Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Still no denial from Edward Pentin

PopeFrancis_medI sent the second blog post to Edward Pentin.Still there is no comment from him.1
He has a Masters Degree in Applied Theology and is a Staff Writer for the National Catholic Register.He organises media events at the Vatican for Catholic liberals.
Would he offer his services to the SSPX ? Could he organise an event at the Vatican which would be pro-Society of St.Pius X? Of course not! Would he organise a conference on extra ecclesiam nulla salus and Fr.Leonard Feeney, which supports the 'Feeneyite' version of the dogma ?.No he cannot. Neither could there be  a program with the apologist Robert Sungenis speaking on Church and State not being separate.
There are restrictions .He is censored at the National Catholic Register and the Catholic Herald U.K.He cannot write on certain Catholic subjects.
So he will not discuss the Marchetti Letter.It  made an objective mistake and so  Vatican Council II is Feeneyite.Whoops!This is something unmentionable for him.There are no explicit exceptions mentioned in the Council to  the 'rigorist interpretation' of the dogma. No contradictions! Sssshhhh! Don't tell!
He writes on his pro-business website : I will also consult on your behalf with a variety of trusted and reputable associates, from university professors and members of think tanks to Vatican officials and papal diplomats, to ensure that your enquiry is handled to the best possible standard.
Of course there are some subjects on which he will not consult.
Since he interviewed Cardinal Gerhard Muller 2 and Archbishop Augustine di Noia and asked them about extra ecclesiam nulla salus I have written to him pointing out the error in their statements. No comment from Edward Pentin. He does not want to clarify this with them.The theology is accepted.He too supports the liberal, political- left version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
How could he say that the Marchetti Letter made a factual mistake and Fr.Leonard Feeney was correct? If he wrote the truth he could not work at the National Catholic Register any more.
So he maintains the 'professional silence' expected of him.
-Lionel Andrades
No denial from Edward Pentin
Cardinal Muller's doctrinal error placed on the Vatican website!

Cardinal Muller's doctrinal error placed on the Vatican website!

The Holy See
13 September 2012
National Catholic Register / The Catholic Herald

Edward Pentin:
But do you feel there’s been a weakening of the Church’s teaching because of this underlying confusion of terminology. One example sometimes cited is that the teaching of “no salvation outside the Church” seems to have become less prominent. Can that be attributed to the Council in your view?
Cardinal Gerhard Muller:
That has been discussed, but here too there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the 3rd century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the 3rd century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church, a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.” He who is aware of the presence of revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly and, not only in his conscience, in his heart, to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him. But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason. We must hope that those who do not belong to the Church through no fault of their own, but who follow the dictates of their God-given conscience, will be saved by Jesus Christ whom they do not yet know. Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience. However, if a Catholic says today: “I am going to put myself outside the Church,” we would have to respond that without the Church, that person is in danger of losing salvation. Therefore we must always examine the context of these statements. The problem that many people have is that they are linking statements of doctrine from different centuries and different contexts – and this cannot be done rationally without a hermeneutic of interpretation. We need a theological hermeneutic for an authentic interpretation, but interpretation does not change the content of the teaching.
Cardinal Muller has denied the centuries old interpretation of the dogma, the Feeneyite version, what the secular media calls ' the rigorist interpretation' of the dogma.He has supported the Marchetti Letter of the Holy Office 1949.Cardinal Marchetti suggested that being saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance were exceptions to the interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney and the St.Benedict Center.It implied that these cases were personally known and visible to be exceptions. This was an objective error. How can the deceased who are now in Heaven be visible on earth to be exceptions to all needing the baptism of water for salvation ?.They would have to be visible for Cardinal Marchetti, for them, to be objective exceptions.This factual error was supporterd by Cardinal Richard Cushing , the Archbishop of Boston and the Jesuit community there. They inserted the confusion in Vatican Council II. (AG 7,LG 14).
So Lumen Gentium 14 says: “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved..' He 'who is aware'.But he who is aware or in inculpable ignorance is known only to God.So what has this to do with the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus? We cannot meet someone who has been saved or will be saved without the baptism of water in 2015!
For Cardinal Gerhard Muller we can! So he considers this 'a development' of the dogma.The dogma has known and visible exceptions as Cardinal Marchetti believed.
'But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason.'
What has this to do with the Feeneyite version of extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Obviously Cardinal Gerhard Muller is referring to a hypothetical case.How can hypothetical cases be defacto exceptions to all needing ' faith and baptism'(AG 7) for salvation ?
Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience.
Again, why mention this with respect to extra ecclesiam nulla salus ? We do not know of any one saved by acting according to his or her conscience and who did not need the baptism of water in the present times.So how is  following one's conscience(LG 16) an exception to the traditional 'rigorist'interpretation of Fr.Leonard Feeney. The Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican once again assumes that these cases are objectively known to us.Since they are explicit for him they are exceptions to the dogma.This is  irrational.
We need a theological hermeneutic for an authentic interpretation
Cardinal Gerhard Muller first assumes that the dead-saved with the baptism of desire or in invincible ignorance and who are in Heaven are visible to us ( false proposition). He then concludes that these visble-dead are explicit exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney and the traditional interpretation of the dogma ( false conclusion). He then concludes that there is known salvation outside the Catholic Church and all do not need to defacto become formal members of the Church to avoid Hell.This is a new theology based on an irrational premise.It is also a break with Tradition, the Syllabus of Errors, the Catechism of Pope Pius XII etc. 
but interpretation does not change the content of the teaching.
True interpretation must not change the content of the teaching but obviously he is not promoting the Feeneyite version of the dogma.He is a Cushingite.For him there are explicit exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.So the content of the teaching has been changed.
Where are these explicit exceptions? In the Vatican ? Rome ? Can he give us their names and surnames?
the perspective is different between then and now
Yes. Since he like Cardinal Francesco Marchetti-Selvaggiani and Cardinal Richard Cushing is using a false premise with a false conclusion to change the meaning of the dogma. 
-Lionel Andrades
June 5, 2013
Archbishop Gerhard Muller was using the false premise : here is the proof!

Mother Gives Birth to Rare Identical Triplets: 1 in a Million Babies

by Steven Ertelt | Billings, MT | LifeNews.com | http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/12/mother-gives-birth-to-rare-identical-triplets-1-in-a-million-babies/

A Montana mother has given birth to extremely rare identical triplets — a rare occurrence in and of itself but especially without the assistance of fertility drugs.
Jase and Jody Kinsey of Miles City, Montana, welcomed their boys last month. She stopped working in September to focus on the health of the babies, and her own. The babies were ultimately delivered just before 32 weeks, which is standard for triplets.
Identical triplets occur when one egg is fertilized and divides into two, creating identical twins, and then one of those eggs splits again, creating the third baby.
“To have a patient with spontaneous identical triplets is incredibly rare,” about one in a million and the first he’d seen in his practice, Jody’s doctor, Dr. Dana Damron, maternal fetal medicine physician at Billings Clinic told the Billings Gazette. “Having to deliver early is another one of our greatest fears and worries,” he told the newspaper.
Cade, weighed 3 pounds, 13 ounces; Ian came next at 3 pounds, 11 ounces; and Milo was born last at 4 pounds, 1 ounce.
Jody found out she was pregnant last May. Since Jase’s father was a twin, the idea of a multiple birth wasn’t out of the question.
But an initial ultrasound at a pregnancy outreach clinic presented an even bigger surprise.
“The technician said ‘there’s a lot going on in here,’ ” she recalled. “She said ‘you need to get a second opinion, but to me it looks like triplets.’ ”
Jody’s initial reaction was shock. Then she called Jase and told him he had better sit down.
“Why, are we having twins?” he asked her. “She said, ‘no. We’re having triplets.’ ”
Jody’s Miles City obstetrician forwarded information about the identical triplets, including a second ultrasound, to Damron who told Jody he wanted to see her the next day.
“With them being identical, they all shared the same placenta so there could be possible complications,” Jody said. “And he wanted to make sure everything was OK.”
After the initial appointment, she saw Damron every four weeks. The physician’s main concern was making sure each triplet was growing equally and symmetrically.
“Having to deliver early is another one of our greatest fears and worries,” he said. “So that’s why we watch the patients closely.
They delivered the three infants by C-section, and each one came out bawling.
“When you have three different babies crying at once, it makes a very unique melody,” Damron said.

Man Awakens After 12 Years in a “Vegetative State,” Says “I Was Aware of Everything”

by Sarah Zagorski | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com |

In the 1980’s, 12-year-old Martin Pistorious became seriously ill with what doctor’s believed was Cryptococci Meningitis. His health started deteriorating and Martin lost his ability to move, make eye contact and even speak to others. His doctors told his parents, Rodney and Joan Pistorious, to bring him home and let him die. They told them he was as good as a vegetable.
However, he didn’t die.
Joan said, “Martin just kept going, just kept going.”
According to NPR news, his father would get up at 5 o’clock in the morning, get him dressed, load him in the car, take him to the special care center where he’d leave him. Rodney said, “Eight hours later, I’d pick him up, bathe him, feed him, put him in bed, set my alarm for two hours so that I’d wake up to turn him so that he didn’t get bedsores.”
For twelve years, Martin’s family cared for him without any sign that he was improving. Joan started to despair and even told her son, “I hope you die.”
Today she acknowledges that was a horrible thing to say but says she just wanted some sort of relief. Remarkably, now Martin is 39-years-old and says he was totally aware of everything going on around him.
He said, “Yes, I was there, not from the very beginning, but about two years into my vegetative state, I began to wake up. I was aware of everything, just like any normal person. Everyone was so used to me not being there that they didn’t notice when I began to be present again. The stark reality hit me that I was going to spend the rest of my life like that — totally alone.”
Unfortunately, Martin was even aware of his mother’s harsh words and began believing that no one would ever love him. He said, “You don’t really think about anything. You simply exist. It’s a very dark place to find yourself because, in a sense, you are allowing yourself to vanish.”
Martin spent most of those days at a care center where his caregivers played Barney reruns over and over again. They did this because they believed he was a vegetable too. He said, “I cannot even express to you how much I hated Barney.”
But eventually, Martin became frustrated with being trapped in his own body and started to try and take control of his life. He learned to tell time by the rising and setting of the sun and would reframe even the ugliest of thoughts that haunted him like his mother’s wish for him to die. “As time passed, I gradually learned to understand my mother’s desperation. Every time she looked at me, she could see only a cruel parody of the once-healthy child she had loved so much,” said Martin.
Now Martin is married and has penned a memoire about his life. He has gained control of his body and in his book Ghost Boy, he writes, “My mind was trapped inside a useless body, my arms and legs weren’t mine to control and my voice was mute. I couldn’t make a sign or sounds to let anyone know I’d become aware again. I was invisible—the ghost boy.”
Martin’s survival is a testament to how little we actually know about the human brain and a good reminder that we should value all life— even when we hear the terrifying words “your loved one is a vegetable” or in a “vegetative state” from a medical professional.

Pius XII refused to make the heretic a cardinal, but John XXIII did so

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus: A Question of Emphasis

Far better to hold fast to what is defined in its literal and clear sense. That is what definitions of Faith are for, to make revealed truth clear, to thereby undo what architects of confusion have done. Definitions are “irreformable,” as defined at Vatican I and always believed by the faithful. It was never defined that “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” The Church defined that ““There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215) No one is saved outside the Church because the Church exists. That would negate the definition and give a NEW FORM to what has been defined, changing “outside the Church” to “without the Church, no one can be saved.” Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” not “Sine Ecclesiam nulla salus.”
If Pope Innocent were not clear enough, Pope Eugene IV made it crystal clear:
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Papal Bull, Cantate Domino, 1441)
Pat, you refer to the “over-reactors” who go “full-Feeney” “condemning all who don’t have their Catholic membership cards stamped and notarized.”
Of course you know Father Feeney never held such a thing. Every validly baptized person is baptized a Catholic, Father taught with the mind of the universal Church. Personal rejection of Catholic teaching, Father taught, once they know of it, is a sin against the true Faith that they were infused with at baptism. Only God, taught Father Feeney, can judge their subjective state, God, repeated Father so often, will not let them die in that state if they are cooperating with grace. That is why Father Feeney had so many converts, sending many of them into religious orders. So, why the exaggerated insult? Father Feeney taught what the Church and its fathers and doctors taught concerning the means of salvation. Nor was he excommunicated for doctrine, but for “disobedience” in not going to Rome when summoned by the Holy Office. If he could be excommunicated for teaching the necessity of holding the true Faith for salvation, then so, too, would all the fathers and doctors he cited as authorities. And how could a “heretic” be reconciled while still holding his heresy, as Father Feeney did when reconciled in 1972. In fact his excommunication and all censures were lifted by his bishop with no request for any words of apology. All that was required was for him to pick any approved Catholic Creed and recite it. So, he did. He recited the Athanasian Creed which begins and ends with the doctrine of “no salvation outside the Catholic Church”:
“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. etc.”
Nor did the Church ever define that someone could be saved if they died “invincibly” ignorant of Christ. What had been taught, and clearly so by Pope Pius IX, was that no one would suffer “everlasting torment” for what he was ignorant of without fault, but, as Saint Thomas taught, such a one, if an adult, would suffer for other sins that he ought to have not committed.
All I can say is that it is sad to see a man like yourself misrepresent a priest who tried to defend a defined dogma that, seemingly, was an embarrassment to most of the hierarchy. As Archbishop Cushing once bombastically shouted to the press during the controversy: “No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense!” Pius XII refused to make the heretic a cardinal, but John XXIII did so.