. This was being done in pre-1949 times.The difference between then and now is the use of liberal theology, appartion theology, the dead-man walking theory.
If being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire do not refer to dead-men walking, then they are not exceptions.This is the difference between the past and today.
Do not use the irrational inference and your back to the old theology, the old ecclesiology, usually associated with the Traditional Latin Mass, even though it is independent of the liturgy.
CM, SSPX and MICM must know that they cannot be accused of rejecting the Catholic Faith. Since they are affirming invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire (AG 7,LG 14) and also the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.They can have it both ways. It does not have to be an either /or choice.
No one can say that they are denying being saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire and neither can it be said that they are denying the rigorist, traditional interpretation of the dogma.
They are only rejecting a popular theology, used to interpret Church documents. It is a popular theology which they also use. They are now doing theology, based on an irrational premise i.e being able to personally see in the present times people in Heaven saved without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water.Then they infer that these ghosts are exceptions to the dogma.Some accept the conclusion others reject it.
By rejecting the new irrational theology, they are rejecting an interpretation of the dogma, a 'development' of the dogma based on Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani's personal and new theory.
Possibly, CM,SSPX,MICM and others are waiting for some one else to make the first move.They want someone else to pick up the flak before they affirm the truth of the Faith.-Lionel Andrades
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment