Friday, May 29, 2015

Louie Verrecchio still cannot imagine how extra ecclesiam nulla salus is related to Vatican Council II

Once again Louie Verrecchio has nothing to say. 1 He doesn't have a clue as to what I am saying and he will not ask questions or reason it out.He will keep churning out the same thing.
Recently he was criticizing Michael Voris for accepting Vatican Council II.Voris does not accept the SSPX position on Vatican Council II though like the SSPX and Louie Verrcchio, Michael uses Apparition Theology.
Louie Verrecchio is not a Feeneyite. So why is he complaining about the pope's remark on ecumenism?
If the pope rejects an ecumenism of return it is because he rejects the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
If there is a new teaching on ecumenism it is because the rigorst interpretation of the dogma on exclusive salvation in the Church, has been rejected.
But Louie Verrecchio, the SSPX , Michael Voris, Cardinal Gerhard Muller and the popes also reject the dogma with Cushingism.For them there are exceptions to the dogma which are allegedly known in the present times.
They all accept the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which presented a new theology and suggested that there is salvation outside the Church. So there is salvation outside the Church for Louie Verrechio since he accepts the Letter ( like  Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX) and also approves the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 and 1257.
 
Fr.Leonard Feeney was faithful to the pre-1949 magisterium. There are also no known exceptions to the dogma, of persons, personally known to us, saved without 'faith and baptism' in the present times. Since for humans there cannot be exceptions to the dogma. An exception would only be known to God.So Fr.Leonard Feeney should not have asked to say that he  personally could see the dead-saved without the baptism of water.This is fantasy.Yet this is standard Cushingism which Verrecchio does not criticize. Also there was no Church document which stated that the baptism of desire etc was explicit and so was an exception to the dogma. This has to be inferred. Even the Council of Trent and Mystici Corporis do not state that these cases are objectively known and so are an explicit exception to the dogma. This has to be inferred wrongly. Marchetti and Cushing made the wrong inference. Then they included this inference in Vatican Council II (AG 7,LG 14) and Cardinal Ratzinger followed it up in the Catechism( 846,1257).
 
So we do not have a single known case of someone saved outside the Church in the present times and a whole theology has been built upon this error.Verrecchio accepts this error and uses it to interpret Vatican Council II.There is no defacto case.Hypothetical cases cannot be defacto exceptions to the dogmatic teaching on all needing to convert and formally enter the Church.
The Letter of the Holy Office originally  suggested that there are exceptions, and so concluded there is salvation outside the Church,without the baptism of water.This has been accepted by Louie Verrecchio in his Harvesting the Fruits of Vatican Council II catechesis series.
So his theology is based on an irrationality, that of personally knowing exceptions to the dogma. This was Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani's reasoning in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case.So since there is salvation outside the Church for Louie, why is he complaining about the theology of Pope Francis ? Even Cardinal Kaspar says Jews and Protestants do not have to convert. Cardinal Kaspar cites Lumen Gentium 16. LG 16 refers to visible in the flesh cases in 2015 for him, just as it does for the SSPX and Louie Verrecchio.
Protestants and Orthdox Christians who are saved in their religion are saved through Jesus and the Church ! (CCC 846). God is not limited to the Sacraments (CCC 1257) and so there are known exceptions in 2015 of people now dead and who are in Heaven without the baptism of water! So every one does not need the baptism of water in the Catholic Church this May 2015,  for salvation.Louie and the SSPX know of exceptions. So does Pope Francis !
 
Louie still cannot  imagine how  extra ecclesiam nulla salus is related to Vatican Council II. He does not realize that his interpretation of LG 16, UR 3, NA 2 etc is based on Marchetti's Letter of the Holy Office 1949.If he chooses not to use Marchetti's irrational premise and inference, Vatican Council II changes.
LG 16 would refer to hypothetical cases, speculative cases for us.They are only possibilities known only to God and followed with the baptism of water.So LG 16 cannot be linked to the dogma. There is no connection.
But for Kaspar and Verrecchio these cases are not hypothetical. Since they are both using Marchetti's theology, liberal theology, new theology, based on being able to see apparitions, just like the seers at Medugorje.So Kaspar supports the Council and Verrecchio condemns it- both are using Marchetti's vision.
-Lionel Andrades
 
 
1.

No comments: