Friday, September 11, 2015


Immagine correlata

Book of Blessings (Rituale Romanum) :

Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.
To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time.

There is a problem here.
Before 1808 the Church clearly taught the dogma  extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Today the Church teaches that being saved in invincible ignorance of the Gospel ,  the baptism of desire and the baptism of blood are exceptions. So the dogma was changed and now has been discarded.
It is also assumed that Lumen Gentium 16 is an exception to the Feeneyite version of the dogma.
So the teaching of the Church has clearly changed here.
There is a new doctrine being enforced by the magisterium.

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport.
We have a doctrine of faith which has been changed.The Nicene Creeds says I beleive in one baptism for the forgivess of sins. The Baltimore Catechism(1808) says  there are three baptisms, water, desire and blood. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also says the same.
In 1949 Fr.Leonard Feeney said there is only one  baptism, the baptism of water and every one needed it for salvation. For him the baptism of desire and blood were not explicit and so were not exceptions.
He was told by the Holy Office 1949 during the  pontificate of Pope Pius XII that the baptism of desire and blood were exceptions, in other words  they were explicit and known in personal cases to be exceptions to the traditional interpretation of the dogma which he held.So doctrine has been
changed by the magisterium.
How can the baptism of desire and blood be explicit?

Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.
The magisterial documents Redemptoris Missio, Dominus Iesus etc no more affirm the strict interpretation  of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus as the three  Church Councils which defined the dogma.So doctrine has been changed officially.

I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely
Philosophically it is being taught that being saved in invincible ignorance, implicit desire or martyrdom refer to cases which are known in the present times and they exclude the baptism  of water. This is irrational and heretical.Yet it is magisterial.

Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.
The dogma on salvation, refers to a faith issue.It has been changed.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree  Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church when it states God is not limited to the Sacraments contradicts the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, if it is assumed that these cases are known in the  present times.Similarly when it is assumed that LG 16 refers to explicit  instead of implicit cases, it contradicts the Syllabus of Errors.
If LG 16 is assumed to be implicit then it does not contradict the Syllabus of Errors but this is not how LG 16 is being interpreted by the liberals, traditionalists and the magisterium.

 I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history...

I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way...

 The faith of the fathers of the Church, the Deposit of the faith,  is no more there on the salvation issue since doctrine has been changed by mixing up the visible-invisible, explicit-implicit distinction.
It can still be restored to the original when this confusion is not made, for example, in the interpretation of Vatican Council .
Immagine correlata This was a mistake made by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the traditionalists too.Church Militant TV uses this reasoning and believes it is correct since it is 'magisterial'.
Immagine correlataMichael Voris says not every one needs to be a card carrying member of the Church since for him the baptism of desire etc are explicit and so are exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the Church Fathers,Church Councils and the magisterium of pre-1808 times.This is modernism that Church Militant TV , the SSPX and the liberals are un-knowingly promoting.
Vatican Council II is Feeneyite, traditional and pro-Syllabus of Errors
when all salvation in Heaven is accepted as being invisible instead of invisble, known only to God and unknown an unseen for us human beings.Vatican Council II is not ambigous on the salvation issue.There is no change in doctrine in Vatican Council II.
-Lionel Andrades

No comments: